Midyear Meeting 2009
76% of Young Lawyers Glad They’re Attorneys, Study Finds
Posted Feb 14, 2009 4:04 PM CST
By Edward A. Adams
Contrary to all the media reports about lawyer dissatisfaction, a new study of 4,160 individuals who became lawyers in 2000 has found that 76 percent report they are either extremely or moderately satisfied with their decision to become an attorney.
That surprising result is part of the second phase of the American Bar Foundation’s After the J.D. study, presented at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Boston this afternoon.
The $1.8 million study is tracking the careers of lawyers over the course of 12 years. The attorneys were first interviewed in 2002, two years after they began practicing. The latest set of data comes from interviews conducted in 2007.
The high satisfaction rating “is a startling number,” said panelist Kay H. Hodge, a partner in Boston’s Stoneman, Chandler & Miller and a former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
“I think to some extent, the [legal] profession is its own worst enemy,” she said. “We don’t walk with the pride we must to encourage young people to become lawyers.”
Among the study’s major findings was that, as lawyers move deeper into their careers, fewer and fewer work in private practice. It also found that women continue to have difficulty becoming equity partners in law firms and are still not paid as much as men are.
Between their second and seventh year of practice, 58 percent of the lawyers changed jobs, the study found. “It’s like musical chairs,” said Professor Joyce Sterling of University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Sterling is one of the academics conducting the study.
Almost every size of law firm employed fewer of the lawyers in 2007 than they did in 2002. Firms with 251 or more lawyers—what the study calls “megafirms”—saw the biggest drop, from 18 percent to 9 percent. Only solo practice attracted more of the attorneys, increasing from 5 percent to 9 percent during the five years.
“The thing that surprised us most,” Sterling said, was the increase in the number of lawyers working in business. The number serving as in-house counsel jumped from 4 percent in 2002 to 11 percent in 2007, while the number working as nonlawyers for corporations increased from 4 percent to almost 8 percent.
The study found a “stunning disparity” in the ability of men and women to make partner at firms of all sizes, according to Ronit Dinovitzer, an American Bar Foundation faculty fellow and assistant professor of sociology at the University of Toronto.
In firms of two to 20 lawyers, just 19 percent of female respondents had been made equity partners, while 30 percent of the men had. In firms of 51 to 100 lawyers, the gap was even wider, with 6 percent of women now equity partners, and 22 percent of men.
At the megafirms, the path to equity partner tends to be longer than seven years, so the study asked how many of the lawyers working there had been named nonequity partners. It found 10.5 percent of the men had, but just 8 percent of the women.
Women continue to earn less than men do, but the pay gap has narrowed, the study found. Two years after starting practice, women employed full-time earned an average of 83 percent of what men did. Seven years out, they now earn 92 percent of what men earn.
But Dinovitzer cautioned that much of that narrowing is because more men than women moved to jobs in the lower-paying public sector. In private practice, women earn 78 percent of what men do, the second phase of the study found.

Comments
B. McLeod
Feb 14, 2009 10:43 PM CST
So, in the five years between the first interviews and the interviews underlying this study, half of the attorneys who were in large firms figured it out and left. Pretty low retention in that practice segment.
Flag this comment
solo reader
Feb 15, 2009 1:09 PM CST
McLeod, you’re the only person that commented. lol
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Feb 15, 2009 1:55 PM CST
Probably everyone else was just reading and nodding.
Flag this comment
Ashlee
Feb 15, 2009 5:05 PM CST
Try asking attorneys who just graduated in the past 2 years and can’t find a job for the life of them. That ‘satisfaction’ number will be MUCH lower. Those people who have been interviewed have already been practicing for years. Nowadays, newly admitted attorneys have to fight tooth-&-nail for a $35k no-fault job…if there is even one.
Flag this comment
JPM
Feb 15, 2009 8:03 PM CST
Law at a private law school is a financially disasterous decision for 80% of law grads.
Flag this comment
Allen Scheketovits
Feb 15, 2009 8:27 PM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Allen Sheketovits
Feb 16, 2009 8:06 AM CST
I do not understand why I am being removed? Is this religious discrimniation? Does not the ABA want know what I have to say? Are my comments so objectionable, or is the ABA bigoted against me and others like me (Ellen).
If title seven applies, like Ellen says it does, can an attorney let us know whether we can have the ABA sanctioned for this overt discrimniation? Oy!
Flag this comment
Molly McDonough
Feb 16, 2009 8:15 AM CST
Ellen has been banned from this site. Getting her back through “Allen Sheketovits” will no longer be tolerated.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Feb 16, 2009 10:02 AM CST
The Sheketovits claims have been widely regarded as wholly fictional anyway.
Flag this comment
jose
Feb 16, 2009 10:16 AM CST
How can you not be happy when you get paid $165,000 a year to start. If I get laid off, I will be unhappy. Until then I am happy.
Flag this comment
Cliff
Feb 16, 2009 12:01 PM CST
That study is ludicrous. To say that 76% of attorneys are satisfied based on an interview process that began with a set of interviews of third year associates is short-sighted at best.
While a certain amount of people will persevere in a career that they do not enjoy, common sense suggests that most people who are still practicing law after the first two years are doing so because they are satisfied.
This study completely begs the question of satisfaction among first and second year associates - a group of attorneys that I can only imagine experiences a high rate of attrition that largely results from dissatisfaction with being an attorney.
Geez - I sure my tax dollars didn’t somehow fund this misadventure the ABA is trying to pass off as a “study.”
Flag this comment
Stone
Feb 20, 2009 6:59 AM CST
That survey is a joke for anyone who graduated 2006 or after, and it’s not going to change anytime soon.
Flag this comment
silencedogood
Feb 20, 2009 7:14 AM CST
“Posted by Molly McDonough - 3 days, 22 hours, 44 minutes ago
Ellen has been banned from this site. “
And thank God for that! I don’t know who found her entertaining, but it must have been those two fo five lawyers with psychological problems mentioned in the other article. Let’s keep the Jerry Springer style discussions out of the ABA.
Flag this comment
BC
Feb 20, 2009 7:40 AM CST
I graduated in 2007. If the study were to look at my fellow graduates, the results would be the complete opposite. I would wager that 76% of my fellow graduates believe that are regretting the decision to go to law school and become an attorney. I know people who are still looking for any type of legal work after 2 years. Those individuals have taken temp jobs and contract positions, but those only last so long.
There is always the argument that you can hang out your own shingle and start your own practice. What most of the advocates for solo practitioning don’t realize is that it costs money to start your own practice. If you have a family, a mortgage, a car payment, not to mention student loan payments, you cannot rely on two or three years down the road being successful. The mortgage companies, banks, and student loan providers don’t care that you are trying to practice law, they want their money, and they want it now. To continually argue that all of the people who are laid off or who can’t find jobs should open their own law practice is ridiculous. Some will be successful, sure, but the vast majority of the people can’t afford to take that risk, and have to find a job with a steady paycheck. I can’t take that risk, not with over $2000/month in bills. That’s the truth.
Flag this comment
BS
Feb 20, 2009 8:00 AM CST
Stone, I couldn’t agree more. I graduated in 2006 and regret the decision to become an attorney almost everyday. I’m saddled with debt (from a public school, mind you) and unable to find a job after being laid off at the beginning of the blood shed.
Flag this comment
Andrew
Feb 20, 2009 8:52 AM CST
I’ve been practicing for 3.5 years and am quite satisfied with my decision, despite the private school debts.
That said, I am a solo practitioner and have been from the beginning, in a niche practice. If I had to work at a big firm and deal with billable hours and 16-hour-days, I too would be quite depressed.
Flag this comment
Mike
Feb 20, 2009 9:57 AM CST
I know very few lawyers that enjoy practicing law. Old and young. Most stay practicing because they need the higher salary to pay off their student loans. Major changes need to happen in our profession before this trend will turn around. Personally, I have my doubts that it will ever happen.
Flag this comment
Shamile Lamazil
Feb 20, 2009 11:21 AM CST
Bring back Ellen Barchzevsky.
Fire the moderator.
Flag this comment
Thank you, silencedogood!
Feb 20, 2009 11:44 AM CST
Thank you, silencedogood, and thank you Molly McDonough! This is a professional site, for professionals. A sense of humor is imperative in our profession, lest we end up with the serious depression mentioned in another article. However, posts on here from the former Ellen, Alan, (and several others who should probably remain nameless, but who clearly have much too much time on their hands given that they post their drivel in response to nearly every article on this site) add no value. They are unintelligible, unfunny, unprofessional, and they just plain make our profession look bad. Read Above the Law if you want ignorant, Springer-like uninsightful commentary. Let’s keep the ABA Journal as a source for news bites that impact the legal profession…
Flag this comment
R Gould-Saltman
Feb 20, 2009 12:25 PM CST
Am I mis-reading the stats, or wouldn’t an equally accurate headline be: “Less Than Ten Years Into Practice, Quarter of New Lawyers Say: ‘What Was I Thinking? This Is Actually Kinda Lousy!’”?
Flag this comment
jellyfish
Feb 20, 2009 1:07 PM CST
The article indicates that female associates are STILL being paid less than their male counterparts. Does anyone know how the recent passing and signing of the Lilly Lebdetter Act will/will not impact associate pay structures and ensure equality of pay?
Flag this comment
chose law school too young
Feb 20, 2009 6:38 PM CST
I would like to see a survey of folks who chose law school straight out of college vs. those who worked for a few years first. I bet job satisfaction is a lot higher in those who work a few years before choosing law school. It’s what I am observing among my classmates (and myself), at least, 2 years post-grad.
Flag this comment
sara tate
Feb 21, 2009 11:29 AM CST
#20—- I can’t see that the LL Act will affect ssociate pay structures much as most new attorneys don’t know what other new attorneys in the firm are being paid. If you don’t know that there is a disparity you can’t highlight it. Additionally, most of the practice of law is the good will of former employers if you brought suit against former employers to take advantage fo the Act’s provisions, you might find yourself shut out of the profession in your community…permanently. Prospective employer’s don’t take to kindly to things like that. Therefore, I don’t see the Act as being very releant to the legal profession as it is currently practiced.
Flag this comment
Ken Randleston
Feb 21, 2009 3:21 PM CST
@20, Jellyfish. The Ledbetter Act will have little to no impact on associate pay structures because overwhelmingly, in the legal arena anyway, all of the pay structures mentioned in the article are based on billable hour totals. Hence, if you aren’t billing as many hours as everyone else, REGARDLESS of the reason, you aren’t going to get paid as much, nor are you as likely to make partner.
Rare, rare, rare indeed will be the law firm (ANY corporation) that pays anyone less money solely because of their gender. They can, however, pay different amounts based on experience, hours billed, education, rain-making, tenure at the firm, and on and on, all of which are perfectly rational.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.