Susan777

Hey, Sakky.

I think we agree on the basics, and I feel like you're arguing now just to argue. But whatever. I simply noted that your statement was, in fact, exaggeration/hyperbole, because there may in fact be other readers here who don't realize that. (Again, I agree with your general thesis.) As others have stated, even an fairly lowbrow intellect like Edwards can make more in one case than the $2.5 million a year of a mid-level I-banker. But yes, most I-bankers make more than most lawyers, and someone purely concerned with money would be better served going into that field (or, to be honest, many basic sales positions. I know someone without a high-school degree who made more than most attorneys peddling copy sales.)

The one point where I feel you're really stretching is is your further discussion of lawyer vs. entrepreneur. You now proceed to argue that since business skills are necessary to run your own solo firm, then it doesn't really qualify as being a attorney. This is, as I think pretty much every objective person will agree, simply silly. The truth is, you do need to be a successful businessman, generally, to be a successful attorney, especially if you start your own practice. This is hardly surprising. Sometimes, you need to be a successful salesman. If you're a trial lawyer, you may need to be a successful actor at times. Does this mean that you're not really being an attorney at those times? No, it simply means that being a successful attorney requires all kinds of different market skills. (The same could be said of a doctor or advertising executive who opens up his own practice/firm.) In any profession, people who go out on their own will tend to make more money if they're successful, and being successful generally requires various business and people skills.

(Investors, of course, also need to be sales people, if they want to convince people to invest in certain ways. And they also probably need to know certain legal rules as they proceed. Doesn't mean they're not investors or bankers.)

In terms of the other issue, I, personally was simply talking about "making" that much money. Whether you go by gross earnings or net profits, the bottom line is that the people getting huge verdicts and settlements are clearly making more than most I-bankers, mid-level or otherwise.

On the other hand, if we're going to use the "involved with deals" logic that you apply, then every cent of the tobacco settlement, etc., must be considered money money "made" by the attorney. (Neither analogy makes much sense, of course.)

Will the average I-banker come out on top of the average lawyer? Quite likely. This was never at issue.

In terms of the "related-knowledge" issue -- I'll happily agree that Buffet is a member of the subset of investors, generally speaking, just as lawyers that use their knowledge making billions in other areas (beyond strict litigation and counseling) are a subset of attorneys, generally speaking. Investors/financial types generally make more than almost anyone else in society, with attorneys (on average) further down the line, but ahead of most folks.

I think your main point is that attorneys who are employed by firms, whether partners or otherwise, really aren't all that loaded in comparison with people in other areas. I completely agree. Anyone who's a true financial whore and makes "Biglaw Partner" their ideal is probably misguided. Most partners, even at the largest firms, probably make under a million a year. My only point is that there are some areas where attorneys can in fact make "real" money, and one nice thing about those areas is that they're not school or grade specific.