That financial guy is smarmy: "You can’t get through law school being an idiot. " Lies! I knew a ton of them.

Re: Michael Mukasey.

He already obviously has the connections to make serious coin as a lawyer, so the "revolving door" rationale doesn't seem to apply. Hence....

Power is still the best aphrodisiac.

"Are you a young lawyer looking for financial advice? Check this out."

Decent stuff. Though he misses some biggies.

Put your money in your 401k. A lot of people don't do this. The nice thing about a 401k is that, after a couple of months, you're used to your "reduced" paycheck.

Plus, depending on your student loan, you're making money. First, you're saving at least 25% in state and federal income taxes. (Though deferring might be a better word.) Second, even high private loans rarely go above 12.5%. A good mutual fund will usually beat that rate. And when you factor in the money you're earning in the meantime, you'll make more by investing in a mutual fund that would make paying the loans down quicker.

Also, if you're a "contract lawyer," get a 1099, take all of your tax deductions (including car depreciation), and also contribute to a self-employed 401k:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/home/account_types/small_business_retirement?src=mzd
Contributions to a self-employed 401k are tax deductible.

Finally, pay off the higher interest loans first. My wife and I have a lot of money owed in federal Stafford loans. The rate is at 3.35% or something. We are obviously paying interest-only on those. We have some others varying from 7.5-11.5%. So we are attacking the higher rate loans first.

This is an obvious point to people who know. But as the linked-to fellow noted: Many lawyers don't know, and much worse, they don't know what they don't know.

Re: the money book
Great topic. It should be an ABA mandated requirement for every tier 2 law school’s orientation. Unfortunately, its ideas are out of touch, weak, and lacking.
1. Put 1-2% into a 401k? First of all a lot of small firms don’t even have medical plans! Forget 401k plans. Granted I could accomplish the same thing via an IRA, but the author seems out of touch.
2. Consolidating and spreading out your loans over 30 years is not a good idea. People who are good with money pay off their debt. That was the whole point of rich dad poor dad, for example. Debt is bad. Unfortunately, for us tier 2 grads, the 30 year repayment plan is the only option. Paying back six figures of debt over 10 years, on a $50,000 salary, is just not possible.
3. “But you’ve lost all sense of being practical.” No I haven’t. I’m always looking for ways to scrimp. Sallie Mae isn’t a joke and she needs her monthly check. For example, there’s no chance in hell I’m paying for your book.
4. “They want to buy the suit, get the car, the house.” *annoyed stare*
5. His book is most lacking, however, because it misses the most simple and effective way to deal with law school debt. Don’t incur it, unless you’re going to make enough to pay it off! When some sleazy tier 2 law school sends you a brochure, promising you a great job in exchange for $36,000 a year, burn it. Better yet, send it to the ABA and complain of deception and fraud. Speaking from experience, three grueling years at one of these institutions will get you no where. I’m top 25% and I have nothing to look forward to at graduation, nothing but a miserable $50,000 small firm job.
Speaking of which, today I learned another example of my school’s continued deception. You see, anytime a Loyola prof. is mentioned in the news, they put it on the front of their website. Earlier this week, the website had a link to the WSJ article on tier 2 law schools. It said, “News: Dean David Burcham was quoted in the Wall Street Journal on job prospects for law school graduates.” Now that reference is gone. It has been replaced with an older story. This is subtle, but telling. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the deans found out some poor secretary had linked that article.

Loyola2L: You make some good points, but please elaborate on this statement: "People who are good with money pay off their debt. That was the whole point of rich dad poor dad, for example."

Hypo: John B. Grad has about 100K in loans that are at 3.25% interest:

JBG has 500 a month to spend. The interest from the loan is, say, 275 a month.

Should JBG:
a) Spend the entire 500 serving his student loan debt. I.e., pay 200 towards the interest and 300 towards the principle?
b) Invest that 300 in a diversified mutual fund?

Please explain your answer.

I think I already know what you'll say, so let me run some numbers for you.

Let's say you have $100,000. You could pay off the entire loan. You could also invest the money.

If you took that money invested that money in bonds (a very low volatility investment), you would have earned about $5,000 at the end of the year.

If you took that money and paid off your student loan, you would have saved $3,250 (the interest you would have paid that year).

By paying your loan instead of investing, you actually cost yourself money.

Granted, we're not factoring in taxes or a mutual fund fee. But we're also assuming a 5% gain - which is a dubious assumption.

Sometimes not paying your debt off quickly is the smartest move you can make. Just don't use that to rationalize a car purchase - a sucker's move. Instead, invest the money in a diversified fund.

Yes you're not factoring in taxes or expenses, and a 5% annual return is fantasy land over the last 7 years stock market. And you're using a very low interest rate, and forgetting the risk that the loan could put you into bankruptcy in the future, say if you lose your job. Any way, whatever re: your "say you have $100,000 lying around hypo," as yours is a rich man's problem.

The most important point, is that you shouldn't go into debt unless you're investing in something worth that amount of money. Something other than a tier 2 legal education. How Loyola Law School has the nerve to charge $36,000 a year, when 40% of their graduates are unemployed, and most make small firm salaries, I'll never know.

Foxnews tackled the law firm recruiting video issue this weekend, leading with that old Jenkins & Gilchrest non-recruiting video ... but no Lat commentating? What gives?

Pretty funny that Mukasey for all his stature and connections still only made as much as a 2nd-year Wachtell partner or a 4th-year partner at Cravath.