Although reliable recent data is somewhat difficult to find, according to the American Bar Association, the average law school student graduated with between $84,600 and $122,158 in student loans in 2012. In 2016, 69% of law school students graduated with student debt, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Given the increasing cost of law school, these numbers are likely growing. That fact, coupled with the challenges of trying to launch a career in the wake of the Great Recession, has made carrying substantial debt a fact of life for many in our profession.

In theory, this burden could have a profound impact on young attorneys' career choices, affecting how they choose a job and whether they stay in a position. In the private sector, debt could cause young lawyers to seek firm jobs with high salaries and large bonuses and stay in those positions until they have paid off their loans or have paid off enough to feel comfortable transitioning to another job. Firm lawyers might change firms, or switch practice groups, but would be unlikely to make any more significant changes until they have tackled their loans.

Different challenges might exist in the public sector. Young lawyers who take advantage of current loan forgiveness programs may be able to get the flexibility on the front end to enter the profession as public servants, but only if they qualify for that relief. Further, because the most common programs require 10 years' worth of income-based repayments in the public sector, lawyers who choose this path may be similarly constricted when it comes to making career transitions on the back end, perhaps even more so than their private sector peers. Many public servants make only modest payments on their loans, creating a drastic difference between the complete forgiveness that occurs at 10 years of service and the complete absence of forgiveness after nine years of service.

We surveyed attorneys to find out if these theories are true. Do student loans bind both private and public sector employees from making significant changes in their careers, such as crossing the private/public sector line or transitioning to nontraditional legal careers or nonlegal business opportunities? The topic has particular salience of late, with two presidential candidates proposing plans to increase the amount and scope of available loan forgiveness. Our survey asked young lawyers how those proposals would affect their career trajectories, if at all. The results were surprising.

The Plans

The two proposals we surveyed come from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts.

Sanders' plan, announced through a proposed bill in June, would have far-reaching effects. The plan would cancel all of the existing student loan debt in the country, which amounts to roughly $1.6 trillion. Loan forgiveness would apply to everyone with a student loan, regardless of their income, type of loan or degree sought. The limitation on this plan is that it formally applies only to federally guaranteed student loans; for private loans, the secretary of education would have temporary authority to purchase and then forgive the loans during a fixed period of time. Any loan forgiveness would be tax-deductible.

Warren's plan, announced in April, is more modest, designed to provide relief only to less-wealthy student loan borrowers. Under her plan, individuals with under $100,000 in household income could obtain up to $50,000 in student loan relief. For individuals earning between $100,000 and $250,000, the amount of forgiveness would decrease by $1 for every $3 earned over $100,000. Individuals who earn over $250,000 would not be eligible for relief.

The Impact

For indebted lawyers, Sanders' plan would improve quality of life, but many would stay in their current jobs. In considering the clean-slate approach to student loans proposed by Sanders, responding young attorneys with student loans were split into two camps. Somewhat unsurprisingly, several attorneys said that, if their loans were forgiven, they would immediately make a career change. Some talked about transitioning to public service, but, interestingly, many of the respondents said they would consider far more drastic changes, including those taking them away from the practice of law entirely, into fields such as teaching, moving to a nonlegal role at a company, getting involved in the entertainment industry or opening a new business. One attorney suggested he would leave his current position to start his own legal practice. In short, the people who were most eager to leave their current positions also seemed to be the ones most eager to leave the law generally—either because they did not enjoy practicing or because they had an entrepreneurial streak.

But, surprisingly, the majority of the private-sector respondents with student debt told us that complete loan forgiveness would not significantly affect their career trajectory. While they would be financially more secure and less stressed without their loans, they would stay at their current jobs because they believe them to be the types of positions that young lawyers should be in. Put another way, according to our respondents, the stereotype of the young lawyers counting the days until they pay off their loans and are released from their Big Law sentences is probably overstated. Even with all loans completely forgiven, many attorneys would stay at Big Law firms. The evidence suggests young attorneys are choosing Big Law for reasons other than paying off loans—to learn from great lawyers, to be a part of cases bigger than those they could secure on their own, to make connections with clients who are industry leaders and so on. And, of course, paying off debt is not the only reason people want to make money; many young lawyers would choose high-paying jobs even without debt.

Young attorneys in the public sector also fell into this group. They were drawn to their positions by a combination of early-career experience, sustainable lifestyle and the opportunity to do good. Even if their debt were wiped away, they would continue in their current roles.

For those still in debt, the Warren plan would have little impact. By contrast, almost all indebted respondents reported that Warren's plan would not have much impact on their career trajectories. With many law school graduates holding six-figure debts at graduation, it is logical that many reported that the benefit of such a plan would be tangible but not career-altering. Many young lawyers also reported that the income caps would preclude them from any loan forgiveness under this plan. With current market Big Law salaries eclipsing the $250,000 limit for associates in their third year without any other income in their household, at least one large cohort of lawyers would see little loan relief under this plan.

For many who have already paid off their debt, however, loan forgiveness would have changed everything. Those in the enviable position of already having paid off their loans were largely nostalgic for the career that got away. While a minority of these respondents reported that their careers would have been substantially the same with or without loan forgiveness, most said both the Sanders and Warren plans would have dramatically impacted their career paths.

For these attorneys, the path not taken began before 1L year. The price tag of attending law school varies enormously between schools. In 2018-19, the average tuition and fees for in-state public school was approximately $21,500, less than half the average cost of a private law school ($49,095), and about one-third of the average cost of some of the most prestigious schools (over $60,000). The cost of law school and the expected salary after graduation, influenced these attorneys' choices of which law school to attend, or whether to attend at all. As one respondent explained, "I likely would have … attended a different law school if I knew that my loans would have been forgiven."

Even more respondents reported that their debt shaped the jobs they chose out of law school and whether they stayed in those jobs. Most said they would have been less constrained in their employment decisions without debt. For example, one respondent reported, "I would have been more open-minded about firms paying below-market bonuses and salaries." Another said, "Had [my student loans] been forgiven, I would have given myself more choices regarding which firm to work at (I chose a Big Law firm), or the sector (considering government or nonprofit)." Warren's proposal "might have made being at a smaller law firm or government position and making less than $100,000 seen more like the optimal choice." Another attorney said, "Coming out of law school, I did eliminate job opportunities, such as assistant district attorney … that were known to pay less," and "if my debt was eliminated, it may have widened my job search in terms of salary range and public service job opportunities."

Others reported that debt forgiveness would have opened an entirely new career. As one attorney told us, "I am not sure I would still have become an attorney had all my loan debt been forgiven, but I certainly would have spent less time, if at all, in private practice." For that attorney, even Warren's more modest plan "would likely have accelerated my exit from private practice." Another said they might have "opted out of the legal profession altogether" had they not been saddled with debt.

Ultimately, we found that for those looking back through the sliding doors, there appears to be a general perspective that student loan debt shaped their careers, at least in part. But lawyers currently paying off their law school debt appear to be more certain that they are where they currently want to be.

The views expressed here are personal to the authors and do not represent the opinions of their employers.

Board members: Aaron Swerdlow; Alex Tarnow; Andrea Guzman; Andrew Warner; Aydin Bonabi; Bess Hinson; Blair Kaminsky; Brianna Howard; Brooke Anthony; Emily Stedman; Emma Walsh; Garrett Ordower; Geoffrey Young; Holly Dolejsi; Ji Hye You; Kevin Morse; Kyle Sheahen; Lauren Doyle; Nicole Gutierrez; Quynh Vu; Rakesh Kilaru; Sakina Rasheed Foster; Sara Harris; Shishene Jing; Tamara Bruno; Tim Fitzmaurice; Trisha Rich; and Wyley Proctor.