>> It’s a demanding, detail oriented, analytical job, and many of those people become quite disillusioned with it.
Maybe for you. For me, when I was practicing, law was a very human-oriented thing. My job was about convincing people and companies to do things that they didn't want to do (mostly security). I felt like Charlie Sheen's therapist: If they don't make any changes the client will wind up in jail. But push too hard and they will walk away.
I will echo what sandworm says here. I went from a philosophy undergrad to law school to a law career to a coding bootcamp to a programming career.
The job is certainly demanding and detail oriented. Analytical, I guess it depends on what you mean by analytical. What I became disillusioned with was how brutally incoherent legal arguments can be. And to be honest, the Python code I encounter is often in better English than the legal code that I encountered. You can try reading the Illinois Compiled Statutes if you would like a taste.
I am of the school that all laws are perfectly coherent. I read any vagueness as tacit permission for the court to figure it out for itself. So I don't see "loophole". Rather, I see the legislature granting permission to do something. That mindset means I never feel frustrated by poorly-written code. But when judges don't make sense, that is another story.
Maybe for you. For me, when I was practicing, law was a very human-oriented thing. My job was about convincing people and companies to do things that they didn't want to do (mostly security). I felt like Charlie Sheen's therapist: If they don't make any changes the client will wind up in jail. But push too hard and they will walk away.