Lawyers letting go of expensive leases

November 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

According to one company, lawyers are wanting out of their car leases more frequently than they were just two years ago.

LeaseTrader.com says lawyers who utilize their service are second in the number of vehicle leases up for trade than other professions. In 2008, 26 percent of lawyers got out of their expensive car leases; in 2010, the number jumped to 51 percent.

To be included in the report, a driver had to have a car valued at $40,000 or more in the LeaseTrader.com marketplace to escape the lease contract. The website allows people to take over leases or get out of their current lease.

Who’s trying to get out of their expensive leases most often? Doctors. Of the five professions listed, insurance brokers are doing the best – only 17 percent of people in that industry want out of their leases.

What I find most interesting about this snippet of data is that women are wanting out of their leases less frequently than men. Sixty-five percent of attorneys who wanted to give up their BMW or Mercedes leases were men; only 35 percent were women. Across the board in all the professions listed, women were far less likely to want out of their lease. The exception is Realtors, where it’s nearly a 50/50 split between males and females.

Why could this be? LeaseTrader.com hypothesizes it’s because women in general aren’t feeling the pain as much as men seem to be in this current economic climate. A possibility, but I’d offer a guess that it has to do with the number of female attorneys who would be able to afford a lease of $40,000 or more. The number of female partners is low. I glanced at the websites of two Indianapolis-based firms with locations around the state, country, and/or world. Less than 20 percent of partners are women.

Women are also more likely than men to work reduced hours or part time, making them less able to afford a higher-priced lease. Perhaps it’s just that women are more likely to buy their expensive car instead of leasing it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT