New Lawyers Put Off Kids, Home Ownership Due to Crushing Student Debt
The American Bar Association surveyed more than 1,000 new lawyers, and found that they owed an average $160,000 in student loans. That hefty debt is influencing their career paths and life decisions.
July 28, 2020 at 12:01 AM
4 minute read
It turns out that getting hitched, having kids, and buying a house lose some of their appeal when you're saddled with upward of $100,000 in student loans.
A recent survey of new lawyers by the American Bar Association quantifies the widespread impact that educational debt is having on the life decisions they make, from the jobs they take to whether and when they start a family. More than half of the survey respondents—56%—said they had postponed the decision to buy a house or opted to forgo buying altogether as a result of their debts. And 29% said they had either decided to postpone getting married or not get married because of debt. When it comes to having a children, 48% said their debt prompted them to delay that or decide to not have children altogether.
"Participants said heavy student loan debt is affecting virtually every aspect of their lives," reads the debt portion of the ABA's 2020 Profile of the Legal Profession, which includes data on everything from lawyer and judge demographics to the distribution of lawyers across the U.S.
The ABA's Young Lawyers Division surveyed nearly 1,100 attorneys who are in the early stages of their career to gather data on debt and the impact it has on their lives. The respondents reported a median educational debt load of $160,000—a figure that includes any debt from undergraduate degrees. The U.S. Department of Education's most recent national average debt figure for law graduates was $145,500, from 2016. The Education Department is due to release an updated figure later this year. Among all law school graduates, 71% took out educational loans in 2016, which is down from 92% in 2008.
Among the ABA survey respondents, 40% said their current debt load is actually higher than it was when they first graduated—meaning they aren't able to pay down their debt as fast as it's growing due to interest. Approximately one-quarter of the survey respondents provided open-ended responses about the shadow that educational debt has cast on their lives.
"There was an underlying theme of unhappiness, frustration and fear stemming from loan burdens," the report reads. "Many mentioned issues with mental health, and some cited depression. Others mentioned an inability to save for the future or retirement, as well as difficult choices related to healthcare for themselves or their family."
And Black and Hispanic lawyers on average have even higher educational loan burdens than their white peers—a phenomenon other researches have highlighted in recent years. About two-thirds of the Black lawyers who responded to the ABA's survey said their loan balances are higher now than when then graduated law school.
Student loan debt is also influencing the career paths of many new attorneys. Among the survey respondents, 37% said they chose a job that paid more over a job they actually wanted. And 17% said they opted for a job that qualifies for student loan forgiveness over a preferred option. (The federal government's Public Service Loan Forgiveness program forgives the remaining student loan balance for those in qualifying public service positions after 10 years.)
More than half of the survey respondents—58%—said they postponed or decided not to take a vacation because of their loan debt, while 46% said they decided not to buy a car or postponed a car purchase due to their loans.
Despite those heavy average debt burdens, legal education lands in the middle of the pack in terms of the cost of financing an advanced degree. Education Department figures show that the average law school graduate who borrows money to pay for school owes less than those who borrowed for medical school and other health science doctorates. But they tend to owe more than those with Ph.D.s in most fields.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readClass Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250