JD and MD

[malpractitioner]

I'm going to be attending law school next year and frankly, I don't really want to be a lawyer. Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do. But since I'm receiving a good scholarship and there are a lot of outside factors influencing my decision I've decided to continue through law school and take pre-med classes at the same time. I also figure that a law degree and an MD can't hurt together. So basically I'll be doing my post-bac while getting my law degree. It will be hard, but I know I can do it.

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

Second, I'll be graduating with an undergrad GPA of 3.70 with a downward grade trend. If I bring my GPA up to 3.8 or so during post-bac, will I have an eligible GPA for med school? I'm not a good test taker, so GPA is important for me. I hear all kinds of rumors about how med schools don't accept people with below 3.80 GPAs or downward grade trends - is this true?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hum3a]

it has been done... their are very few of these god-like individuals though. They usually help represent hospitals in court cases and such since they know alot about how the law works and medicine in general.

now that i think about it... its less schooling because i dont think you have to do a residency afterwards... so 8 years total i guess.

Then you will have a good life my friend... 7 figure salary just for having MD and JD after your name!

if i can do medicine with a 3.7 surely you can too.. just get at least a 30 on ur mcat and you shouldn't have problems.

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm going to be attending law school next year and frankly, I don't really want to be a lawyer. Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do. But since I'm receiving a good scholarship and there are a lot of outside factors influencing my decision I've decided to continue through law school and take pre-med classes at the same time. I also figure that a law degree and an MD can't hurt together. So basically I'll be doing my post-bac while getting my law degree. It will be hard, but I know I can do it.

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

Second, I'll be graduating with an undergrad GPA of 3.70 with a downward grade trend. If I bring my GPA up to 3.8 or so during post-bac, will I have an eligible GPA for med school? I'm not a good test taker, so GPA is important for me. I hear all kinds of rumors about how med schools don't accept people with below 3.80 GPAs or downward grade trends - is this true?

Let's put aside the GPA issue -- that isn't the problem with your post. If you want to be a physician and don't want to be a lawyer, why exactly are you going to law school? And if you plan to do both degrees from the onset, why would you do it sequentially rather than in a joint program (where you can usually shave a year off)? And further, the phrase "Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do" makes me think you are not ready to take the steps you are planning to take. This isn't a decision you make suddenly. You need to mull about it long and hard, and decide what you want to do. If it's medicine, do medicine. If it's law, then do law. If it's both, you need a game plan -- what exactly do you plan to do with both? You absolutely don't want to do both in the hopes that you will figure out what you want to do with them later -- that is a poorly thought out approach. And you don't try to do law school with postbac on top or you will flub both -- bad idea. I think you need to step back, and figure out what you want to do with your life. Then take targeted steps toward that goal, rather than try to straddle two careers at once. And never make professional career decisions "suddenly".

 

[Cataract]

I'm going to be attending law school next year and frankly, I don't really want to be a lawyer. Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do. But since I'm receiving a good scholarship and there are a lot of outside factors influencing my decision I've decided to continue through law school and take pre-med classes at the same time. I also figure that a law degree and an MD can't hurt together. So basically I'll be doing my post-bac while getting my law degree. It will be hard, but I know I can do it.

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

Second, I'll be graduating with an undergrad GPA of 3.70 with a downward grade trend. If I bring my GPA up to 3.8 or so during post-bac, will I have an eligible GPA for med school? I'm not a good test taker, so GPA is important for me. I hear all kinds of rumors about how med schools don't accept people with below 3.80 GPAs or downward grade trends - is this true?

Our resident law guru, Law2Doc, should be popping in sometime soon. I believe he has an MD and JD degree. To be honest, I can't think of a solid reason to get both degrees unless you've had a change of heart somewhere along one path.

That rumor certainly isnt true. A 3.5 GPA stands a reasonable chance of getting into medical school. I have a 3.65 myself and a not-so-hot MCAT score, but managed to get in.

 

[se2131]

I'm going to be attending law school next year and frankly, I don't really want to be a lawyer. Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do. But since I'm receiving a good scholarship and there are a lot of outside factors influencing my decision I've decided to continue through law school and take pre-med classes at the same time. I also figure that a law degree and an MD can't hurt together. So basically I'll be doing my post-bac while getting my law degree. It will be hard, but I know I can do it.

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

Second, I'll be graduating with an undergrad GPA of 3.70 with a downward grade trend. If I bring my GPA up to 3.8 or so during post-bac, will I have an eligible GPA for med school? I'm not a good test taker, so GPA is important for me. I hear all kinds of rumors about how med schools don't accept people with below 3.80 GPAs or downward grade trends - is this true?

3.70 is a very good GPA, even with a downward trend. Do well in your pre-med req's, and you should be good to go as far as GPA is concerned. That being said, you still need a good MCAT score (should break 30), and some good EC's.

I think some schools offer JD/MD as a combined degree even. Baylor for example. I also met someone on my interview trail who was finishing up his JD, so it's definitely possible (and probably a nice boost to your app, but you should only do it if you actually plan to use law in your medical career).

 

[Law2Doc]

it has been done... their are very few of these god-like individuals though. They usually help represent hospitals in court cases and such since they know alot about how the law works and medicine in general.

now that i think about it... its less schooling because i dont think you have to do a residency afterwards... so 8 years total i guess.

Then you will have a good life my friend... 7 figure salary just for having MD and JD after your name!

if i can do medicine with a 3.7 surely you can too.. just get at least a 30 on ur mcat and you shouldn't have problems.

Disagree with almost everything in this post. (1) There is no reason to get an MD to represent hospitals. Almost all attorneys who represent hospitals have just the JD. (2) If you get the MD, you almost always want to do some residency to get a license and keep the door open in case you change your mind. You also lack medical expertise if you never practiced, so you aren't bringing all that much to the law table with just med school. (3) The consensus is that you generally will have to choose to practice law or medicine and won't earn more because of your second degree. And the various jobs that allow you to combine the degrees (policy, academics) typically pay less. So you will not be getting anything close to 7 digits with both degrees. But you will be paying back loans in the 6 digits. (4) finally, without a good game plan, the numbers won't matter much. Everyone is going to want to know why you have enrolled in law school if your goal is medicine. And based on OP's "suddenly" language, I think he lacks a strong reason for either. Until he wraps his mind around the big picture gameplan, this is going to be a non-starter.

 

[hum3a]

i believe duke university has a 6 year combined MD/JD program (2 years of med, 2 years of law, then 2 years of clinicals). However you still need to meet the requirements and be accepted by BOTH schools to get in.

If you really want to do a JD/MD then quit law school. go back to undergrad and take all the required premed classes (bio,chem,physics) and do well, then take the MCAT, then try your hand at some of the combined JD/MD programs.

Is it worth it to give up your acceptance to law school?

 

[xiaoyi666]

I know someone who's doing md/jd. 2 years md, then doing law school, then going back to medschool for last 2 years. Guess it's pretty rare.

 

[Law2Doc]

Guess it's pretty rare.

Not as rare as the jobs that truly require both degrees.

 

[UVABranch]

look into joint degree programs, there aren't many, but there are some. Go to UNC's med school joint degree page. The med school says there's a joint prog...but the law school doesn't "claim" being involved in a joint program.

 

[DeadCactus]

Aren't most MD/JD programs entirely unfunded? If so, what the heck are you people telling him to drop out of the school he has a scholarship to and reapply to end up with both degrees at the same time, but for more money?

More importantly, why is everyone talking about MD/JD programs when this guy thinks he wants to do medicine and is only finishing Law School because he has a scholarship and "external reasons"?

Edit: Spelling

 

[smsc2009]

My uncle has both MD and JD. I believe he does represent physicians infront of the medical board.

 

[malpractitioner]

And further, the phrase "Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do" makes me think you are not ready to take the steps you are planning to take. This isn't a decision you make suddenly.

Well you had to have been there. I was eating breakfast one morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, an image of a stethescope appeared in my cereal. And that's when it hit me.

If it's both, you need a game plan -- what exactly do you plan to do with both? You absolutely don't want to do both in the hopes that you will figure out what you want to do with them later -- that is a poorly thought out approach.

I guess I was kind of hoping I could join a law firm and operate on my clients or something. You know, mix it up. /sarcasm

Look, don't worry about my personal decisions - I'm not as misguided as you perceive... at least careerwise. I'm just looking for advice on how common this is and how useful it could be.

 

[searun]

Well you had to have been there. I was eating breakfast one morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, an image of a stethescope appeared in my cereal. And that's when it hit me.

There is a guy in Oregon who bought a package of pretzels at a convenience store last week. He also bought a few brews. And then he popped a cap and opened the pretzels. And as he was eating the pretzels and drinking the brews, he realized that one of the pretzels looked like Mary, the mother of Jesus. So he advertised the pretzel that looks like Mary, holding Jesus, on ebay, and the best offer at this point is about two million dollars. For two million, I would sell the pretzel.

So I get what you are saying about your breakfast cereal. It makes sense. God, I LOVE AMERICA.

Oh, I think you are joking, but if you are not, do not do the JD or the MD, go to Hollywood, and think about walking celebrity dogs. The market is huge.

But apparently the pretzel thing is real, so, yeah, God Bless America and the Free Enterprise System, and well, that is about it.

Searun

 

[mdgator]

I don't know if your decision is well thought out, and neither does anyone here, except you. So if you absolutely know this is what you want to do, go for it!
I don't know how common it is, but I do know that several schools have MD/JD programs, so my guess is it's not as uncommon as people might think. Your gpa is fine as it is, if you can maintain it while taking your pre reqs.
My advice would be to have a GOOD explanation for ADCOMs when they ask why you want to change careers, but I'm guessing that you're smart enough to know this.
I don't envy your situation if you go through with it. Just med school alone is A LOT of work. Law school and med school back to back sounds like torture, but again, this is YOUR decision. If it were me, I would certainly at least strongly consider either quitting law school now and going for med school alone, or, if the law degree is important to you, I would look into MD/JD programs.
As for if MD/JDs have a higher earning potential, I don't know, but it certainly can't hurt. I would think that if you want to practice any type of law related to medicine, you would probably have a good chance of making much higher. If you want to practice medicine only, however, I don't see how having a JD would improve you earnings. But it's certainly something to fall back on, if nothing else. Good luck.

 

[searun]

I vote for the evil guy in "No Country for Old Men." I was hoping that he would be redeemed and not kill the nice lady at the end of the film, but he did. Why do I believe in redemption, I do not know, but I do. Optimist, I guess. Take care of the folks.

Searun

 

[jad2121]

Well you had to have been there. I was eating breakfast one morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, an image of a stethescope appeared in my cereal. And that's when it hit me.



I guess I was kind of hoping I could join a law firm and operate on my clients or something. You know, mix it up. /sarcasm

Look, don't worry about my personal decisions - I'm not as misguided as you perceive... at least careerwise. I'm just looking for advice on how common this is and how useful it could be.

dude you are awesome. I say do it. If you can get it done you will be the man

 

[frubeak]

I know that Mayo Medical School offers a MD/JD program. I'm pretty sure it's free (you don't pay any extra tuition), and it's open to any mayo med student who wants to complete it (so I think you'd join after you're already in med school). I think you go to a law school in Arizona at their sister branch. Colorado also offers a combined program (new this year).

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm just looking for advice on how common this is and how useful it could be.

It's not particularly common and not particularly useful. Which is exactly why you need to answer the "why" before you address the "how". Until you can say I want both degrees because I want to do XYZ and that is something you can't do with one or the other, you shouldn't waste your time and money. And this is advice coming from someone who worked in one field and now will work in the other. The combo is so unique nobody really knows what to do with it. I sure wouldn't advise someone to seek out both degrees at the onset. If you work in one for a while but then decide to switch streams, I get that though. But you wouldn't want to have gotten both degrees at the start because odds are you will only use one.

 

[Law2Doc]

My uncle has both MD and JD. I believe he does represent physicians infront of the medical board.

I know people who do that kind of work and only have the JD. Getting an MD to help you practice law (which is what representation before administrative boards is) is not a good use of time.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I know people who do that kind of work and only have the JD. Getting an MD to help you practice law (which is what representation before administrative boards is) is not a good use of time.

👍 I have a JD and am now in medical school, but I'm not planning using both degrees and don't really see any good applicable use of both of them. No one who practices law has any need for an MD. It might maybe impress a client here or there, but the value is certainly not worth the cost and time associated with going to medical school.

So if you really want to be a doctor and not a lawyer, don't go to law school. Even with the scholarship, you still lose 3 years of productive time.

 

[parto123]

Any joint degree that includes either JD or MBA is completely useless. Unless, that is, your goal in life is collecting degrees, and staying in school as long as possible.

If you NEED to get one of these degrees for whatever reason, get a law degree. It takes much less time, so if you decided you don’t like it, you only lost 3 years of your life instead of 8-10. Also, if you work at a corporate firm for a couple years you can become a banker. That being said, if youre not going into a top 14 law school, don’t bother going to law school either.

 

[Law2Doc]

Also, if you work at a corporate firm for a couple years you can become a banker.

Corporate lawfirm employment isn't a wise career path to take to become a banker, if that is what you were suggesting.

 

[suissemiss]

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

I think it would only be worthwhile if you wanted to go into patent law.

 

[Drogba]

I think it would only be worthwhile if you wanted to go into patent law.

You can go into patent law with a PhD....

 

[parto123]

Corporate lawfirm employment isn't a wise career path to take to become a banker, if that is what you were suggesting.

Well, obviously its not the quickest or wisest way to become a banker, but if you work in a good firm for a few years and then realize you don’t like law, its not all that difficult to become a banker. In fact, simpson thatcher, the firm which caused the last first year pay raise in firms, publicly stated that the reason they needed to raise salaries was because they were losing too many people to the business side of banks.

 

[decafplease]

I'm going to be attending law school next year and frankly, I don't really want to be a lawyer. Suddenly I've realized that medicine is exactly what I want to do. But since I'm receiving a good scholarship and there are a lot of outside factors influencing my decision I've decided to continue through law school and take pre-med classes at the same time. I also figure that a law degree and an MD can't hurt together. So basically I'll be doing my post-bac while getting my law degree. It will be hard, but I know I can do it.

Has anyone here attained both a JD and MD or know anyone who has done this? Is it an odd thing to do or would it be worthwhile?

Second, I'll be graduating with an undergrad GPA of 3.70 with a downward grade trend. If I bring my GPA up to 3.8 or so during post-bac, will I have an eligible GPA for med school? I'm not a good test taker, so GPA is important for me. I hear all kinds of rumors about how med schools don't accept people with below 3.80 GPAs or downward grade trends - is this true?

I was thinking about the MD to JD guy in Atul Gawande's book, Better, who was a practicing MD and took night classes to become a malpractice attorney (why, God, why?!). He's spending the rest of his life destroying his former colleagues' careers. Brilliant.

Beyond that, I have no helpful advice. I must ask though, why? Why waste the next few years pursing a career you don't want? Unless you aren't sure about medicine, in which case, just be a lawyer. (Did I just say that?) I think Law2Doc has some great advice here. He's been there, done that.

Can I just say that I REALLY don't understand the "I got into a pharm/PA/nursing/law/PhD program and now I want an MD, should I do both?" thing. Dang it, people! Are you gluttons for punishment, or what? Isn't 12 years enough?! 😱

 

[Law2Doc]

Well, obviously its not the quickest or wisest way to become a banker, but if you work in a good firm for a few years and then realize you don’t like law, its not all that difficult to become a banker. In fact, simpson thatcher, the firm which caused the last first year pay raise in firms, publicly stated that the reason they needed to raise salaries was because they were losing too many people to the business side of banks.

Actually, if you do a google search, you will see that Ruegger of their executive board suggested that they were losing folks to "private equity firms and hedge funds", which aren't really I banks, although some of the papers that didn't provide direct quotes did inaccurately call them banking. (I got offered this kind of job too, and it wasn't something a law firm would have to offer more money because of; the individuals aren't really going to be bankers, they are going to be in private equity sales, using their client and colleague contacts as [telephone] marketing lists. I guess you could call yourself a banker rather than a telemarketer, but a rose is a rose).

Whether Ruegger's claim is true or not, and how many individuals they actually lost from their first year class is a matter of speculation though. More likely Simpson Thatcher wanted to be known as the highest paying firm, to get the best associates (ie a better draft pick). But so as not to sound petty to the other firms, which now have to follow suit if they want to stay competitive, they suggested they were keeping up with non-lawfirm efforts. Might be true, but I kind of doubt it. How many law students really go right from law school into hedge funds? Almost none. We are talking about spin, which is not very foreign to lawfirm press releases.

So no, corporate law is still not the path I'd take to get into I banking. Starting out as an analyst or other post-college entry position at such a bank is a much higher yield path to getting in the door. And far more lawyers get lost to in-house non-banking places and consulting firms than to banks. Just not first year lawyers (who simply don't know anything useful to industry yet, beyond perhaps client lists and names of colleagues they have worked with).

 

[Round2]

22 schools report joint MD/JD programs
1 school reports a joint DO/JD program.
Very very few students actually do joint degree programs, the more common route is sequential seperated by a period of years.

Check out http://www.aclm.org/about/committees.aspx for more details.

 

[Law2Doc]

22 schools report joint MD/JD programs
1 school reports a joint DO/JD program.
Very very few students actually do joint degree programs, the more common route is sequential seperated by a period of years.

This is actually career changing, not an intent to get both degrees at the outset. So I wouldn't call it a route to a single goal.

 

[parto123]

Actually, if you do a google search, you will see that Ruegger of their executive board suggested that they were losing folks to "private equity firms and hedge funds", which aren't really I banks, although some of the papers that didn't provide direct quotes did inaccurately call them banking. (I got offered this kind of job too, and it wasn't something a law firm would have to offer more money because of; the individuals aren't really going to be bankers, they are going to be in private equity sales, using their client and colleague contacts as [telephone] marketing lists. I guess you could call yourself a banker rather than a telemarketer, but a rose is a rose).

Whether Ruegger's claim is true or not, and how many individuals they actually lost from their first year class is a matter of speculation though. More likely Simpson Thatcher wanted to be known as the highest paying firm, to get the best associates (ie a better draft pick). But so as not to sound petty to the other firms, which now have to follow suit if they want to stay competitive, they suggested they were keeping up with non-lawfirm efforts. Might be true, but I kind of doubt it. How many law students really go right from law school into hedge funds? Almost none. We are talking about spin, which is not very foreign to lawfirm press releases.

So no, corporate law is still not the path I'd take to get into I banking. Starting out as an analyst or other post-college entry position at such a bank is a much higher yield path to getting in the door. And far more lawyers get lost to in-house non-banking places and consulting firms than to banks. Just not first year lawyers (who simply don't know anything useful to industry yet, beyond perhaps client lists and names of colleagues they have worked with).

To clarify, when I say “banking” I was referring to the business side, usually of whatever types of transaction the lawyer works on. Also, I clearly wrote that I was referring to associates with a few years experience. I don’t know why you keep on questioning whether first years are getting these jobs. I never mentioned anything about first years getting these jobs.


Your post is the first time I have seen anyone question whether the Simpson quote is referring to telemarketing, or other similar type jobs. Over the past 2-3 years (before the current downturn) it was no secret that firms were bleeding associates to the business side. Especially top firms. Bankruptcy associates were all moving over to distressed debt, structured finance associates were all jumping to banks, isda and derivative associates would be able to switch over after just one year. Same with fixed income and M&A. Just look at the archives of the of the popular law firm discussion sites (abovethelaw, xoxohth). No one even debates this.

Its also doubtful that simpson raised salaries to outdo other firms. Everyone knows that if one firm raises, all other firms raise within the week.

I agree that if you know you dont want to do law, dont go to law school. But once that decision is made, if you went to a good enough school/firm, there are many good non law options.

 

[Law2Doc]

I never mentioned anything about first years getting these jobs.

Actually, if you look at your prior post, you will see that you said "In fact, simpson thatcher, the firm which caused the last first year pay raise in firms,". Why would they raise first year salaries if these were not the folks they were losing?

Having come from a very similar setting to the one we are discussing, I would suggest (1) that firms tend to exaggerate in terms of how many of their associates go off to financial interests as compared to other law firms (it never sounds good to suggest your firm is hemorrhaging associates to competitors, and (2) that firms tend to raise salaries precisely to compete with other firms. You want to be perceived as willing to pony up and to be a high payer. That is how you get the first choice of law grads. There really is no other good reason because most of the folks who leave biglaw do so for lifestyle, not financial reasons, and everybody knows this. There are a million articles in every law journal as to how throwing money at associates simply doesn't keep them. Most of the peers I have seen leave big law for other positions have gone in house to corporate, non-banking interests, often for a slight loss in salary but a huge cut in hours. I've not seen deal lawyers go work at investment houses with much frequency. And the fact that Ruegger publically indicated that Simpson's losses were to "private equity firms and hedge funds", suggests that they are not losing people to banking but to somewhat different kinds of players in the financial market. The jobs I and my peers were frequently offered from "private equity" firms tended to be very sales and commission oriented. I cannot imagine Simpson is losing enough folks to these interests to matter, and as we both agreed, it's hard to justify a raise in first year salaries even so. If you spend enough times with lawyers, you learn to recognize spin.

There are non-law options for lawyers, but being a lawyer is not a high yield path to get those jobs. I wouldn't go into corporate law in the hopes that you are going to jump to a banking job.

 

[Phoenix.]

Aren't most MD/JD programs entirely unfunded? If so, what the heck are you people telling him to drop out of the school he has a scholarship to and reapply to end up with both degrees at the same time, but for more money?

Now this is neither here nor there for the OP, but here's one program where you get both an MD and a JD in six years (two or the law degree instead of three), and I'm pretty sure I remember them saying it's fully funded by Mayo. The JD is through Arizona State. You can read this guy's info to get an idea of someone Mayo thought would make good use of an MD/JD:

http://www.mayo.edu/mms/academic-enrichment-brian.html

 

[Law2Doc]

You can read this guy's info to get an idea of someone Mayo thought would make good use of an MD/JD:

http://www.mayo.edu/mms/academic-enrichment-brian.html

Yeah, I would agree that if you want to do healthcare policy, having both degrees might be useful. Policy and academics were the two paths I suggested might find some value in both degrees. But you will earn less in either than these two paths than in medicine alone, so it's hardly the 7 figure salary mentioned by the second poster. The salary definitely looms large if you attend someplace other than Mayo where the JD is an extra 60k in debt to obtain. And policy work is an acquired taste -- I suspect most folks with this initial goal will decide on a different use of their degrees when they get closer to the target.

 

[custard]

Now this is neither here nor there for the OP, but here's one program where you get both an MD and a JD in six years (two or the law degree instead of three), and I'm pretty sure I remember them saying it's fully funded by Mayo. The JD is through Arizona State. You can read this guy's info to get an idea of someone Mayo thought would make good use of an MD/JD:

http://www.mayo.edu/mms/academic-enrichment-brian.html

Whoa, he's quite the catch!

 

[parto123]

Actually, if you look at your prior post, you will see that you said "In fact, simpson thatcher, the firm which caused the last first year pay raise in firms,". Why would they raise first year salaries if these were not the folks they were losing?

Im surprised you would ask this. I mentioned first year raises simply to indicate which round of raises I was referring to. Raises at biglaw are lockstep and proportional through every class year (every level gets an increase of 15-25k, all the way through partner). Biglaw attorneys use the first year pay to signify which raise they are referring to (i.e. 125, 145, 160), because no one remembers what 4th years were getting when Sullivan raised to 145.

Also, I personally know 3 midlevels at simpson (as well as plenty of people at davis, sulcrom and even cwt) all who confirmed how many people were leaving to the business side. No current biglaw attorney questions this.

May I ask you what range firm you worked in- v10, 20 etc. and how senior you were when you left. Some of your past points as well the questions you raise seem at odds with conventional wisdom of associates at firms like simpson.

 

[Law2Doc]

all who confirmed how many people were leaving to the business side. No current biglaw attorney questions this.

People leave for business (primarily to in house positions), but less frequently to "business side" deal work such as banking. The demand for law degrees in these industries is not all that impressive. And the number of people leaving for non-law positions is always dwarfed by the number of folks who leave for other law firms, which is why lawfirms compete on price, and why when one raises salary they all raise salary. And why firms keep salaries lockstep even though you are only concerned with losing later year folks. They have to because the other LAWFIRMS are doing this, not because they have to compete with business. Addressing first year salaries is exclusively useful for law school recruiting, and plays no role in associate retention, so whenever a firm adjusts the first year salary, that is their goal. It is naive to think they have to give first years a raise in order to give later years a raise. If they were competing with business hiring, they would address the later years exclusively (there is no rule requiring lockstep and in fact the midsized and smaller firms don't bother with that).

Again, most of the folks who leave biglaw for the corporate world are doing it for lifestyle anyhow and so you really can't compete with price. This fact is really what "no current biglaw attorney" would question -- I'm not sure how the fact that you know a couple of lawyers creates a conventional wisdom, but I guess that's how some folks try to make points on the internet. I promise you that having recently come from a similar practice setting (I won't go into specifics because I'd rather not be identified, but I've been around here long enough to have some street cred) I know a bit about the inner workings of biglaw as well as far more personnel then you'd ever want to know. But believe what you want. If you really think that going to law school is the right move to get into banking I won't stop you, no matter how poorly thought out I think it is. But we've diverted this thread enough, I think.

 

[parto123]

People leave for business (primarily to in house positions), but less frequently to "business side" deal work such as banking. The demand for law degrees in these industries is not all that impressive. And the number of people leaving for non-law positions is always dwarfed by the number of folks who leave for other law firms, which is why lawfirms compete on price, and why when one raises salary they all raise salary. And why firms keep salaries lockstep even though you are only concerned with losing later year folks. They have to because the other LAWFIRMS are doing this, not because they have to compete with business. Addressing first year salaries is exclusively useful for law school recruiting, and plays no role in associate retention, so whenever a firm adjusts the first year salary, that is their goal. It is naive to think they have to give first years a raise in order to give later years a raise. If they were competing with business hiring, they would address the later years exclusively (there is no rule requiring lockstep and in fact the midsized and smaller firms don't bother with that).

Again, most of the folks who leave biglaw for the corporate world are doing it for lifestyle anyhow and so you really can't compete with price. This fact is really what "no current biglaw attorney" would question -- I'm not sure how the fact that you know a couple of lawyers creates a conventional wisdom, but I guess that's how some folks try to make points on the internet. I promise you that having recently come from a similar practice setting (I won't go into specifics because I'd rather not be identified, but I've been around here long enough to have some street cred) I know a bit about the inner workings of biglaw as well as far more personnel then you'd ever want to know. But believe what you want. If you really think that going to law school is the right move to get into banking I won't stop you, no matter how poorly thought out I think it is. But we've diverted this thread enough, I think.

Conventional wisdom comes from the fact that these topics are discussed ad-nauseam on biglaw websites. Folks from firms ranging from wachtell to stroock chime in on these issues, and although there is never 100% agreement on these issues, its pretty close.

Im just curious what type of firm you worked at. It sounds like its close, but not exactly the type of firm im referring to. Just let me know if your firm pays market lockstep bonus, regardless of hours. Only about 15 or so firms are like this, and no one on this site will have any idea what this means, so it wont give anything away about your identity.

Also, how does one get “street cred” discussing law firms on a website with premed college students? Who would know any better?

 

[Phoenix.]

Im just curious what type of firm you worked at. It sounds like its close, but not exactly the type of firm im referring to. Just let me know if your firm pays market lockstep bonus, regardless of hours. Only about 15 or so firms are like this, and no one on this site will have any idea what this means, so it wont give anything away about your identity.

Hah. I used to work for one of those firms. Anyway, my suggestion is to give this line of inquiry a rest. If L2D doesn't want to give any particulars, why not just move on?

 

[parto123]

Hah. I used to work for one of those firms. Anyway, my suggestion is to give this line of inquiry a rest. If L2D doesn't want to give any particulars, why not just move on?

Obviously he doesn’t have to give any particulars if he doesn’t want to. I don’t see why he would have any problems with this since he regularly posts a tremendous amount of “outing information” on this message board. The type of information im curious about is no more revealing than most of the information he gives out here.

Most of his posts are pretty accurate and reasonable. However, he just gets alot wrong when discussing top tier law firms. Judging from his posts on this board it really doesn’t sound like he worked at a top firm (at least not for any significant amount of time). Its just sounds more Thompson Hine than it does Davis Polk.