JD/MBA vs. just the JD

[Troodon]

What are the career implications like for someone who has both (done jointly at the same time)? I'm wondering if it's worth the cost to do both rather than just the JD. I'm hoping to go into corporate law, ideally something M&A related. I already have a bachelors in commerce. I wasn't successful getting any top jobs like banking or consulting so I'm hoping to go into law.

[Mark77]

My gut feeling is that one of two possible outcomes could occur:

a) Someone with JD + MBA gets an interview with a M&A-focussed legal practice, impresses them, and voila, is working for $300k/year on Bay Street (or elsewhere)

or

b) A glut of lawyers emerges in Canada due to, for instance, automation, changes to the legal system, etc. The JD + MBA is viewed as 'overqualified'.

[Asad_A203]

I don't see the point of it, especially with your undergrad in Commerce. If you want to make a transition to the management aspect from legal, I don't see the MBA adding much value over the JD. Given how volatile the market is, I definitely would not be willing to front the cost of an MBA (especially an accelerated, atypical MBA program) WITH A JD unless my company was willing to partially/fully pay for it. UofT is looking to bump the JD tuition closer to 30k in the next few years and Osgoode isn't too far behind; given the gloomy outlook for Corporate Law (and law in general); I really would not take any additional debt unless I could be assured it was adding value.

If you are unsure and maybe want to jump into IB later, I think a better/cheaper/less volatile route would work towards a professional designation, like a CFA. You still have the "prestige" of your law degree and you can demonstrate that you are least capable of "crunching the numbers".

I guess it depends on your risk tolerance. For me, I think the $350k of debt from law school (assuming 3 years at UofT, marginal COL increase to live in Toronto, and foregone salary of 70k/year) would be enough to make me reconsider fronting the cost of an MBA. If you know for sure you want to pursue an MBA and think it will benefit you later down the road, then go for it.


My gut feeling is that one of two possible outcomes could occur:

a) Someone with JD + MBA gets an interview with a M&A-focussed legal practice, impresses them, and voila, is working for $300k/year on Bay Street (or elsewhere)

or

b) A glut of lawyers emerges in Canada due to, for instance, automation, changes to the legal system, etc. The JD + MBA is viewed as 'overqualified'.

I think your first scenario is extremely rare (in terms of pay), I don't think any Bay St. firm would pay a law grad with an MBA 300k/year out of school. $95k-105k is about what a Bay St. firms pay to law grads out of school. Even for a firm that specializes in M&A and the employee having prior experience in IB at a top firm; I don't see an MBA adding $200k/year of additional earning potential. I honestly don't even think an MBA would add any monetary increase to a lawyer's salary, it would probably just make them more competitive among other candidates and provide them with a broader career outlook.

Your second example is already in progress; from what I read, the career outlook for a lawyer is awful and it looking to only get worse. I really am reconsidering my plans to pursue law school as I can easily earn a similar rate of pay I would be making in the best case scenario out of law school (landing a job on Bay St.) without incurring the $350k of debt. Sadly, all I want to do is become a lawyer :(. Maybe a crappy LSAT score will ironically provide me with the ability to think logically.

[Kunman]

subscribed....^ and can poster provide sources for your information?

[funnykid]

ASAD, could you shed some light on why you think Corporate Law is dying (or dead)?

[Asad_A203]

subscribed....^ and can poster provide sources for your information?

Hmm, anything in particular? Here are some articles that can shed some light on the outlook for the field of Law in general:

Ontario Law Grads can't find a firm to article for (8 days ago):


The Law Society of Upper Canada estimates one in seven law graduates will not secure practical training next year. That is despite the fact articling is necessary for law students if they want to practice in Ontario.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/05/10/ottawa-law-schools-articling-positions-hard-to-find.html

Professional Class Bubble Bursting (April 28):


“There’s a real disconnect between the perception and the reality,” says one senior lawyer. “You have to be pretty creative when you’re thinking of law as a career choice.” Translation: If you think you’re going to land a $100,000 starting job on Bay Street, you’d better have Plan B. It’s more realistic to aim for association or government work – where salaries are a lot lower. (By the way, you’ll have to do your articling in Sudbury.) And even if you start out in the big time, the ladder to partnership is being pulled up. These days, it can take 10 years to become an equity partner in a major firm – if you make it. Most don’t.

Meantime, law-school tuitions have soared (the University of Toronto charges $25,000) and the competition to get in is ferocious. Three years of undergraduate work doesn’t cut it any more. Today, you’d better have an advanced degree (or two) if you want to get into a top school. All this adds up to more time in school and more debt. By the time your daughter is called to the bar, she may have $80,000 or more in debt, with income prospects that are far lower than she expected.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

There are countless articles that have the same tone that I unfortunately don't have the time to pull up (I read most of my stuff on the law school forums so no sources on hand). We are still miles ahead of the condition the American legal market is in but that isn't saying much.


ASAD, could you shed some light on why you think Corporate Law is dying (or dead)?

I don't think Corporate Law is dying, or will ever be dead, but rather the market is over saturated. The recession of 2008 forced many corporate law firms in North America to cut their staff and there has not been a significant increase in the recovery of those positions since. This could be due to numerous reasons (i.e. outsourcing of certain legal services, increased efficiency from existing staff, shifting more work to paralegals, etc.). It could also mean that the legal market is laggard with the economic cycle (although that certainly wasn't the case in 2008) but I would be more willing to believe the former. Prior to the recession, there has been record number of lawyers in the Canada and US (this is not a recent phenomena, the over supply of lawyers has been a persistent issue in both countries before the recession). So the supply is greatly outstripping the declining demand.

Also, with the costs of law school starting to rise in Ontario to almost what T6 law schools in the USA charge; we can expect more law students seeking big law positions to repay their debts as quickly as possible. Even at the current tuition expenses, I don't think it is that far off to say that most law students at Osgoode/UofT are hoping to land big law positions. Consequently, the intense level of competition to land the few big law positions will likely become even greater. If you are thinking you can land a job at a big law firm just because you got into law school, you might want to think again.

HOWEVER, there could be a correction on hand. This year has a record decline in LSAT takers and in the US, there has been a 16% decline in law graduates. It could be that more people are noticing that law school is not a guaranteed ticket to a 6 figure income and are choosing other paths. What is most surprising (or not) is that the decline in LSAT takers is greatest not from people in the low percentile bracket but those in the higher percentile bracket. If we infer that the LSAT corresponds some level of intelligence and your success in law school, then we are seeing that the "smartest" people are seeking alternate career paths. Even if a correction is in progress (that is, a decline in the supply side), I think it it is going to take a while before it finally impacts the market though.

I would be happy to rant more on this subject but I have my LSAT this June 11th so I really can't spend much time discussing how crappy my career prospects are going to be until after :razz:.

[Quitco]

Hmm, anything in particular? Here are some articles that can shed some light on the outlook for the field of Law in general:

Ontario Law Grads can't find a firm to article for (8 days ago):



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/05/10/ottawa-law-schools-articling-positions-hard-to-find.html

Professional Class Bubble Bursting (April 28):



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

There are countless articles that have the same tone that I unfortunately don't have the time to pull up (I read most of my stuff on the law school forums so no sources on hand). We are still miles ahead of the condition the American legal market is in but that isn't saying much.



I don't think Corporate Law is dying, or will ever be dead, but rather the market is over saturated. The recession of 2008 forced many corporate law firms in North America to cut their staff and there has not been a significant increase in the recovery of those positions since. This could be due to numerous reasons (i.e. outsourcing of certain legal services, increased efficiency from existing staff, shifting more work to paralegals, etc.). It could also mean that the legal market is laggard with the economic cycle (although that certainly wasn't the case in 2008) but I would be more willing to believe the former. Prior to the recession, there has been record number of lawyers in the Canada and US (this is not a recent phenomena, the over supply of lawyers has been a persistent issue in both countries before the recession). So the supply is greatly outstripping the declining demand.

Also, with the costs of law school starting to rise in Ontario to almost what T6 law schools in the USA charge; we can expect more law students seeking big law positions to repay their debts as quickly as possible. Even at the current tuition expenses, I don't think it is that far off to say that most law students at Osgoode/UofT are hoping to land big law positions. Consequently, the intense level of competition to land the few big law positions will likely become even greater. If you are thinking you can land a job at a big law firm just because you got into law school, you might want to think again.

HOWEVER, there could be a correction on hand. This year has a record decline in LSAT takers and in the US, there has been a 16% decline in law graduates. It could be that more people are noticing that law school is not a guaranteed ticket to a 6 figure income and are choosing other paths. What is most surprising (or not) is that the decline in LSAT takers is greatest not from people in the low percentile bracket but those in the higher percentile bracket. If we infer that the LSAT corresponds some level of intelligence and your success in law school, then we are seeing that the "smartest" people are seeking alternate career paths. Even if a correction is in progress (that is, a decline in the supply side), I think it it is going to take a while before it finally impacts the market though.

I would be happy to rant more on this subject but I have my LSAT this June 11th so I really can't spend much time discussing how crappy my career prospects are going to be until after :razz:.

Why go in to law at all knowing what you know? You have already acknowledged that even some of the brightest would be lawyers are now foregoing law school for more lucrative fields and that the career prospects for law aren't very compelling. Obviously you must have your reasons and I'm sure they're good, I am just curious to know what they are.

[Troodon]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm going to just try for a JD for now. I'm going to do my CFA along with my JD so hopefully I'll have a more specialized skill set.

I am worried about the glut in lawyers. I've read articles from The Economist and the WSJ about the decreasing income for existing and future lawyers. Yet, that seems to be what's happening to most non-technical jobs. I'm really putting most of my eggs into finance and law. Let's just hope that the basket will hold.

[adamtheman]

Combined JD/MBA programs are not looked at in a very positive light by prospective employers. An MBA is generally intended for peple who have worked 5-8 years within the field they plan to use the MBA for. Therefore, the JD/MBA is fairly useless, because you won't be able to apply any of your experience as a lawyer towards the MBA. You'd be much better off taking the JD first, becoming a lawyer, then going back and doing an executive MBA 5 years later.

[Asad_A203]

Why go in to law at all knowing what you know? You have already acknowledged that even some of the brightest would be lawyers are now foregoing law school for more lucrative fields and that the career prospects for law aren't very compelling. Obviously you must have your reasons and I'm sure they're good, I am just curious to know what they are.

To be honest, I wish I could tell you a logical reason for wanting to go into law but I can't. It is something I wanted to do ever since I was a kid and not being able to accomplish it will likely resonate with me as a failure. I have looked at other career paths, like Medicine, but I really can't see myself pursuing them.

What I am planning to do is write the LSAT this June and then spend 2-3 years working (my undergrad is in Commerce like the OP; SCM/Finance) before I enroll in law school. My original aspirations were to enroll in UofT but the debt load is too much for me to bear, even though I think it is the best law program in the country and would be pretty excited if I ever was offered the chance to attend. I am now happy with the prospects of attending the local law school where: my TOTAL tuition will be less than what I can expect to pay for UofT in one year, I will receive a $25,000 tax credit from the Provincial Government, COL will be significantly less than what it would be in Toronto, and I might be eligible to enroll in the part-time program so I can still maintain employment. The other possible alternative is to attend a law school in Alberta, where the career prospects are much better than in Ontario and without the high tuition rates (and corporate law firms nearly pay the same as in Toronto).

The worse case scenario is the JD will offer zero career prospects and I will have lost $80-100k (factoring in economic costs). At best, maybe it will increase my earning potential and I could maybe crack partner at a corporate law firm some day (:lol:, very unlikely). The most likely scenario will be that my earning potential will be pretty similar to what I can earn right now, I could choose between pursuing a career in SCM or Law, and I could leverage the JD in a similar way that I could leverage an MBA for senior management positions (if the opportunities ever arise).

Edit: Here is a Law Prof's analysis of whether one should attend law school and I think it highlights some of what I mentioned earlier in my posts:


[L]aw school is a very risky (and expensive) investment; it should not be entered into lightly. However, as I have already mentioned, and worth repeating again, each potential student’s calculus will be based on a host of factors unique to him or her. For some, like an English major (relatively low opportunity costs) who gets some scholarship assistance (somewhat lower out-of-pocket costs) to attend Harvard Law School (relatively high pay-off), the investment in a legal education is almost surely a no-brainer. Moreover, even for individuals facing a more challenging calculus, it may be the case that a legal education confers benefits beyond the incremental compensation that I have used to analyze the pure investment decision. For example, a law degree opens up many more avenues of potential employment, including importantly self-employment, than does a typical undergraduate degree; lawyers are found in all parts of the workforce performing all manner of jobs. Does this imply, perhaps, that some option value should be added to a law degree’s payoffs? If so, how would one measure such option value? And lastly, of course, a law degree is a professional degree; it confers considerable prestige. But alas, as I first pointed out two years ago, you cannot eat prestige.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/11/schlunk-is-.html

[Abel4Life]

Combined JD/MBA programs are not looked at in a very positive light by prospective employers. An MBA is generally intended for peple who have worked 5-8 years within the field they plan to use the MBA for. Therefore, the JD/MBA is fairly useless, because you won't be able to apply any of your experience as a lawyer towards the MBA. You'd be much better off taking the JD first, becoming a lawyer, then going back and doing an executive MBA 5 years later.

I believe it depends case by case.

I have a friend doing the combined JD/MBA program and whom has work experience prior to and even during his education. Essentially he has more options then just someone with a JD with or without experience.