Careers
Va. Law’s Class of 1990: Happy in their Careers, but Less So in BigLaw
Posted Oct 15, 2008, 11:30 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Reports of unhappy lawyers tell of problems with depression, alcoholism, divorce and suicide. But the reports appear to be exaggerated, if the Virginia School of Law’s 1990 graduating class is any guide.
A study finds the group is largely contented with their careers and their lives, albeit less so if they work for big law firms.
The study (PDF) found 81 percent of grads responding to a 2007 survey were satisfied with their decision to become a lawyer, and 86 percent were satisfied with their lives more broadly. Both men and women reported similar levels of satisfaction.
Despite the similarities, women earned significantly less than men, even when controlling for employment setting and hours worked.
Just one factor had a negative effect on job satisfaction: working at a large law firm. Those working at large private firms were less happy in both their jobs and lives than the other lawyers.
Half the grads who started their careers at large law firms ended up leaving. Still only 20 percent of those at the large firms reported they were unhappy with their lives.
Job-hopping wasn't all that unusual, no matter what the employment setting. Eighty-five percent changed jobs at least once and half changed jobs twice.
The study’s authors, Virginia law professor John Monahan and Duke medical professor Jeffrey Swanson, say the findings on satisfaction are consistent with an American Bar Foundation study of lawyers admitted to the bar in 2000.
The Virginia study, “Lawyers at Mid-Career: a 20-Year Longitudinal Study of Job and Life Satisfaction,” was based on survey responses supplied by 72 percent of the living graduates contacted. The average age of the respondents was 42 and their median household income before taxes was $250,000. Almost 99 percent of the men and 61 percent of the women were employed full time. The reason given most often for women who were not working full time was to care for children.
The study found other gender differences. Seventy-seven percent of the female grads had a spouse who worked outside the home, compared to 24 percent of male grads. Women also earned significantly less than men.
The average annual salary for full-time work in private law firms was $536,000 for men and $473,000 for women. The average at small private law firms was $286,000 for men and $257,000 for women. In government, it was $138,000 for men and $103,000 for women.
A quarter of the graduates working full time were no longer practicing lawyers. Those who chose other careers had jobs that included academics, business owners, CEOs and bankers. The average annual salary for those in business and financial careers was $374,000 for men and $217,000 for women.
Related Stories
- Boutique Firms Find Recession Resilience in Being a Master of One
Dec 1, 2008, 05:27 pm CST - BigLaw’s Favorite Blogs
Dec 1, 2008, 01:29 pm CST - Social Network Sites Only Work for Lawyers Who Work at Them
Dec 1, 2008, 01:28 pm CST - 50 New Sites Make 2nd Annual ABA Journal Blawg 100
Dec 1, 2008, 01:25 pm CST
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 9 minutes ago
I didn’t EVEN get into VA law, and I guess I am NOT sad now. These people are much OLDER then me but they are NOT happy.
I see that WOMEN continue to do worse then MEN in the salary, and they do the SAME work.
Also, DIVORCE, ALCHOLOLISM, and DEPRESSION are BIG problems for these people. This is sad. I think people have to work hard to make things work. At home, in their marrages, and stay away from the Bottle.
I would NEVER marry anyone who had to have a drink. My boyfriend only has wine about once a month, and it’s only a glass, and only when we are out to DINER. He thinks alchohol is bad, even if they say RED wine is good, he does NOT drink. I also don’t drink, so we should NOT have a problem there.after we get married.
About depression, my boyfriend and I never worry about it.
We try and stay happy no matter if we have problems with the upstairs person . She klops with her heels on all over the apartement at ALL hours of the NIGHT. How ridiculous she is, even after my boyfriend told her she was keeping me up while he was asleep.
So we think survive by knowing that we HAVE to live our lives DAY-TO-DAY, and NOT let the problemes get to us. That way, we stay happy.
Posted by Edwin Barmaidsky - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes ago
Hey, Ellen, let me buy you a DRINK; it might help mellow out your ISSUES. And I’ll buy your beleaguered BOYFRIEND two. bring along your NEIGHBOR; I’m sure she needs one, too, considering.
Posted by Alma Federer - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 18 hours, 25 minutes ago
Yes, Women don’t get treated fairly at all.
The political economy of women is deeply affected by gender differences: women’s incomes are, over their lives, lower than men’s, yet women work longer hours in both paid and unpaid work, and are expected to perform significantly larger shares of caregiving than men. In contrast, men’s incomes are consistently higher beginning shortly after entering the paid labour force, and women’s demands for equality have not yet resulted in much change in the allocation of underpaid, unpaid, or caregiving work. Nor is this situation changing for the better: standard gender equality indicators make it clear that women have been losing ground to men on all these issues since the early 2000s.
Over the last 25 years, the role that governmental taxation and spending functions play in reproducing women’s gender disadvantages has become increasingly visible. Examination of core issues, such as the relationship between women, caregiving, and poverty; barriers to women’s empowerment; and the gendered allocation of unpaid and precarious work, have revealed important links between specific tax and expenditure measures and the status of women. However, as contemporary governments increasingly look for ‘magic tax wands’ to solve economic, social, and political problems, it has become obvious that politically-palatable gender-specific measures such as the Canada Child Tax Benefit or the Universal Child Care Benefit are not adequate to effect any genuine change in the status of women.
At the same time, the negative gender impact of recent changes to basic tax structures — changes in the definition of the tax base; moving from the individual to the adult couple as the tax unit; replacing progressive rate structures with flattened rates; and dramatic changes in the overall tax mix — have gone largely ignored even as these changes have exacerbated hidden fiscal barriers to women’s equality.
What is striking is that these dynamics have not gone unchallenged. Women have repeatedly spelled out the shortcomings of specific tax and benefit provisions, have articulated their needs in detail, and have shared their visions of genuine equality in every available venue. To date, however, no government in Canada has addressed the fundamental structural biases that are built into existing fiscal instruments. Indeed, virtually every important fiscal change over the last three decades has intensified gender regressivity, not reversed it. Fundamental changes such as the enactment of express income splitting and tax subsidies for women’s financial dependency, shifts from progressive income taxation to consumption-based taxation, and dramatic cuts to personal and business tax rates all systemically have bolstered men’s after-tax incomes at the expense of women’s after-tax incomes.