Hustle Hawk says:

As a lawyer, here are my 2 cents:

> As far as I’m aware, Bi-modal salary distribution between ‘Biglaw’ and the rest is largely a US phenomenon. In most countries, e.g. the UK it’s only the partners that have extremely large earnings (associate salaries are often 10x lower).

>Many lawyers drop out of the associate / partner track so there are few survivors left to write about financial independence. Of those that survive most if not all of their energies will be consumed trying to become partner (the extremely long hours and arduous working conditions are not particularly compatible with good physical or mental health – available bandwidth to start a blog / podcast are limited).

> As mentioned on the podcast, lawyers always face the danger of a precipitous drop in their income if they change careers, fail to play the internal politics game well enough or fall to impress clients to the required degree.

> The poor working conditions, unhappiness and misery of many lawyers in the profession is well documented (it has to be one of the few professions with an entire cottage industry dedicated to helping participants leave their roles and find other careers). People in other careers may not always be happy but in the legal profession the problem is endemic. To survive a certain level of ‘unreality’ is required. To podcast / blog about their true feelings about their jobs (which could often include emotions such as cynicism, exhaustion, frustration and hopelessness) would make it very difficult to continue the exercise. Emotion is something to be managed and compartmentalised, it gets in the way of success.

> Law is seen as a prestigious career but much of the work is often tedious, irritating and boring. As aforementioned, although prestigious, many lawyers’ salaries do not match the level of societal prestige that their jobs carry.

> The prestige leads to a lifestyle inflation trap. A frugal executive or software engineer might be ‘quirky’ or ‘focussed’. Within the profession, a frugal associate is simply an unsuccessful loser, if she / he were a partner there would be more money available. A frugal partner is simply cheap, when earning that amount there is an expectation that a certain lifestyle is lived. Any level of earnings can be spent fairly easily, especially in places like New York or London, houses, luxury cars, private schools, foreign holidays, business class travel (when the business isn’t paying!), nice restaurant meals, the list of ways to be relieved of one’s earnings is endless.

> As a lawyer in partner track one’s primary consideration should be attaining partnership. Public pursuit of financial independence could lead to one’s devotion to the firm being questioned and could tank one’s career.

> More a US phenomenon, but the extremely high cost of entering the profession (requirement for 2 degrees – an undergrad before law postgrad) mean that most lawyers start their careers underwater financially, which is not conducive to financial independence. As mentioned, unlike US doctors there is no ‘floor’ salary for lawyers as such. A huge amount could be spent on college only to lead to a low salary on graduation, trapping said lawyer in debt. The lifestyle inflation and internal / external expectation of keeping up appearances can further exacerbate the problem.

> Often lawyers are book smart and money dumb and can be very poor at managing money, saving, investing and keeping living expenses low (especially difficult when many law firm offices are located in high end parts of town and, as mentioned, the partners usually earn 10x what the associates earn or more). Long hours, combined with the requirement to be available at work at all hours mean that it’s a huge advantage to be able to live within close proximity to the office or in a pleasant neighbourhood to decompress from work work from home or impress one’s colleagues / family when they visit. There are layers out there who are savvy with their personal finances but I think they’re the exception rather than the rule.

> Lawyers can also suffer from a lottery mindset – i.e. ‘once I get promoted’, ‘once I make partner I’ll earn x’. The issue is that the promotion may or may not be forthcoming. In the meantime if lawyers are spending on the expectation of a higher future salary they may not be saving and investing today. Anyone who understands compounding will know that failing to invest and save today makes it very difficult to catch up tomorrow (regardless of how much ones salary may have risen).

> Substantive specialisation, in addition to geographic specialisation make geoarbitrage difficult. For doctors, licensing requirements vary but a human body in California is similar to a human body in New York. For a lawyer, the two jurisdictions are different, the laws are different and two separate bar exams need to be passed. A property lawyer in New York can’t up sticks and move to Singapore or Thailand (as a teacher may be able to). Unless one has been smart from the outset and picked a geographically mobile practice area a lawyer will be trapped in their geography and specialisation upon qualification, unless they want to go through the difficulty of trying to retrain. Even re-training may not lead to a job – by analogy someone knows how to use MSN Messanger really well but now life is all about Instagram, Youtube and Tik Tok. As an employer am I going to hire someone who has tried to re-train or am I simply going to go out and grab someone younger and cheaper who is already familiar with the new platforms I’m interested in? Most firms will simply do the latter.

>If joining the legal profession to pursue FI, don’t. Join the legal profession because you want to join the legal profession. Otherwise severe burnout and dissatisfaction are the most likely results and FI won’t be attained. For the amount of hassle and difficulty involved with the profession, there are far easier and more efficient ways to reach FI of that is one’s primary objective.

HH