The salary is *technically* not bad.

Compared to other industries, law is still very decent for a young sub-30-something, as the payscale above shows. Even after adding the +1 year qualification period (meaning you're still on a bar allowance/trainee pay for 1 year as a trainee lawyer until you qualify), compared to other industries where you earn full pay straightway assuming you get your full-time job right out of uni.

The issue is tt law attracts the brighter, more ambitious people. These guys have friends (say from RJC, HC, ACSI) who are also high flyers in non-law fields, and that's the league they compare themselves against. It quickly becomes clear that the quality of life & long hours makes law a pretty poor career proposition, from an effort-to-reward POV.

Of course the sentiment will be different if the typical law grad benchmarks himself against a poly or neighbourhood school grad who barely made it to one of the less sought-after local uni courses and comes out getting a fresh corporate grad job earning $3500. In that case, law salary seems great. But that's not the circles the law grad mixes with.

In your case, a JD is a most unwise proposition unless you're independently wealthy. When you qualify, you would be 34 years old. Few questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Are you OK with earning the same as a 26 y/o or 24 y/o (for girls). All junior roles start off at a uniform band. No premium for being a "mature" entrant. A JD isn't an MBA.
2. Will you be taking on debt to finance the JD?
3. Are you OK with the cost of JD and opportunity cost of 4 years' earnings?
4. What would be your expected pay increase if you remained in your current career in 4 years?