Many UES members have gone into the legal profession, including myself. Here’s an interesting note of some importance for UESers and non-UESers alike from the very popular blog Overlawyered:
The market currently reflects a private-public pay gap reflecting the fact that public jobs are generally considered to have better working conditions and that private-sector law firms need to offer substantially higher pay to encourage attorneys to work there. If the government is providing thousands of dollars of loan subsidies to government and non-profit attorneys, the private sector will need to raise its salaries to continue to compete, some of which will be swallowed by the partners, but most will be swallowed by the clients, who, increasingly facing bet-the-company litigation, have inelastic demand for top law firms. Too, as attorney salaries increase, and loans are subsidized by the government, law schools will be empowered to extract some of that surplus by raising tuition. Winners: most attorneys, law school employees, and some clients of non-profits. Losers: taxpayers, clients, partners at non-top-tier firms.
exactly what about the working conditions are supposed to make public jobs better than private ones? i ask because i’ve heard from a lot of government lawyers, and if anything unites them, it’s that they all feel they’re underpaid and overworked.
is there some reason to think the public sector shouldn’t be allowed to compete for the best quality legal services? i’ve had a similar conversation with friends about the military. they would say the money we spend recruiting troops is a boondoggle. but if you want the best of the best defending us, don’t you have to compensate them fairly?
The answer to the first question is contained within the excerpt. The answer to your second question is no and the article doesn’t suggest otherwise.
i wouldn’t have asked the first question if i saw the answer in the excerpt…