I am a first year grad student and have been flirting with the idea of getting my law degree either right after I get my MArch or a couple years down the road. Would the addition of a Law degree be appealing to a large firm and would it be worth the time to do?
It would probably have some (not a lot) of "value', but you won't get compensated for it. An architectural firm doesn't practice law, so how could they bill out your time as a lawyer? Make up your mind which profession you want to be in. Can't do both. My advice: skip MArch, get a law degree, and make an actual living (now there's a concept).
you guys don't know what you're talking about. having a degree in architecture, or civil engineering, or project management, is an excellent asset when your intention is to enter the field of construction law. many law firms that deal with construction/development related disputes look for backgrounds in these things.
i would encourage you, mikeyjoe23, to network with nearby law firms that do such work, and ask the attornies there.
jk3hl: The poster was asking (I think) if a law degree would mean anything to an architectural firm. It doesn't sound like he intends to practice construction law. Yes, if he goes the law route the architecture degree would have value to the law firm. I still wouldn't bother with the Masters. One architectural degree is enough if it allows him to sit for the test.
The CA director of our architecture firm is a lawyer/ architect. He reviews all contracts, protects us from CA debacles and is a valuable resource for the entire firm. I think you ought to focus on one path immediately and incorporate the other down the road once you've developed a strong foundation in the first.
How would a law degree matter to an architectural firm, when an architectural degree doesn't even matter to an architectural firm? I say skip the Arch Degree altogether. Just make sure you go learn Revit and several of the 3D modeling software packages. That's the only thing that will allow you to be employed (ie. billable for an architect).
America in general needs to get over the notion that if you collect enough degrees, employability and earnings will surely follow. If you go deeper in debt for additional schooling without some game plan, you will just increase your frustration level when it doesn't pay off. Learning can be done--arguably much better--by reading, reading, reading. Be self taught and save yourself the student debt burden.
Our professional practice prof at the GSD, Jay Wickersham, has an architecture degree as well as a law degree, and represents many architects in his (LAW) practice, including many of our local professors. He seems to do quite well for himself.
The largest architecture firms probably also retain their own in-house counsel (this only seems logical to me, but can anyone confirm this?)
But to work in this capacity, you'd have to article and become a lawyer with some experience, not just get a law degree. Just having a law degree to work in an architecture firm doesn't seem very useful for anything except increasing your debt. :(
Everyone knows that getting TWO overpriced degrees is like a job-cannon that will blast you off into the job-land. So put on your job-helmet and hop in!
I LOVE all of these responses and think they are all pretty correct. on the fence, yours made me LOL, as did NOTrusty's of course.
mikeyjoe, please be aware that a law degree is not longer the golden egg-laying goose it once was. Law grads are getting more jobs than architecture, but not by much.
My aunt works at a library and is reviewing applicants for a low paid entry level position. She told me the applicants with advanced degress in law and architecture that want this position is mind-blowing. Just a reality check here. Please be careful out there! Maybe work a little bit before making the leap to make sure it is really something that will work for you and the market!
as mentioned already, a law degree just doesn't have the value it once had. Law school struggles along with architecture school in that you don't learn any practical skills to actually practice. In my opinion, if you want to do law - any kind of law - you gotta pursue it aggressively and devote a good amount of time to develop your skills; only THEN you'd be an asset to an architecture/construction firm...
Wow. Im really surprised at the negative responses I am seeing here. I worked for a few years in London for Allies and Morrison which is a pretty good size (and well published) firm. We had a woman in the office who had an undergraduate degree in architecture and a masters in law. She is extremely extremely extremely valuable to the office and up in the food chain.
Im not sure if many of you are aware, but the building industry is a melting pot of lawsuits and planning permits. LOTS of law to deal with on a daily basis. Having her in the office was fantastic on many occasions. She processed all the paper work for each of our projects with the city. She gave lunchtime lectures on all the latest rules and planning things coming out. She was ALWAYS readily available to proof-read any emails we sent out that we felt could potentially put us in a bad place. And my absolute favorite, was I was working on a project where our client suddenly got very upset and said in a phone conversation, "I am not paying your fees!" before hanging up. No worries... we just called up our in office attorney and she drafted a letter in response to the phone conversation strait away.
For larger offices, having an in office attorney is as valuable as having in office business management personal. Of course, make sure you are prepared to be the lawyer. She had no roles in design,drawing, or anything else that the architects did. Her role was purely building code, law and logistics coordination. But with an office of 150, that was a full time job.
my neighbor / friend is a lawyer specializing in construction law. they do anything from representing clients to representing construction teams including architects, contractors, consultants etc.. he was very busy up until three years ago. now that construction law business is really slow, he is developing another career doing voice over acting. he knows a lot about the building process of gated communities, business parks, medical and government buildings. they are a specialty law firm and somebody with an additional architecture degree or construction knowledge would be very valuable to them, i was told in a conversation.
you might also have an opportunity to work full time for a large a&e firm as their full time in house attorney.
James, I hear what you're saying, and I've had plenty of experience with lawyers helping us and our clients wend through the permit/variance.code process. A knowledgeable lawyer is indeed valuable.
I think many of us posting here aren't responding only to mikeyjoe's idea, but more to the sequence he's planning. Realistically, getting a JD immediately upon graduating with a MArch is going to mean at least $100k in debt (probably twice that) and yet very little experience or knowledge that would be of value to any firm, either law or architecture.
IMO, getting the 1st degree should lead to getting the architecture license. That will put you in the workforce for at least several years, and give you a license. You can even work in a large corporate firm and try to focus on the permit/legal issues on projects in the office - large firms often have the ability to let interns specialize in certain areas IF the intern is proactive about it. At that point, if you're still interested in the law side of things, consider getting the law degree - you might even be able to get it relatively cheap by then, as you'll have a better profile than the thousands of other recent grads in the scholarship pool.
If you can do it for free, then why not? But if you can't then be smart about it.
Our office of 185 (HQ of a 380 person firm) has two full-time lawyers, but we tend to be involved in a lot of litigation cases and are retained as expert witnesses. One is senior executive level and is in charge of all principal-level hires and other acquisitions, and another is for general legal counsel. My previous firm of 350 had one full-time lawyer.
A lot of clients like to look at professional liability insurance as a rebate of sorts- the old "I don't want to pay your fees, therefore I'm going to pick a random flaw that you probably weren't responsible for and sue you for it." Having lawyers on hand is a good way to tell them to GTFO and shake down delinquent payments. Almost like your very own thugs!
If you like the AEC field but are more interested in the legal side, you may be better served forgoing the MArch and going straight to JD if you already have a BArch or similar.
Law Degree With MArch?
I am a first year grad student and have been flirting with the idea of getting my law degree either right after I get my MArch or a couple years down the road. Would the addition of a Law degree be appealing to a large firm and would it be worth the time to do?
It would be very benificial when applying to a law firm when your desire is to become a lawyer.
It would probably have some (not a lot) of "value', but you won't get compensated for it. An architectural firm doesn't practice law, so how could they bill out your time as a lawyer? Make up your mind which profession you want to be in. Can't do both. My advice: skip MArch, get a law degree, and make an actual living (now there's a concept).
An MArch and a JD? That sounds like a phenomenal waste of money. With that kind of ambition, you should be a politician. Moon bases, yo!
i think the MArch would be far more appealing to a law firm if you did construction litigation, than a JD to an architecture firm.
you guys don't know what you're talking about. having a degree in architecture, or civil engineering, or project management, is an excellent asset when your intention is to enter the field of construction law. many law firms that deal with construction/development related disputes look for backgrounds in these things.
i would encourage you, mikeyjoe23, to network with nearby law firms that do such work, and ask the attornies there.
jk3hl: The poster was asking (I think) if a law degree would mean anything to an architectural firm. It doesn't sound like he intends to practice construction law. Yes, if he goes the law route the architecture degree would have value to the law firm. I still wouldn't bother with the Masters. One architectural degree is enough if it allows him to sit for the test.
The CA director of our architecture firm is a lawyer/ architect. He reviews all contracts, protects us from CA debacles and is a valuable resource for the entire firm. I think you ought to focus on one path immediately and incorporate the other down the road once you've developed a strong foundation in the first.
How would a law degree matter to an architectural firm, when an architectural degree doesn't even matter to an architectural firm? I say skip the Arch Degree altogether. Just make sure you go learn Revit and several of the 3D modeling software packages. That's the only thing that will allow you to be employed (ie. billable for an architect).
America in general needs to get over the notion that if you collect enough degrees, employability and earnings will surely follow. If you go deeper in debt for additional schooling without some game plan, you will just increase your frustration level when it doesn't pay off. Learning can be done--arguably much better--by reading, reading, reading. Be self taught and save yourself the student debt burden.
Our professional practice prof at the GSD, Jay Wickersham, has an architecture degree as well as a law degree, and represents many architects in his (LAW) practice, including many of our local professors. He seems to do quite well for himself.
The largest architecture firms probably also retain their own in-house counsel (this only seems logical to me, but can anyone confirm this?)
But to work in this capacity, you'd have to article and become a lawyer with some experience, not just get a law degree. Just having a law degree to work in an architecture firm doesn't seem very useful for anything except increasing your debt. :(
Everyone knows that getting TWO overpriced degrees is like a job-cannon that will blast you off into the job-land. So put on your job-helmet and hop in!
I LOVE all of these responses and think they are all pretty correct. on the fence, yours made me LOL, as did NOTrusty's of course.
mikeyjoe, please be aware that a law degree is not longer the golden egg-laying goose it once was. Law grads are getting more jobs than architecture, but not by much.
My aunt works at a library and is reviewing applicants for a low paid entry level position. She told me the applicants with advanced degress in law and architecture that want this position is mind-blowing. Just a reality check here. Please be careful out there! Maybe work a little bit before making the leap to make sure it is really something that will work for you and the market!
Add an MBA into the combo and you'll be all set.
as mentioned already, a law degree just doesn't have the value it once had. Law school struggles along with architecture school in that you don't learn any practical skills to actually practice. In my opinion, if you want to do law - any kind of law - you gotta pursue it aggressively and devote a good amount of time to develop your skills; only THEN you'd be an asset to an architecture/construction firm...
Wow. Im really surprised at the negative responses I am seeing here. I worked for a few years in London for Allies and Morrison which is a pretty good size (and well published) firm. We had a woman in the office who had an undergraduate degree in architecture and a masters in law. She is extremely extremely extremely valuable to the office and up in the food chain.
Im not sure if many of you are aware, but the building industry is a melting pot of lawsuits and planning permits. LOTS of law to deal with on a daily basis. Having her in the office was fantastic on many occasions. She processed all the paper work for each of our projects with the city. She gave lunchtime lectures on all the latest rules and planning things coming out. She was ALWAYS readily available to proof-read any emails we sent out that we felt could potentially put us in a bad place. And my absolute favorite, was I was working on a project where our client suddenly got very upset and said in a phone conversation, "I am not paying your fees!" before hanging up. No worries... we just called up our in office attorney and she drafted a letter in response to the phone conversation strait away.
For larger offices, having an in office attorney is as valuable as having in office business management personal. Of course, make sure you are prepared to be the lawyer. She had no roles in design,drawing, or anything else that the architects did. Her role was purely building code, law and logistics coordination. But with an office of 150, that was a full time job.
my neighbor / friend is a lawyer specializing in construction law. they do anything from representing clients to representing construction teams including architects, contractors, consultants etc.. he was very busy up until three years ago. now that construction law business is really slow, he is developing another career doing voice over acting. he knows a lot about the building process of gated communities, business parks, medical and government buildings. they are a specialty law firm and somebody with an additional architecture degree or construction knowledge would be very valuable to them, i was told in a conversation.
you might also have an opportunity to work full time for a large a&e firm as their full time in house attorney.
James, I hear what you're saying, and I've had plenty of experience with lawyers helping us and our clients wend through the permit/variance.code process. A knowledgeable lawyer is indeed valuable.
I think many of us posting here aren't responding only to mikeyjoe's idea, but more to the sequence he's planning. Realistically, getting a JD immediately upon graduating with a MArch is going to mean at least $100k in debt (probably twice that) and yet very little experience or knowledge that would be of value to any firm, either law or architecture.
IMO, getting the 1st degree should lead to getting the architecture license. That will put you in the workforce for at least several years, and give you a license. You can even work in a large corporate firm and try to focus on the permit/legal issues on projects in the office - large firms often have the ability to let interns specialize in certain areas IF the intern is proactive about it. At that point, if you're still interested in the law side of things, consider getting the law degree - you might even be able to get it relatively cheap by then, as you'll have a better profile than the thousands of other recent grads in the scholarship pool.
If you can do it for free, then why not? But if you can't then be smart about it.
Our office of 185 (HQ of a 380 person firm) has two full-time lawyers, but we tend to be involved in a lot of litigation cases and are retained as expert witnesses. One is senior executive level and is in charge of all principal-level hires and other acquisitions, and another is for general legal counsel. My previous firm of 350 had one full-time lawyer.
A lot of clients like to look at professional liability insurance as a rebate of sorts- the old "I don't want to pay your fees, therefore I'm going to pick a random flaw that you probably weren't responsible for and sue you for it." Having lawyers on hand is a good way to tell them to GTFO and shake down delinquent payments. Almost like your very own thugs!
If you like the AEC field but are more interested in the legal side, you may be better served forgoing the MArch and going straight to JD if you already have a BArch or similar.
PhD?
Just a thought...