Last Friday, my amazing little brother published an article in the Harvard Law Record entitled
Want to Save the World? Do BigLaw! which has had mixed reception, including a
rebuttal that was published in conjunction with it.
My brother has an intentionally inflammatory style for humor (see also: our childhood), but his point was this: if you can withstand the indulgent aspects of corporate culture, then you can do more good by making lots of money and donating it to effective charities than you can by donating your career to particular causes.
While I think that there always individual exceptions, I agree with his analysis. The market has greater capacity for corporate lawyers than for public interest or government positions. Additionally, the scope of influence for the latter two is usually limited to the nation in which the individual practices. In the case of American public interest lawyers, the people benefiting from their services are usually American citizens or residents (legal or otherwise).
In all countries there are marginalized populations; these people deserve advocacy and legal protection. However, if citizens of a nation wait until all of their fellow residents are happy and healthy before they look outside their own country to do good, then they will likely be waiting indefinitely.
The US is incredibly privileged. We still have problems, but citizens of many, many other countries have it much, much worse off than even the poorest among us here. We can choose to pay $3 for someone's lunch in America, or spend that same money on a Malaria net that saves a child's life [1]. It simply comes down to the most effective allotment of resources. (And requires thinking globally instead of nationally.)
In the case of law, I think the numbers work out in favor of practicing corporate law and donating a percentage of your income. Everyone must make their own choices, but I think if more people took this path, it wouldn't only be good for the recipients: lawyers practicing this lifestyle might begin to change corporate society, steering it away from consumerism and self-indulgence.
Press for his original article:
Above the Law: What Harvard Law Students Tell Themselves When The Demon Come
[1] Probabilistically, it actually takes more than that to save a life, since not everyone is guaranteed to get malaria; the
AMF puts the figure at about $2,500/life. In the US, that could be used for a fancy computer or a vacation. It's also less than four month's net income for the average US food stamp recipient household. The average food stamp recipient is gets
$133.85/month, or less than $1.50/person/meal. So the real comparison is helping to feed a family of four (in the US) for a little over a year vs. saving a life. It's not so cut and dry, but I think the life still wins.