ILNews

Non-firm job options: Recent law grads share advice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
When considering law school, students may have the idea that getting a law degree will equal a large salary or a lifestyle similar to television shows that portray lawyers in spacious apartments, wearing designer clothes, and hosting large events.

The reality is that may be true for some. For those who would rather work in politics, as in-house counsel, or start their own business, the salary may be smaller, but depending on one's interests and career goals, it could be more rewarding.

Liane Groth,  who graduated from Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington in May 2005, said while in law school the job search wasn't a priority.

She knew a law degree would help her in so many different jobs that she wasn't quite sure what would be her best fit.

She accepted a job at Bingham McHale because as a summer associate, she was able to work in different practice areas.

While at the firm, Groth accepted an offer to be assistant majority counsel the Indiana House of Representatives for the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions, which took her out of the office much of that time and made it more difficult for her to keep up with the firm demands.

She worked in the firm's litigation department until earlier this year, leaving to pursue a career with more emphasis on government work. As an employee of the Indiana House Democratic Caucus, she is the campaign manager for attorney Ed DeLaney, the Democratic candidate for District 86 in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Sometimes, she said, "I joke with Ed that I made more at the firm in a week than I do in a month working for the campaign."

She said the job has led to other opportunities, such as work with Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and the opportunity to network with attorneys and people in the community.

While "it's a lot of phone calls and knocking on doors," she said, she has seen the impact her law degree has in terms of the respect she receives.

Groth hasn't yet thought about what she'll do after the Nov. 4 election because she's been focusing on her work for the campaign. She does miss some aspects of firm work and stays in touch with her friends and mentors at the firm.

Another attorney who started at a firm and later left for another job is Scott Dillon, in-house counsel to Indiana Live! Casino, in Shelbyville.

Dillon graduated from IU School of Law - Bloomington and the Kelly School of Business MBA Program with a JD/MBA in 2003. While in law school, he wanted to be a prosecutor. Instead, his first year out of law school, he worked for Threlkeld-Reynolds doing insurance defense work. After that, he started his own practice representing plaintiffs in employment matters.

He started at Indiana Live! Casino in March 2008. The work is "invigorating and inspiring," he wrote via e-mail.

"My position implicates a broad swath of legal disciplines including gaming law, employment law, contract law, sales law, alcohol and tobacco law, and administrative law," he said.

A lawyer who finished IU School of Law - Indianapolis this year who decided not to consider a firm job is Jennifer Wagner. Formerly a journalist, she decided to go to law school because she wanted another degree.

While she has an interest in criminal law and may some day try for a job as a prosecutor or public defender, she has since helped with political campaigns. She is also a contributor to Capitol WatchBlog.

She took the suggestion from her husband, Gordon Hendry, to start a media and communications consulting business for clients in politics and in the private sector.

Hendry, who previously worked for Ice Miller and the office of former Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, and is now in real estate, has encouraged her to consider working for a firm. But due to the time commitment, Wagner said that isn't likely until her daughter, and any other children she may have are much older.

As for other young attorneys looking for work, Groth suggested young attorneys consider government work. She added jobs are more satisfying when they fit one's interests more than when it's just working for a paycheck.

Dillon advises people to remember to make a good impression on coworkers, opposing counsel, and the judges they appear before in case an opportunity presents itself.

Wagner suggested attorneys volunteer for political offices, even if it's in addition to a full-time job. She also suggested attorneys keep in touch with their law school classmates, because "you never know where they'll end up." •
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT