"buddy", any sophist can make sweeping cynical statements about legal industry, warts and all. but just because it sounds grand, it doesn't mean that the statement is profound, or that it is worth the pixels it's displayed on.

the prospective trainee who asked the question has already gotten his/her foot in the door by finishing law school and securing a tc. if they really came from a lower middle class family, they still somehow managed to make it work and secure funding through a bursary, scholarship, taking a loan, or working while studying.

they came here to ask about dealing with his financial situation in the *first month* of TC. fortunately, at least there's one guy helpful enough to give practical, actionable suggestions - which is what the trainee NEEDS. present tense, because he's already in the situation.

but no, because sinkie nvr pwn sinkie cannot sleep, let's punch down while we can, right? just peer down at them, dismiss them, and say "don't be poor, keep out of the legal industry if you're lower middle class". LOL. is this something you would tell your clients who come to take advice from you? to just roll over, show your belly, and die at the first sign of resistance as though it is already a lost cause?

nobody's questioning the "harsh truths" about the legal industry being a small industry, or that networking and connections are important. that much is already obvious who does their research, and neither is it surprising that there will be those who do climb the ladder by being sycophants and backstabbers. things like these happen everywhere, and the legal industry isn't special in that regard. it should also already be obvious that if someone doesn't already have those connections to begin with, they need to be prepared to deal with the bad hand, and put in the extra work to start from scratch, network, make sure they're known. it will be very difficult, and no one is owed any success, but are you seriously going to suggest that they should therefore just quit and not try anything at all?

it is another thing entirely to go out of your way to punch down on them and be a naysayer for it's own sake in the name of conveying these "hard truths". that's not even something that could be masked as teaching; that's just being a bully while talking out of the side of your mouth; it reflects poorly on you and puts you in the same class as those amoral types you sneer at. we can all agree that those "hard truths" are problematic, but that's an entirely separate issue altogether.

you don't have to be a jerk to be a realist. it isn't a dichotomy between being a cynic/"pragmatic" person who's seen all, and a wide-eyed idealist who knows nothing of the world. invoking some oppie names and lumping those ideas together in attempt to discredit them doesn't add any cogency to your point.