New York Lawyer
December 10, 2002

Q:
I'm thinking about leaving the law.

How does one respond to the inevitable question: "Aren't you wasting you law degree?"

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

Whether uttered politely or with overt hostility or disdain, these are fair questions. Law school is demanding, costly�and specialized. All in all, it's a pretty expensive choice for someone who is marking time, drifting around or a professional student.

Unlike, say, getting a Master's Degree in Liberal Studies, which essentially is a program about intellectual stimulation and learning to think holistically, for most people law school is trade school. You learn specific areas of expertise so that you may make your living as a specialist. Sure, a good legal education does teach superior analytical skills and -- hopefully -- written and oral communication skills, but a hundred grand is a pretty expensive way to acquire those capabilities. Therefore, people who tell the world there goal in going to law school was to learn how to think�or pursue an extension of their liberal arts education�or because "intellectually, law is fascinating" are frequently regarded as na�ve or unrealistic. If you're going to advance that argument, therefore, be prepared to advance it confidently and assertively -- because you are in for some push back from the employment world.

Increasingly, both law schools and business schools like (or insist that) applicants have some real life experience between college and advanced study. This is so their students can get a solid dose of how the world really works and so they can head off to grad school with a sharper focus. Still, a recent panel discussion at the University of Texas law school revealed that well over half of their alums do not practice law, meaning that at least some folks never intended to use the law degree as a technical credential and that a lot of others found that legal practice was less desirable than other career paths.

A beauty of life is that people are allowed to learn from experience�to reality-test�to change and grow. The decision to buy a Ford doesn't mean that you have to drive that Ford, or any Ford, forever. Furthermore, no one has the right to tell you what is a waste and what isn't; such comments usually say more about the utterer's need for security than the reality of your career choices. Not only that, but, once acquired, legal training can never be wasted: it does in fact confer abilities that generalize out to other fields and discplines. So even though learning to analyze, think and talk may not be a good reason to go to law school, it doesn't mean that you've entirely "wasted" your legal education if you choose not to be an Esquire your whole life. There is a difference between expertise and experience, between technical skills and transferable abilities. So once you have the transferable abilities�.why not use them however and whereever you can?

That said, at all times in one's career, the job market wants to see evidence of 1) self-awareness (or at least the capacity for gaining self-awareness from experience) and 2) as much focus as your age and experience will permit. Drifters are scary to employers. If one makes a shift away from a specialty area of expertise -- whether it be law, accounting, programming or heart surgery -- the job market wants to know why. Specifically, it wants to know first and foremost whether your career choice signals that you are moving toward something�or running away from something. The latter signals a lack of motivation, which is a turnoff to employers.

Look, a lot of people go to law school by default. At the age of application, a lot of people don't have razor-sharp career focus and lifelong career goals. So they listen to other people -- family members, compensation surveys, other lawyers, TV shows. The statement that, "I wanted to be a lawyer even since I was a child" may be true, but it's patently absurd: an eight-year cannot possibly have an accurate perception of with life as a lawyer truly is about.

Even more than other people, lawyers have a tendency to confuse what they are capable of doing with what they are temperamentally suited to do. The LSAT may tell you whether you have the intellectual capacity and style to be a lawyer, but it says nothing about whether you're likely to enjoy any form of legal practice. Since, ideally, life is supposed to be enjoyable, a credible rationale for making a career shift -- whether within law or getting' out of Dodge altogether -- is to say:

"After I had practiced law to get enough experience to fully judge the rewards and costs of a legal career, I realized that this type of practice simply was not a good long term fit for me. It seemed like a well-reason decision when I decided to enter law, but I've come to realize that there is a different between what I'm capable of doing and what I'm motivated to do. Whoever said, 'It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it well' should be taken out and shot.

"I have learned that there are some kinds of work and work settings that I would be more comfortable in, well-suited for�and likely to be competent in. I have decided to direct my career in those directions, rather than hang on to a calling that doesn't call to me. This is not a knock of people who are well-suited to the law. It simply says it is not my obligation to pretend to be one of them."

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group