Sex work and law

[Glamurosa]

Hihi,

I was wondering if anyone here knows much about whether having previously done sex work/escorting would basically make it impossible to get a job in "big law". In theory I do want to eventually do public interest type stuff, but in reality I'm going to have a shit load of debt to pay off. But, the fact that I am a sex worker might become public knowledge soon if my injury claim (I'm the plaintiff) goes to court. So I'm concerned about doors closing. Wild speculation based on your own moral values is not welcome, but if anyone has any inside perspective on this, that would be great. 

If it matters at all, I'm accepted to osgoode for this coming school year, disclosed my profession on my application, I got a 169 lsat and a 3.6cgpa,  3.93 last 2.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[BlockedQuebecois]

The insider perspective is going to be the same as the wild speculation, because nobody knows how a specific individual that gained that knowledge would react (as it will be entirely based on their own moral values). If employers are aware or become aware of it during the recruit, it's going to shape their perception of you. Some individuals at some firms may not think it is a big deal, others may think it is. You'll never know in advance what they think, and in all likelihood you will never find out if they knew or how that shaped their ultimate decision. 

This next piece isn't legal advice, but have you spoken to your lawyer about the possibility of asking the court to initialize your name in any decisions? Depending on jurisdiction, whether to initialize names is usually an act of judicial discretion and you may have a sympathetic judge willing to do so in your case. 

[Glamurosa]

I guess I was wondering if anyone knew firms that hired anyone who had done escorting in the past. I know a couple of former sex workers who are out who do public interest type stuff in Ontario. The one lawyer who still does sex work, that I know of, I regularly see their employer talk shit with them on their sex work twitter lol

Good point on the asking for my name to be initialed, I just told my lawyer about my work yesterday (i was doing something else for work when the injury happened and due to the pandemic I'd barely heard from them, and even before it was a slow process and now they asked me for my resume and I was like... yea, about that...) so he's looking into what the courts have done with such information in the past before we decide how to proceed. But he doesn't sound to impressed with me 🤷🏽‍♀️ lol

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[BlockedQuebecois]

I don't know of any big law firm that currently employs anyone who was a sex worker, although that may be because former sex workers tend to be discrete about their past employment.

Continuing to do sex work while employed at a big law firm would almost certainly be a violation of the firm's policies unless it was cleared with the firm in advance (and I don't expect any firm would clear that). I'm not an employment lawyer and so have no clue of the enforceability of those policies, but I doubt it would be worth pushing back on. 

Your lawyers reaction is the one I would expect most lawyers to have. There is obviously significant stigma attached to sex work, and law is a relatively conservative profession.

[Glamurosa]

I wouldn't imagine most people would continue doing sex work with a big law pay cheque. I know I wouldn't. I don't plan at all to continue after I graduate. 

I have done a pretty good job of keeping it under wraps, so I'll probably end up pushing my lawyer to settle it out of court, we will see.

My lawyer knows my family (my mom knows what I do, no one else) so he's also probably just shocked that the child of such upstanding members of society would do such a thing 💀

I personally don't understand the issue, I have amazing transferable skills, who knows how to schmooze clients better than an escort 💀

[Diplock]

Even leaving aside moral judgments, asking about continuing as a sex worker while employed in a "biglaw" environment is like asking to continue work as a tattoo artist. The most immediate reaction you're going to get is "where the hell are you going to find the time?" And without pretending to know the industry particularly well, I'm assuming there's more to being a sex worker than just the hour you actually spend in bed, right? The second most immediate reaction will be "whatever you do with the very limited hours you aren't working is up to you, and if you want to ink tattoos as a hobby that's fine (paid or otherwise) but stop expecting to walk around here with ink down your sleeves and onto the backs of your hands because that will be a problem in this field." In other words, there are issues that come along with being visible in that role as well as simply doing the work.

There's so many issues implied by your question that have basically nothing to do with moral judgment associated with sex work. Lawyers working in a "biglaw" environment accept that it's a lifestyle - one you either adapt and adhere to (at least mainly) or else you do something else. So really, on the level you are asking this question, you aren't so much an out-of-the-box sex worker asking about unusual issues. You're just a run-of-the-mill law school applicant who hasn't yet digested the reality that you can't have everything without compromises. And you might as well get used to it, because you're talking about an environment where a guy still can't show up with a ponytail without practically speaking screening himself out of contention. They're not going to bend over backwards to accommodate you far more than they accommodate other things, just because you find a way to frame it as a human rights issue.

Hope you continue engaging here and this site helps you. But again, your main issue isn't around the sex trade. It's around the common misconception that practicing law is just a job you'll navigate while you're on the clock, like slinging lattes. And it just isn't. In fact, with due respect, you already know this. Your identity as a sex trade worker doesn't start when you're on the clock selling sex and end when you're not. Your expectation that being a lawyer would somehow be less of an identity than that is simply unrealistic.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Diplock

[Glamurosa]

Where exactly did I say I wanted to continue after?

 

Also, my clients book me for half days, days and weekends. Less than 5% of what I do involves a bed and I don't do 1hr calls, but interesting assumptions.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[Glamurosa]

I just wanted to know if I'd be absolutely fucked in big law, no pun intended, if perspective employers knew I had previously done sex work 🤷🏽‍♀️

[Diplock]

  

5 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

Where exactly did I say I wanted to continue after?

 

Also, my clients book me for half days, days and weekends. Less than 5% of what I do involves a bed and I don't do 1hr calls, but interesting assumptions.

You referenced past sex workers and also referenced a lawyer who continues to do sex work, so it wasn't clear to me whether you were asking about continuing to do so yourself or not.

Also, I explicitly said I was assuming the work isn't confined only to when you're having sex, and then said a couple of times I don't even pretend to know everything it includes. If you're going to invite a discussion about something, and then go on attack mode based only on the terms someone else tries to use to have the discussion with you at all, you can always find someone to identify as the enemy. I mean, all it really takes is asking people to talk and then accusing them based on the words they talk with. But I was genuinely trying to give you a useful answer from the perspective of someone who doesn't particularly judge sex trade workers.

If we assume it's just past work in the sex trade and not current...I don't see why it would need to be an issue. It wouldn't be something to bring up lightly. Would cause far more problems than it's worth. Definitely still falls within "don't ask, don't tell" territory, not that there's any reason someone would ask. If it's searchable I wouldn't dismiss the possibility it could cost you a specific job or opportunity at some point. But it wouldn't cause problems for the field in general.

[Glamurosa]

12 minutes ago, Diplock said:

  

You referenced past sex workers and also referenced a lawyer who continues to do sex work, so it wasn't clear to me whether you were asking about continuing to do so yourself or not.

Also, I explicitly said I was assuming the work isn't confined only to when you're having sex, and then said a couple of times I don't even pretend to know everything it includes. If you're going to invite a discussion about something, and then go on attack mode based only on the terms someone else tries to use to have the discussion with you at all, you can always find someone to identify as the enemy. I mean, all it really takes is asking people to talk and then accusing them based on the words they talk with. But I was genuinely trying to give you a useful answer from the perspective of someone who doesn't particularly judge sex trade workers.

If we assume it's just past work in the sex trade and not current...I don't see why it would need to be an issue. It wouldn't be something to bring up lightly. Would cause far more problems than it's worth. Definitely still falls within "don't ask, don't tell" territory, not that there's any reason someone would ask. If it's searchable I wouldn't dismiss the possibility it could cost you a specific job or opportunity at some point. But it wouldn't cause problems for the field in general.

I was trying to give context that I knew of sex workers, former and current, who worked in public interest, but that I don't know any in big law. I did say in one post that I personally would not continue working.

I'm not going to disclose to an employer, I disclosed for school because I knew with some schools it would be an interesting diversity point.

I was asking here because I am having anxiety over the fact that there may one day be a judgement with my name and my current employment written in it and so I'm grappling with what that would mean for my future prospects. Once the other side finds out, my possible settlement out of court is going to tank because they know I won't want that public. But obviously that's what I'll have to live with if there's no way for me to remain anonymous in the judgement and if that being public will limit my opportunities.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[CheeseToast]

I dunno why your focus is on big firm environments, a minority of lawyers work in that setting and based on the SW-ers I know I don't think any of them would have fit in very well at all sitting at a desk writing memos for 12 hours a day. Hell, I'm not sure I fit in (or if I'm sold on the whole deal) and I'm a stereotypical nerd who's going to be summering at a big firm in ~5 weeks. 

43 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

I have amazing transferable skills, who knows how to schmooze clients better than an escort

 I don't think your client-schmoozing skills matter all that much until you've grinded it out for a few years.

[Glamurosa]

6 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

I dunno why your focus is on big firm environments, a minority of lawyers work in that setting and based on the SW-ers I know I don't think any of them would have fit in very well at all sitting at a desk writing memos for 12 hours a day. Hell, I'm not sure I fit in (or if I'm sold on the whole deal) and I'm a stereotypical nerd who's going to be summering at a big firm in ~5 weeks. 

 I don't think your client-schmoozing skills matter all that much until you've grinded it out for a few years.

This was answered in my first post, so I won't repeat myself, but I'll note that you missed the humor/slight sarcasm in the quote. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[Diplock]

5 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

I was trying to give context that I knew of sex workers, former and current, who worked in public interest, but that I don't know any in big law. I did say in one post that I personally would not continue working.

I'm not going to disclose to an employer, I disclosed for school because I knew with some schools it would be an interesting diversity point.

I was asking here because I am having anxiety over the fact that there may one day be a judgement with my name and my current employment written in it and so I'm grappling with what that would mean for my future prospects. Once the other side finds out, my possible settlement out of court is going to tank because they know I won't want that public. But obviously that's what I'll have to live with if there's no way for me to remain anonymous in the judgement and if that being public will limit my opportunities.

Well, that's certainly a more unusual situation, anyway. I don't want to tend into legal advice about your civil case. I don't know what kind of potential damages we're talking about here and it's hard to balance that unknown amount against the somewhat abstract but not completely dismissable possibility that wide publicity could damage your legal career.

That said, if you're trying to compare one unknown to another unknown, the takeaway is probably that you're wasting your effort and the questions are premature. Cross that bridge when you get to it.

Looming over this is the question you haven't asked. And the advice is unsolicited, so blow it off if you like. But you probably don't belong in BigLaw in the first place. That isn't to say someone can't be a sex trade worker and end up there. But based on what you've actually written about public interest, and your choices to date (again, no value judgments implied, but it's not exactly fit-in-the-box so far) it just doesn't seem like you. If you decide in the course of law school that's where you actually want to be, that's one thing. But if you're just chasing the money, prestige, etc., that's a very common issue and a very common mistake. You may find yourself very unhappy trying to do something you aren't well-suited to.

Hope that helps.

[mistertubby]

56 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

I personally don't understand the issue, I have amazing transferable skills, who knows how to schmooze clients better than an escort 💀

 

16 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

I'm not going to disclose to an employer, I disclosed for school because I knew with some schools it would be an interesting diversity point.

pray tell, how do you plan on discussing your transferable skills in an interview? 

[Glamurosa]

2 minutes ago, mistertubby said:

 

pray tell, how do you plan on discussing your transferable skills in an interview? 

Not even with emojis do some people recognize humor and sarcasm 💀

[Rashabon]

Yeah not going to lie some posters are revealing themselves as way too literal and not in touch with how people communicate these days. Was pretty obviously sarcastic.

I honestly couldn't tell you how a big law firm would react if they knew. It just hasn't been common in the past, but with the rise of OnlyFans and other "fan" websites and accounts that blur the line between sex work and a slightly spicier instagram, I imagine this will become a slightly more common question in years to come. I expect some firms will be more conservative and view it as a reputational risk. Others might not care so long as it is in the past and not part of your public biography. Others might not care at all if it's known as long as it is part of your past. But I think anyone speculating is going to be doing just that because I am doubtful anyone here knows a former sex worker that is employed in big law.

44 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

 I don't think your client-schmoozing skills matter all that much until you've grinded it out for a few years.

Incorrect.

[CheeseToast]

38 minutes ago, Glamurosa said:

This was answered in my first post, so I won't repeat myself, but I'll note that you missed the humor/slight sarcasm in the quote. 

Ok. And I'll note that you can't just flip from biglaw (if you can even get it) to PI work. IIRC Diplock that had a good post on this exact topic some time ago.

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Incorrect.

I know you're a contrarian but do tell how much schmoozing with clients junior associates do? 

[Rashabon]

1 minute ago, CheeseToast said:

I know you're a contrarian but do tell how much schmoozing with clients junior associates do? 

A lot? Junior associates go to events (at least pre-COVID) very frequently and if you work for people that aren't shitty, they are going to invite you to opportunities to network, even as a junior. There are also opportunities to schmooze at junior lawyer networking events, CBA groups, etc. And "schmooze" is a broad term. Your ability to charm and and interact with clients and have them like you is a big part in getting early confidence from other partners and having them keep you involved in files.

Also as a junior associate, a lot of your clients are actually the senior partners you work for, directly and indirectly, and being able to schmooze them is still a skill.

No, as a junior, you're not expected to land million dollar files by going to a wine and cheese event and talking some CLO's or CEO's ear off, but to think that you're just hunkered down in an office writing memos for three years is even more of a ludicrous fantasy.

[Fruitdealer]

13 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

A lot? Junior associates go to events (at least pre-COVID) very frequently and if you work for people that aren't shitty, they are going to invite you to opportunities to network, even as a junior. There are also opportunities to schmooze at junior lawyer networking events, CBA groups, etc. And "schmooze" is a broad term. Your ability to charm and and interact with clients and have them like you is a big part in getting early confidence from other partners and having them keep you involved in files.

Also as a junior associate, a lot of your clients are actually the senior partners you work for, directly and indirectly, and being able to schmooze them is still a skill.

No, as a junior, you're not expected to land million dollar files by going to a wine and cheese event and talking some CLO's or CEO's ear off, but to think that you're just hunkered down in an office writing memos for three years is even more of a ludicrous fantasy.

Adding to this, there is also always going to be some level of client contact even as a junior associate. Having good people skills is useful in all situations, whether or not you are trying to pull new business. Beyond that, your interactions with lawyers from other firms can also form the basis for getting new jobs/jumping ship etc etc.

 

On the broader subject, OP: unless your past work is easily searchable or very prominent, I wouldn't expect employers to be digging into your past with that much detail. That said, they may give your name a Google and if questionable things easily come up, that might affect people's judgement of you. At least personally, I wouldn't particularly care about past sex work, but it may pose some practical problems for your resume/ability to show you have relevant knowledge and skills unless you have other experience - I would expect it to work against you if you answered an interview question with your sex work experience.

[Glamurosa]

24 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

Ok. And I'll note that you can't just flip from biglaw (if you can even get it) to PI work. IIRC Diplock that had a good post on this exact topic some time ago. 

I'll rummage through for that post.

[Glamurosa]

24 minutes ago, Fruitdealer said:

Adding to this, there is also always going to be some level of client contact even as a junior associate. Having good people skills is useful in all situations, whether or not you are trying to pull new business. Beyond that, your interactions with lawyers from other firms can also form the basis for getting new jobs/jumping ship etc etc.

 

On the broader subject, OP: unless your past work is easily searchable or very prominent, I wouldn't expect employers to be digging into your past with that much detail. That said, they may give your name a Google and if questionable things easily come up, that might affect people's judgement of you. At least personally, I wouldn't particularly care about past sex work, but it may pose some practical problems for your resume/ability to show you have relevant knowledge and skills unless you have other experience - I would expect it to work against you if you answered an interview question with your sex work experience.

Yes sadly many people won't understand that I run a business and have all the relevant business experience as such. On top of all my interpersonal skills that are what actually make me successful. Obviously the latter will serve me well in an interview, but I do have a previous "professional" career and I'm known to have freelanced in that career, which is my ongoing cover. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[SlytherinLLP]

I think the best approach is to say nothing about it during interviews - not at all from a moral standpoint/judgement, but because firms will categorically view it as a risk. The BigLaw firms are cautious with anything remotely controversial and reputation is extremely important. Also, I'm not sure what kind of background checks BigLaw firms do, but sometimes they do include civil proceedings as well - in which case you would be exposed. 

On a separate note you might be jumping the gun in assuming you even want BigLaw because as Diplock indicated it's a lifestyle that a very small fraction of lawyers want!

[Glamurosa]

19 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I think the best approach is to say nothing about it during interviews - not at all from a moral standpoint/judgement, but because firms will categorically view it as a risk. The BigLaw firms are cautious with anything remotely controversial and reputation is extremely important. Also, I'm not sure what kind of background checks BigLaw firms do, but sometimes they do include civil proceedings as well - in which case you would be exposed. 

On a separate note you might be jumping the gun in assuming you even want BigLaw because as Diplock indicated it's a lifestyle that a very small fraction of lawyers want!

Yea, I guess I'm more concerned about having does close before I even decide to open them. I'm going into law school with an open mind on career paths, and I know my original interest won't be an issue. What I don't like the idea of is being limited. But c'est la vie 🙂

Edited March 29, 2022 by Glamurosa

[123]

1 hour ago, Glamurosa said:

Yea, I guess I'm more concerned about having does close before I even decide to open them. I'm going into law school with an open mind on career paths, and I know my original interest won't be an issue. What I don't like the idea of, is being limited by something that at the time I started it, didn't really feel like a choice, regardless of what people like who ever it was above that said "the choices you made" as if all choices are made freely with an abundance of other options, might think. But c'est la vie 🙂

This is off the initial subject, but I'm going to weigh in anyway.

An open mind is fine when you're starting law school. But I would encourage students to begin thinking carefully about what they want from their career from the outset of law school. Especially with the formal recruits, there can be an inertia to this profession. Good students can apply for OCIs and get hired without having done that work before, end up articling and getting called with their firms, and stay on there or lateral to a similar practice. 

That's all fine if that's what the student wants. But there was a way in which law school success was most obviously rewarded with positions in a relatively narrow subset of the legal profession. And not everyone seemed to be pursuing those positions with a lot of forethought and intention. I found that "keeping doors open" was a common reason cited by classmates for pursuing big law. Especially for the summer positions, a lot of them emphasized the ability to work in a rotation, on different areas of law, with different lawyers. Which I guess is true. But it's also an attempt to delay inevitable choices, by inadvertently making some very specific choices. Doors can't stay closed forever. And so I think that students are best served by being as introspective and deliberate as possible in choosing which doors to walk through.

Bringing this back to OP, I have no idea whether they could get hired at a big law firm. But  I agree with @Diplock and @SlytherinLLP above. And while I've never worked at a big law firm, I have worked with lawyers with whom I'm not a fit. It's deeply unpleasant. You don't get to turn these people off at the end of a day. Both in terms of electronic communication, and just having them rattle around in your brain after working on something intensive with them for many hours a day, lawyers who you work with do become a real part of your life. And if you're not compatible, it can weigh on you. Where, as here, compatibility seems like an issue, it's worth thinking about whether this is a door worth keeping open. Again, I'm not a big law expert. But before setting foot in one of these firms as a student or associate, you feel, with pretty good justification, compelled to hide a significant part of your history from big law lawyers. That doesn't really seem like a recipe for fit. 

If a student really wants to keep doors open, generally speaking, they should minimize debt. I don't know if you have substantial pre-existing loans. If so, yeah, you might need to focus on the more lucrative work, and certain doors might be closed to you, at least from the start. But if you don't, it's theoretically possible to service debt arising from law school fees on non-big law salaries, especially if you're able to keep the overall debt load lower. The best way to do that is to keep fees down. As Osgoode is on the higher end of tuition for Canadian schools, so going there isn't ideal for minimizing debt. I don't know if you're committed to that, but I do generally think that all else being equal, going to a cheaper school is one of the better ways to keep your options open. 

Anyway, those are my two cents. For whatever they're worth. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Glamurosa]

26 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

This is off the initial subject, but I'm going to weigh in anyway.

An open mind is fine when you're starting law school. But I would encourage students to begin thinking carefully about what they want from their career from the outset of law school. Especially with the formal recruits, there can be an inertia to this profession. Good students can apply for OCIs and get hired without having done that work before, end up articling and getting called with their firms, and stay on there or lateral to a similar practice. 

That's all fine if that's what the student wants. But there was a way in which law school success was most obviously rewarded with positions in a relatively narrow subset of the legal profession. And not everyone seemed to be pursuing those positions with a lot of forethought and intention. I found that "keeping doors open" was a common reason cited by classmates for pursuing big law. Especially for the summer positions, a lot of them emphasized the ability to work in a rotation, on different areas of law, with different lawyers. Which I guess is true. But it's also an attempt to delay inevitable choices, by inadvertently making some very specific choices. Doors can't stay closed forever. And so I think that students are best served by being as introspective and deliberate as possible in choosing which doors to walk through.

Bringing this back to OP, I have no idea whether they could get hired at a big law firm. But  I agree with @Diplock and @SlytherinLLP above. And while I've never worked at a big law firm, I have worked with lawyers with whom I'm not a fit. It's deeply unpleasant. You don't get to turn these people off at the end of a day. Both in terms of electronic communication, and just having them rattle around in your brain after working on something intensive with them for many hours a day, lawyers who you work with do become a real part of your life. And if you're not compatible, it can weigh on you. Where, as here, compatibility seems like an issue, it's worth thinking about whether this is a door worth keeping open. Again, I'm not a big law expert. But before setting foot in one of these firms as a student or associate, you feel, with pretty good justification, compelled to hide a significant part of your history from big law lawyers. That doesn't really seem like a recipe for fit. 

If a student really wants to keep doors open, generally speaking, they should minimize debt. I don't know if you have substantial pre-existing loans. If so, yeah, you might need to focus on the more lucrative work, and certain doors might be closed to you, at least from the start. But if you don't, it's theoretically possible to service debt arising from law school fees on non-big law salaries, especially if you're able to keep the overall debt load lower. The best way to do that is to keep fees down. As Osgoode is on the higher end of tuition for Canadian schools, so going to Osgoode isn't ideal for minimizing debt. I don't know if you're committed to that, but I do generally think that all else being equal, going to a cheaper school is one of the better ways to keep your options open. 

Anyway, those are my two cents. For whatever they're worth. 

I'm obviously going to do more research, but I think there is a component of actually needing to sit the classes to see what compels you. My first degree I got a decade ago was one where there was about 3 traditional career paths and a handful of other less common choices. I went in wanting to be the main one of those 3, and ended up preferring one of the less common options. I knew it in my first semester. So I am coming from a place of experience when I consider that my initial choice might not be the most "me" choice.

As for the fitting in comments a few have made. No one who's ever met me would guess I'm an escort, I do not cong across like the general populations misconceptions of who and what escorts are. I have zero doubt I can fit in in a professional environment, I did it before, and I do it now. It's not average people who can pay thousands of dollars for an overnight date. Many of my clients seek me out because of how professional, well spoken and put together I come off as. There's a reason they pick up on this through my marketing, it's partially by design, but it is also because its the truth. 

I think everyone has secrets, and mine probably needs to remain that way not because it says anything about me but because others think it does. The challenge is keeping it a secret.