Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

No J.D.s, please

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/lgl /4591499731.html Anoth guyingorillasuit07/28/14
Is the assumption that JDs are going to try to take over the dupednontraditional07/28/14
I suspect this is a low wage position ($10-15 a hour) and th artvandelay07/28/14
I've been trying to figure this out for years. My read on i keithd07/28/14
I think it's the fear of flight combined with the possibilit onegin07/28/14
JD-Disadvantage job. I love the term, another JDU special. flatfee07/28/14
Someone should create a JDDisadvantageŽ blog collecting thes heythere07/28/14
I'm on it mrinfinity07/29/14
Nice. Keep us posted. elitttist07/29/14
This is a perfect JD-plus job for the right candidate. The chicagojoe07/28/14
A job opening requiring a two-year commitment AND being comp parlance07/28/14
Make you feel like snoopy, no dogs allowed. This is what get rising1l07/29/14
A side thought.... "Political and election law" and "prov qdllc07/29/14
This is not a side thought.. this is probably it and why als superttthero07/29/14
Great points in both posts. Sigh. Even in my 40's I'm stil dupednontraditional07/29/14
guyingorillasuit (Jul 28, 2014 - 3:08 pm)

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/lgl/4591499731.html

Another JD-disadvantage job posting (in the legal section of Craigslist):


"Law firm specializing in political and election law seeks detail-oriented person to provide daily client services and preparation of lobby and campaign disclosure reports for national client base. Extensive client contact. Computer literate with strong math, analytical and research skills. Work and/or academic background in politics/government/accounting preferred. Full time position. Minimum two year commitment required. Excellent benefits. AOA/EOE. Visit our website at www.nmgovlaw.com for an overview of our practice.

To apply for this position, please email us at: mwitting@nmgovlaw.com. The email subject line needs to read "Political Reporting Specialist 7/2014 -- San Rafael". A cover letter and resume should also be sent as attachments. Please do not paste them to the body of the email. No telephone calls. No J.D.'s please."

Reply Like (0)
dupednontraditional (Jul 28, 2014 - 4:32 pm)

Is the assumption that JDs are going to try to take over the firm, or something? Or lying about interest in the position so as to try to parley an attorney job? Frankly, I know a lot of JDs who could do a bang-up job on Excel number crunching, keeping the office organized, sending competent communications, etc. Hell, I have a "JD-Advantage" job already, and if I worked there I would want to do the actual job description.

Reply Like (0)
artvandelay (Jul 28, 2014 - 4:54 pm)

I suspect this is a low wage position ($10-15 a hour) and they know most JDs would not be content with the compensation. Notice the reference to a 2 year commitment. This has more to do with finding a loyal employee than it does with disdain for lawyers.

Reply Like (0)
keithd (Jul 28, 2014 - 4:55 pm)

I've been trying to figure this out for years. My read on it, from job interviews, from my interactions with non-attorneys at my government job (JD Preferred!), etc, is the following:

1) No one really likes lawyers. Lawyers are a rentier class that most people only go to when they need a service that they can't provide for themselves. Also, lawyers have the reputation for being richer than you, smarter than you, more powerful than you, or generally "above" you in some way, "you" being the general public. Plus, quite frequently, lawyers are personality disordered, risk averse, unpleasant people.

2) No one thinks a lawyer is going to stay at a non-legal job. The assumption is that you'll collect a paycheck and job hop the minute something better comes along.

3) Boomers. They universally think that all lawyers can get rich just by showing up. If you're applying for a 50k/yr JD Advantage job, then you must be a Loser. Some early Gen Xers think this as well, though from what I've heard, the truth is slowly getting out.

Reply Like (0)
onegin (Jul 28, 2014 - 5:04 pm)

I think it's the fear of flight combined with the possibility of hiring an obnoxious J.D. who will try to impress the partner at every chance by proffering legal opinions outside their assigned scope of work. A non-JD may just seem like a safe (and less annoying) bet.

Reply Like (0)
flatfee (Jul 28, 2014 - 5:56 pm)

JD-Disadvantage job. I love the term, another JDU special.

Reply Like (0)
heythere (Jul 28, 2014 - 8:28 pm)

Someone should create a JDDisadvantageŽ blog collecting these tidbits, complete with screenshots.

Reply Like (0)
mrinfinity (Jul 29, 2014 - 9:25 am)

I'm on it

Reply Like (0)
elitttist (Jul 29, 2014 - 12:03 pm)

Nice. Keep us posted.

Reply Like (0)
chicagojoe (Jul 28, 2014 - 8:05 pm)

This is a perfect JD-plus job for the right candidate. The fact that it appears CPA or a masters in social policy are advantages and a JD is a deal-breaker tells you everything you need to know about the value of a legal education.

If this job paid more than $35k, it would instantly be a better job than like 30% of the small firm jobs out there.

Reply Like (0)
parlance (Jul 28, 2014 - 9:50 pm)

A job opening requiring a two-year commitment AND being completely silent on compensation. Exercise care here.

Reply Like (0)
rising1l (Jul 29, 2014 - 9:38 am)

Make you feel like snoopy, no dogs allowed. This is what getting a jd makes you feel like.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzEgV5qJdc

Reply Like (0)
qdllc (Jul 29, 2014 - 10:01 am)

A side thought....

"Political and election law" and "provide daily client services and preparation of lobby and campaign disclosure reports for national client base" makes me wonder if they will have the hire do questionable things and rely on the top dog's "legal advice" to know if they can or can't do something.

In such a case, a person with a JD who knows how to read and interpret law for themselves might argue that what they are doing isn't legal and they don't want that. An ordinary person might think the law says they can't do it, but they can easily BS that person into believing they are reading the law wrong. Someone with a JD would know better.

For better or for worse, having a JD means we know things 99% of people DON'T know about how the law works. Unless we are willing to go along with what the plan is knowing it may be illicit or illegal, we may be seen as "legal killjoys" in the plan.

Reply Like (0)
superttthero (Jul 29, 2014 - 12:21 pm)

This is not a side thought.. this is probably it and why also a lot of the debt counseling/collections, mortgage refinancing, and low-end bankruptcy, immigration, and injury firms do not want JDs.

Reply Like (0)
dupednontraditional (Jul 29, 2014 - 2:07 pm)

Great points in both posts. Sigh. Even in my 40's I'm still naive, apparently.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread