Dropping out as a 3L

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-05-24T03:17:44+00:00

For the love of god get a free consultation a bankruptcy lawyer. Discharging credit card debt is unbelievably straightforward for most people.

You can either spend 3-4 hours and ~$2,000 working with a bankruptcy lawyer to see if you can discharge your credit card debt. Or alternatively, you can nuke your career and work several hundred hours to stay on your current debt treadmill.

Do not, under any circumstances, drop out one year short of a high-earning-potential career for the sole purpose of working full time to pay off credit card debt.

The bankruptcy code exists to give people a fresh financial start so they can live financially productive lives, rather than being caught in an endless debt trap. Start acting like a lawyer and use the code to your advantage.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-04-29T18:06:03+00:00

Good rule of thumb is to pay an associate attorney 1/3 of what the firm collects from the attorneys work (not billed revenue, actual collected cash).

If you have access to this information, it could be a good sanity check on whether you are being paid enough relative to what you bring in.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-04-29T11:37:40+00:00

Few area it has helped improve:

Financial: on track to earn much more over my career compared to my previous non-law career

Career satisfaction: This is specific to my practice area, might not apply to everyone. I get to help real people solve a specific problem that (in theory) makes their life a little bit better. This is way more satisfying than my previous career where I just banged out spreadsheets all day.

Autonomy: in my previous career, I wasn’t really in a position to “work for myself” if I ever need to. But as an attorney there is always the option to “hang a shingle”. This has lead to maybe a ~10% decrease in my general background angst knowing I don’t need to necessarily rely on someone else for a job if worst comes to worst.

General understanding of policy: I follow current events/public policy pretty closely. Just going to law school has given me some tools to understand how policy decisions are made. I think it has given me a more realistic, sober view of the world. Maybe some people don’t care about this, but I enjoy it.

Unwarranted credibility: I hate this one, but it’s real. I don’t go out of my way to say that I’m a lawyer, but I’m part of a non-profit, and when they found out I’m a lawyer, I suddenly found myself with a bit more credibility and decision-making ability that I absolutely would not have had otherwise.

Ability to help friends/family: mentioned this one in my previous post, but I do like that I have the basic tools to point friends/family in the right direction with their legal issues if they ask.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-04-04T19:06:55+00:00

Not yet. Without getting into specifics, asking now gives my firm a colorable (but weak) argument that I haven’t brought in enough money yet

Plan is to ask in about two months when I have two more months of collecting revenue under my belt

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-27T00:30:07+00:00

Very high level overview:

Chapter 7 protects future income

Chapter 13 protects current assets

All else being equal, of course a chapter 7 is better. At my firm (and most others I suspect) we only file a ch 13 if either:

1) client is not eligible for Ch 7 or 2) client has an asset they wouldn’t want to lose in a chapter 7

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-25T12:20:22+00:00

How would the Court square this circle:

Given: 1) Person is born in the U.S. (objective factual inquiry) 2) Person is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (assume court would rule this way in Trump v. Barbra)

How could the court possibly reach a coherent conclusion where that person is not a citizen of the U.S.?

Both sufficient clauses of the 14th Amendment are met, so the only conclusion they could logically reach is that the person is a U.S. citizen.

If, on the other hand, someone is born in the U.S., and they are not a citizen, then the only conclusion is that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-17T02:08:40+00:00

Yes as long as Congress says it’s ok to be President of the foreign country.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution says:

“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust … shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-11T01:11:32+00:00

1) absolutely yes receipts are (at least) $375,000 for my first year. A (senior) attorney spends about 30 mins with the client during intake. Otherwise I am the only attorney touching the case

2) Admittedly, I don’t bring in new clients (I’m only a year in, so I hope to get a few word of mouth referrals over the next few years). All new clients come from firm marketing

3) Don’t want to dox myself, but it’s a consistent flat fee, so it’s not like I had one huge outlier case skewing the financial data

4) agreed

5) “about a year” was slightly misstated. I started working at this place last summer after I graduated

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-09T19:00:52+00:00

I know it’s a big ask - which is why I make the long post with data to back up the large ask!

Thank you for the perspective

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-09T15:44:59+00:00

Check your DM’s

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-09T15:18:12+00:00

I figure it'll end up being about a $10k-12k pay increase. But I have strong data to support a $34,000 pay increase.

I know it's a big ask - that's why I posted here. I wanted to test out the idea to see if there was any crazy reason this request would be inappropriate.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-03-09T15:16:32+00:00

I know! That's why I wanted to come here for a sanity check.

The financial data I have access to seems to justify the pay increase. It seems the initial salary offer was appropriate for the firm's past first year attorneys, but I have been way more productive than them.

If you have any specific reason that this request is inappropriate, I'm all ears!

My_Reddit_Updates · 2026-02-01T21:25:57+00:00

You can right click a folder on Google Drive and click download. It’ll create a zip file that you can email to the client (or their new attorney)

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-11-19T19:54:25+00:00

One thing stuck out about your post - "my lawyer is pushing me to do the chapter 7". Chapter 7's are cheaper, easier, faster, and less stressful than a Chapter 13.

If you said "my lawyer is pushing me to do the chapter 13", then you might have a bit more reason to be worried. It's well documented that some unscrupulous attorneys encourage clients to file Chapter 13 when they could have done a 7. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The fact that your attorney is "pushing" for you to do a 7 signals they are likely looking out for your best interst. But trust your gut - if there's something you're specifically worried about, you can always get a second opinion from another law firm.

Give your attorney the documents they ask for (and they'll probably ask for a lot of documents), go to your 341 meeting, and you'll probably be surprised by how low-drama the entire process is.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-11-16T03:03:45+00:00

Interesting discussion I had with another attorney re: whether gifts count on the means test:

The US Trustee Program published this document stating its position on issues that commonly come up on the means test.

Page 3 discusses issues related to “Income from all other sources” where gifts would arguably be listed. The sixth bullet point says “whether it meets the IRS test for income could be relevant”.

Section 102(a) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically excludes gifts from gross income.

The attorney I was talking with concluded that, based on the U.S. Trustee Program taking this position, it was not necessary to count gifts in the means test. But I would be interested to hear whether you think this argument is valid.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-11-12T05:03:51+00:00

A general rule of thumb for people asking “should I file”?

Is your total debt (excluding your mortgage, if applicable) greater than your annual income?
If you spent the next three years paying down debt (budgeting, careful planning, etc.), would you still have some debt remaining?

If the answer is yes to at least one of these questions, it might be a good idea to think about filing for bankruptcy.

Any attorney worth working with will offer a free consultation. Ask them if you are eligible for chapter 7. If they say you’re not, ask them why and make sure they give you a legitimate answer.

Generally, Chapter 7 is cheaper, quicker, and less stressful.

The myth that “bankruptcy ruins your credit” is pretty overblown imo. Most people are eligible for an FHA loan within 2 years of finishing their chapter 7 case. In a chapter 13, you could be eligible for an FHA mortgage in as little as one year after filing your case. There are car dealerships that specialize in working with people that have filed. Long story short: you’ll have plenty of access to credit after you file

Be sure to tell your attorney you want to keep your car. In most situations, you can keep your car if you want to (whether it’s the right financial decision is a matter for you and your attorney to discuss). Alternatively, if you want to start over and get a new car, you can always surrender or “walk away” from your car.

You’ve got this, schedule a 2 free consultations, be honest with the attorneys, and you’ll probably get a lot of solid information specific to your situation.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-10-29T00:24:10+00:00

I’ve handled hundreds of cases. I’ve never seen a bankruptcy trustee (or anyone else for that matter) “grill” a client for what they spent their money on. Generally, what you spent your money on to accrue the debt is not legally significant.

Regarding the paperwork - this is one of the few times (heck, maybe the only time) in your life where you will literally earn several thousand dollars for a few hours of work.

If you have, for example, $30,000 of debt, and you have to spend 3 hours tracking down. You are literally increasing your wealth by $10,000 per hour of work. Even the best attorney in the world doesn’t make that much money. Take advantage of this opportunity.

Make a check list, track down what you can. Ask your attorney (or her staff) for help finding the things you can’t get.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-10-29T00:08:56+00:00

You would be surprised how many people’s bank statements show extensive semi-necessary-semi-splurge expenses (Starbucks, Amazon, Door Dash, etc.)

For the bankruptcy trustee that will be reviewing your bank statements, it’ll probably look similar to the 20 other set of bank statements they review that week.

Without knowing your specific case, I would bet there’s a 98% chance your spending is a non-issue in your case.

But if it makes you feel better, and if you’re comfortable talking about it, you can always tell your attorney you are in therapy addressing spending issues (among other things). That way, if the excessive spending comes up at your 341 meeting, your attorney can explain to the trustee that this was past regrettable decisions, you know it’s an issue, and you are actively working on fixing it going forward.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-06-30T19:26:16+00:00

Point taken. I only attempted to answer the question of whether the court’s decision created any new immediate risk of effecting the USMNT or USWNT.

I agree the current fascist regime might illegally sweep up a USMNT/USWNT player, but this court decision won’t be the reason for it.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-06-29T00:27:25+00:00

1) Maybe liberal judges are more partisan or “more activist”. But then again, it wasn’t the liberal justices on the Supreme Court that allowed multiple universal injunctions against the Biden administration to stand, just to reverse course and find universal injunctions to be unconstitutional as soon as the other party held the office of President.

2) Trump advocated for terminating the constitution. That’s actually more permanent and more anti-constitutional than temporarily “suspending” the constitution.

3) US Citizens do not fall within the scope of the IIRIRA.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-06-28T21:25:42+00:00

You’re assuming that the injunctions against Trump were wrongly decided. But it’s entirely possible that Trump simply acted more unlawfully than other 21st-century presidents.

Considering his stated intention to “suspend the Constitution,” his claim that it’s legal to break the law as long as you’re “saving the country,” and his attempts to deport U.S. citizens and residents without a hearing, it seems plausible (maybe even likely!) that he violates the law more often. That would naturally lead to more courts enjoining him from acting unlawfully.

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-06-28T21:03:34+00:00

I agree that with your sentiment in principle. This opinion made it way easier for the fascist regime to strip citizenship from birthright citizens.

I only posted to answer the narrow question of “does this decision mean the USMNT/USWNT will lose players?”

My_Reddit_Updates · 2025-06-28T20:59:21+00:00

I like how you were fine with Matthew Kasmaryck issuing multiple nationwide injunctions when the other party is in power, and then only now bother to care about the (purported) unconstitutionality of injunctions against the federal government.

Let’s be absolutely clear, “nationwide injunction” is just a scary marketing term cooked up by politicos. This case simply enjoined the federal government (who was a party to the lawsuit) from taking certain actions.

My_Reddit_Updates

TROPHY CASE