Privacy-friendly analytics help us see which jobs people explore. They stay off unless you agree.Analytics off unless you agree. Details

Read the record
Back to the river
Skip to sources
Time Machine

Lawyers

Also called Attorney, Associate attorney, Partner, Corporate counsel, In-house counsel

In brief

In May 2025, BLS counted 754,500 US lawyers, with median pay of $159,670 a year. Of the BLS counts since 2003, the May 2025 count is the highest. The earliest figure here is a Census count of 114,500 from 1900, not measured the same way as today's count. The last full technology era for lawyers: Harvey AI + Allen & Overy firmwide GPT-4 deployment, 2022 to 2023.

What the sources say

Official outlook

BLS projects employment to grow 4.7% from 2025 to 2035.

BLS Employment Projections 2025-35

AI exposure studies

  • 47.5% of this job's tasks are exposed to large language models. Not a forecast of job losses. Eloundou and others, 2023
  • 0.035 estimated probability that the whole occupation could be computerised, over an unspecified number of years. Not a forecast of job losses. Frey and Osborne, 2013

Since the 2013 prediction

In 2013, Frey and Osborne put this job's probability of computerisation at 0.035. BLS counted 592,670 of these jobs in May 2013 and 754,500 in May 2025 (+27%, a change derived by Future History).

Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. BLS publishes these counts as yearly survey snapshots and cautions against reading them as a precise trend. In May 2021 BLS changed how it estimates these counts (a model-based method using three years of survey data) and moved fully to the 2018 occupation codes, so part of a change across 2021 can come from the method rather than the work.

Last updated .

Cite this page
APA

Future History. (2026, October 11). Lawyers: jobs and pay since 1900 [Data set; data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35]. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/23-1011

Chicago

Future History. "Lawyers: jobs and pay since 1900." Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. Last modified October 11, 2026. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/23-1011.

BibTeX

@misc{futurehistory_23_1011, author = {{Future History}}, title = {Lawyers: jobs and pay since 1900}, year = {2026}, month = oct, howpublished = {\url{https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/23-1011}}, note = {Last updated 2026-10-11. Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35}, }

The access date is today's date on your device.

drag to travel through time
172517501775180018251850187519001925195019752000now
Country
2026
Known then as Attorney-at-Law / Counselor-at-Law (colonial courts)
Known then as Attorney-at-Law / Barrister / Counselor (post-independence, state bars forming)
Known then as Lawyer / Attorney (ABA era; generalist practice dominant)
Known then as Lawyer (specialization wave: Litigator, Transactional, In-House Counsel, Public Defender)
Known then as Lawyers (BLS SOC 23-1011; subspecializations tracked by ABA survey but not BLS)
Known today as Lawyers (BLS SOC 23-1011; subspecializations tracked by ABA survey but not BLS)
Projected to still be called Lawyers (BLS SOC 23-1011; subspecializations tracked by ABA survey but not BLS)
Data from the May 2025 survey
US Employment
755K
Est.

Stated in source: BLS OEWS

Official statistic
Report an error
Median Annual Wage
$159,670

≈ $155,576 in 2024 prices (derived by us, CPI-adjusted)

Official statistic
Report an error
Beat · 1701

New York Colony formalizes bar admission procedures, requiring a period of clerkship before a person may appear in court. This is the earliest formalized credentialing requirement for lawyers in the American colonies, predating the ABA by 177 years.

Beat · 1770

John Adams defends eight British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. Six are acquitted; two are convicted of manslaughter. Adams later describes it as 'one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.' The case establishes that the right to counsel in unpopular cases is fundamental to the rule of law.

Beat · 1878

The American Bar Association is founded on August 21, 1878, at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs, New York, by seventy-five attorneys from twenty-one states. The founding concern is consistency across state bars and a national standard of professional conduct. The ABA remains the largest voluntary professional association for lawyers in the world.

Beat · 1908

ABA adopts the first Canons of Professional Ethics: 32 canons governing lawyer conduct, confidentiality, advertising (prohibited), and conflicts of interest. These canons were replaced by the Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969) and later the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983, still in force and still being amended to address AI).

Beat · 1963

The US Supreme Court's ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright (372 US 335) establishes that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to all criminal defendants in state proceedings, not just federal cases. The decision creates an immediate and permanent demand for government-employed defense attorneys: an entire branch of the profession (public defenders) that did not exist at scale before this ruling.

Beat · 1977

The US Supreme Court's ruling in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 US 350) holds that attorney advertising is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment, striking down the ABA's prohibition on lawyer advertising. The ruling opens the door to legal marketing, TV advertisements for personal injury attorneys, and ultimately the commoditization of high-volume legal services (immigration, personal injury, DUI defense).

Beat · 2012

US Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issues the Da Silva Moore ruling (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2012): the first federal court decision explicitly approving predictive coding / Technology-Assisted Review as a valid discovery methodology. The ruling signals that algorithms, not just human review, can satisfy discovery obligations, beginning the slow displacement of volume document review from attorney and paralegal billable hours.

Beat · 2023

Judge P. Kevin Castel sanctions attorney Steven Schwartz and his supervising partner $5,000 for submitting a brief citing six entirely fictional ChatGPT-generated case citations in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023). Schwartz had asked ChatGPT to confirm the cases were real; ChatGPT confirmed they were real. Castel ordered them to serve copies of the sanction opinion on the judges whose names appeared in the fabricated citations. The case becomes the profession's canonical AI-caution parable, cited in bar association opinions, law school syllabi, and malpractice insurance applications through at least 2026.

Beat · 2024

ABA issues Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 2024), providing guidance on how lawyers' existing duties of competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), and supervision (Rule 5.1-5.3) apply to AI use. The opinion concludes that lawyers must understand AI tools' capabilities and limitations, protect client data in AI systems, and supervise non-lawyer AI outputs as they would supervise the work of a subordinate attorney.

How to read this number

OEWS is a point-in-time survey snapshot, not a continuous time series; BLS advises against using it for year-over-year trend comparison.

Each dot is a cited figure over time; the dotted line only links them (values between aren't measured). Hollow dots are estimates.

Official statistic: Copied by a script from a statistics agency table or a published study's table, not retyped by hand. BLS figures and the forecast and exposure tables are also re-checked against that table on every data run. Researched context: Researched from the cited source rather than copied from it by a script, so it is not machine-checked yet. Spot a mistake? Each figure has a “Report an error” link.

Cited forecasts · present → 2035

Will AI replace lawyers? What the research says

Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, we show the disagreement rather than an average.

Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, the spread is the honest signal.

What published forecasts say
Forecast change in the number of people doing this work, as published by each named source. Bars share one scale on every role, centred on zero and reaching the end at ±30%. Grey marks a small change, 3% or less either way.
BLS Employment Projections 2025-35
→ 2035
+4.7%
BLS National Employment Matrix, 2025-35 cycle, line for SOC 23-1011 (Lawyers): 863.7 thousand jobs in 2025, projected 904.3 thousand in 2035, a change of +40.6 thousand (+4.7%). Matrix employment counts all jobs in the occupation, including self-employed workers (11.3% of this occupation in 2025). The average for all occupations in this cycle is +3.5%.
Official statisticReport an error
How exposed is this work to AI (research measures)
Scores as published by each study. Each row says what it measures. These measure what AI could technically do, not forecasts of jobs lost.
Eloundou et al. (2023), "GPTs are GPTs"
2023 study · Share of tasks exposed to LLMs (β, human-rated)
47.5%
of tasks
What this measures

Published occupation-level exposure from the paper's occ_level.csv for O*NET-SOC 23-1011.00 Lawyers. Shown: human-rated β = 0.475, the share of the occupation's tasks an LLM could do in at least half the time at equal quality, counting tasks that need LLM-powered software at half weight (β = E1 + 0.5 × E2). Other published measures for this occupation: human-rated α (LLM alone) 0.15 and γ (all LLM-assisted) 0.8; GPT-4-rated β 0.425. This measures how much of the work an LLM could touch, not how many jobs disappear.

Official statisticReport an error
Frey & Osborne (2013), "The Future of Employment"
2013 study · Probability of computerisation (2013 model)
3.5%
probability
What this measures

Published appendix value for SOC 2010 23-1011 Lawyers: probability of computerisation 0.035, rank 115 of 702 (rank 1 is least computerisable). Frey and Osborne estimated in 2013, with a Gaussian-process classifier on O*NET variables, how likely the whole occupation is to be technically automatable over "some unspecified number of years, perhaps a decade or two". It is a probability for the occupation, not a share of tasks and not a forecast of jobs lost.

Official statisticReport an error
Today, in this role

What's changing day to day for lawyers

Three parts of your work where AI is already doing real lifting, and what stays yours.

AI is sitting alongside you hereOversee AI-driven M&A due diligence using Harvey or Hebbia Matrix: configure risk-extraction criteria for the target's data room, review AI-generated issue logs and contract summaries for material adverse change clauses, change-of-control provisions, and compliance exposures

Oversee AI-driven M&A due diligence using Harvey or Hebbia Matrix: configure risk-extraction criteria for the target's data room, review AI-generated issue logs and contract summaries for material adverse change clauses, change-of-control provisions, and compliance exposures; escalate high-risk findings and advise the deal team on negotiation strategy.[7],[12],[4]

Tools picking this up
Where your edge is

Learn to write precise diligence extraction schemas: define the specific clauses (MAC, CoC, exclusivity, non-compete) that matter for each transaction type. AI surfaces the issues; the attorney's value is interpreting their commercial significance and advising on deal structure. Develop industry-specific knowledge of what risk thresholds are market-standard vs. deal-breaking.

AI is sitting alongside you hereDirect AI legal research agents (CoCounsel Deep Research, Westlaw Advantage AI) to execute multi-jurisdictional case law surveys

Direct AI legal research agents (CoCounsel Deep Research, Westlaw Advantage AI) to execute multi-jurisdictional case law surveys; validate every AI-returned citation with Shepard's or KeyCite before citing in any brief or memo; synthesize findings into a research memorandum with jurisdiction-specific precedent hierarchy.[18],[10],[9]

Where your edge is

Master structured prompting for AI research workflows: specify jurisdiction, date range, binding vs. persuasive precedent, and negative treatment. The lawyer who writes precise research instructions and validates outputs reliably is irreplaceable.

AI is sitting alongside you hereDesign and supervise AI-assisted eDiscovery workflows for litigation matters: configure responsiveness and privilege parameters in Relativity aiR

Design and supervise AI-assisted eDiscovery workflows for litigation matters: configure responsiveness and privilege parameters in Relativity aiR; QA AI classifications on a statistically defensible sample; certify the privilege log; and make final calls on borderline attorney-client and work-product privilege designations.[19],[3]

Where your edge is

Shift focus from document review volume to protocol design and privilege log defense. AI auto-classifies at scale; the attorney is responsible for the sampling strategy and the certifications submitted to opposing counsel and the court. Develop expertise in technology-assisted review (TAR/predictive coding) to be able to defend the process under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26.

Where lawyers go next

Natural next steps for someone with your foundation: not exits, evolutions.

  • Compliance Officers
    US median pay
    $80,730 (May 2025)
    BLS outlook 2025-35
    +3.8%
  • Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing OfficersNo timeline for this role yet
  • Paralegals and Legal Assistants
    US median pay
    $62,890 (May 2025)
    BLS outlook 2025-35
    -0.3%

What each move takes

A direction you could grow

Compliance Officers

Lawyers who practice regulatory, employment, or securities law possess deep compliance expertise that translates directly to in-house compliance officer roles, often without additional credentials. Corporate legal teams actively recruit JD-holding compliance professionals, particularly in highly regulated sectors (healthcare, financial services, tech). AI is accelerating the shift of outside-counsel work in-house, growing the compliance function even as it compresses law firm headcount. The pivot typically requires domain specialization in one regulatory framework (HIPAA, SOX, GDPR, SEC) but not retraining from scratch.

What you'd add
· Cross-functional stakeholder communication beyond legal department
What it takesMost of your skills carry over
Tools of the era

How has the work of lawyers changed since 1701?

The tools that defined the work, one line per era. Select an era to see how it reshaped the work.

  • Handwritten pleadings, quill pen, law library (Coke, Blackstone)

    The earliest American lawyers composed every document by hand. A brief in a significant case might run dozens of folio pages in the lawyer's own script; a contract was a single handwritten instrument, engrossed on parchment for durability. The law library was the only research tool: William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) was the canonical text that shaped an entire generation of American lawyers, including Lincoln, who read it by firelight. The volume of litigation a single lawyer could handle was physically constrained by how fast he could write. The clerk who engrossed final copies was often a lawyer in training.

  • Typewriter + carbon paper; West Publishing National Reporter (1879)

    The Remington No. 1 typewriter reached commercial availability in 1874; by the late 1880s, law offices had adopted it for correspondence and short documents. More consequentially, John West launched the West Publishing Company's National Reporter System in 1879, creating the first comprehensive case-law compilation organized by region and indexed by subject. West's Key Number system, still in use today, gave lawyers a common vocabulary for finding precedent across the entire United States. By 1900, a competent attorney had access through West volumes to every significant appellate decision in the country. Carbon paper multiplied the legal secretary's output; a single typing produced up to six usable copies. The typewriter and West's reporters together tripled what a single practitioner could produce and cite in a given day.

  • IBM Selectric typewriter + dictation; photocopier (Xerox 914, 1959)

    The IBM Selectric (1961), with its rotating type-ball element, became the dominant law-office machine for two decades. It could produce clean, professional documents at twice the speed of earlier typewriters, and the ability to change type-balls allowed legal formatting (different point sizes, special symbols) without changing machines. The Xerox 914 plain-paper copier, introduced in 1959 and widely adopted through the 1960s, ended carbon-paper duplication and made discovery a volume business: for the first time, entire files of documents could be reproduced inexpensively for litigation. The photocopier is arguably the tool that created modern discovery practice, and, unintentionally, the need for paralegals to manage the resulting paper.

  • LexisNexis (1973) and Westlaw (1975): electronic legal research

    Mead Data Central launched the LEXIS full-text legal research service in 1973; West Publishing countered with Westlaw in 1975. For the first time, a lawyer could run a keyword search across the entire US case law corpus in seconds rather than hand-indexing West Digest volumes. The early systems required dedicated green-screen terminals, often operated by research librarians or paralegals rather than partners. By the late 1980s, with IBM PC compatibility, Westlaw and LexisNexis moved to attorney desktops. The print-volume business that had sustained West Publishing for a century began a slow decline; the replacement was a subscription model that would eventually make these two companies the dominant revenue sources in legal information.

    Effect on the work

    Electronic research roughly halved the time required for comprehensive case research and expanded the scope researchers were expected to cover: the net effect on attorney hours was approximately neutral in the 1980s, but over the following decade the reduction in associate time per research task compressed the number of junior attorneys firms needed to staff large projects.

  • WordPerfect (law-office standard) and early practice management software

    WordPerfect 4.0 (1984) became the word processor of the legal profession for a decade, its macros for pleading paper formatting, line-numbering, and citation styles making it the default in firms of every size. The transition from Selectric to PC word processors meant lawyers and their secretaries could revise documents without retyping from scratch; it also meant that the typing pool, a significant overhead cost in large firms, shrank dramatically. Time-and-billing software (TABS, PCLaw) emerged in the mid-1980s as law firms began tracking matter profitability systematically.

  • Email + internet; federal CM/ECF e-filing (1996); e-discovery begins

    Email transformed legal correspondence from a multi-day process (letter, dictation, typing, delivery) to an instantaneous one, with the side effect of creating a discovery universe that grew exponentially every year. Federal courts began piloting the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system in 1996; by 2004, e-filing was mandatory in most federal districts. The PACER public-access system made federal case dockets freely searchable online. The explosion of email as a business communication tool simultaneously created the modern e-discovery industry: by 2000, a significant commercial litigation matter might involve millions of emails, and the question of how to review them had become the dominant cost driver in litigation.

  • DocuSign (2003) + Equivio predictive coding (2007)

    DocuSign was founded in 2003 and began displacing wet-signature closing processes in transactional law. By the early 2010s, it had become standard for routine commercial contracts, NDAs, and real estate closings, eliminating the closing-table ceremony for deals that didn't require one. Simultaneously, Equivio (founded 2004, acquired by Microsoft 2015) introduced supervised machine-learning for e-discovery document classification, giving litigators the first algorithmic tool for first-pass document review. Equivio's technology foreshadowed predictive coding, which in 2012 received its first court approval in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe.

  • Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) approved by courts; Kira and Luminance contract AI

    US Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's ruling in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2012) was the first federal court decision to explicitly approve predictive coding as a valid discovery methodology. The ruling opened the door for algorithmic review in the most document-intensive legal work. Kira Systems (2012) and Luminance (2015) brought machine learning to contract review, allowing lawyers to extract specific clause types from hundreds of contracts in minutes rather than days. By 2020, large-firm M&A due diligence was routinely running NDA and material-contract portfolios through contract AI before assigning associate review hours.

    Effect on the work

    Contract AI tools reduced the associate hours required for due diligence on large M&A transactions in the early 2020s; combined with LPO and offshore review, this reduced first-year BigLaw associate class sizes at several firms between 2017 and 2023.

  • Harvey AI (2022) + Allen & Overy firmwide GPT-4 deployment (Feb 2023)

    Harvey was co-founded in summer 2022 by Winston Weinberg (securities litigator) and Gabriel Pereyra (Google DeepMind). On February 16, 2023, Allen & Overy announced it had deployed Harvey firmwide to thousands of lawyers, who had already run tens of thousands of queries during a trial period. This was the first major BigLaw endorsement of a generative AI platform for substantive legal work, not document management or billing, but drafting briefs, researching case law, and summarizing contracts. The announcement triggered a competition among Am Law 100 firms that effectively made Harvey deployment a table-stakes signal of technological credibility by end of 2023.

  • Mata v. Avianca (June 2023): ChatGPT fabricates six case citations, federal sanctions follow

    On March 1, 2023, attorney Steven Schwartz of the New York firm Levidow, Levidow & Oberman filed a legal brief in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) that cited six federal cases in support of his client's claims. None of them existed. Schwartz had used ChatGPT to research the brief and, when the AI produced confident-sounding case summaries complete with docket numbers, had filed them without verification. Opposing counsel flagged the citations; Schwartz doubled down by asking ChatGPT to confirm they were real, and ChatGPT confirmed they were real.

  • Full BigLaw AI stack: CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI, Hebbia, Luminance, Relativity aiR, EvenUp

    By end of 2023 and accelerating through 2025-26, every major legal research platform had deployed a generative AI layer: Thomson Reuters acquired Casetext (June 2023) and its CoCounsel product reached one million users by February 2026; LexisNexis launched Lexis+ AI in October 2023 and upgraded to Lexis Protégé with hundreds of pre-built legal workflows in February 2026; Relativity's aiR for Review (generally available Q3 2024) automated e-discovery classification with AI-generated reasoning. A&O Shearman's ContractMatrix (Harvey-powered) was used by 2,000 lawyers daily and saved 30% of contract review time. The Thomson Reuters Future of Professionals 2025 report projected AI would save each lawyer many hours per year. The ABA's 2024 AI TechReport found 30% of all law firms were using AI tools, rising to 47.8% at firms with hundreds of lawyers.

    Effect on the work

    Harvey M&A users reported up to 75% time savings on unstructured data rooms; A&O ContractMatrix saved a few hours/week per lawyer; lateral associate hiring for AI-specialty positions grew 106% year-over-year (Law.com, March 2026).

Part of Legal · see all 6 roles →
Different role?

See the same long-arc view for your own profession.

Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code.

Browse all roles

Lawyers employment and pay by year

On record since1701
Latest US employment754,500 (May 2025)Source: BLS OEWS May 2025Official statisticReport an error
Latest US median pay$159,670 (May 2025)Source: BLS OEWS May 2025Official statisticReport an error
Outlook+4.7% by 2035Source: BLS Employment Projections 2025-35Official statisticReport an error

In other countries

The latest figure each country's statistics agency publishes for this job. Each uses its own occupation definition, survey basis and currency, so the numbers are not directly comparable with each other or with the US figures.

  • Canada (NOC 41101)

    Employment, 2020
    96,330, Statistics Canada Census 2021 Official statistic Report an errorStatistics Canada Census of Population 2021: number of persons with employment income in NOC 41101 Lawyers and Quebec notaries, Canada, reference year 2020. A recipients basis (anyone with employment income during the year), slightly broader than a point-in-time employed count. Statistics Canada Open Licence.
    Median pay, 2020
    C$128,000, Statistics Canada Census 2021 Official statistic Report an errorStatistics Canada Census of Population 2021 (Table 98-10-0586): median employment income for NOC 41101 Lawyers and Quebec notaries, Canada, reference year 2020, full-year full-time workers (the basis comparable to the US OEWS full-time median). Statistics Canada Open Licence.

  • United Kingdom (UK SOC 2412)

    Employment, 2025
    127,000, ONS ASHE 2025 Official statistic Report an errorONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Table 14): employee jobs in SOC 2412 Solicitors and lawyers, United Kingdom, 2025 (ASHE "number of jobs", thousands x1000; excludes self-employment). Open Government Licence v3.0.
    Median pay, 2025
    £53,314, ONS ASHE 2025 Official statistic Report an errorONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Table 14.7a): median gross annual pay for all employee jobs in SOC 2412 Solicitors and lawyers, United Kingdom, 2025. Open Government Licence v3.0.

  • Australia (ANZSCO 2713)

    Employment, 2025
    102,900, ABS Labour Force Survey March 2026 Official statistic Report an errorABS Labour Force Survey (Detailed), table EQ08: employed persons in ANZSCO 2713 Solicitors, national (summed across sex and state/territory), annual average of 4 quarterly estimates.
    Median pay, 2025
    A$107,640, ABS Employee Earnings May 2025 Official statistic Report an errorAnnualised (x52) from A$2,070 median weekly earnings. ABS Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours, May 2025: median pay for full-time non-managerial employees paid at the adult rate, before tax. Surfaced via the Jobs and Skills Australia occupation profile for ANZSCO 2713.
View all 28 years of cited US data, each linked to its source
YearUS employmentAnnual pay (median unless marked)SourceReport
1900114,500n/aDecennial Census 1900 Researched contextReport
1951221,605n/aEst., American Bar Foundation Researched contextReport
1970326,400n/aEst., Wikipedia Researched contextReport
1990777,000n/aEst., ABA National Lawyer Population Survey Researched contextReport
2000489,530$88,280BLS OEWS 2000 Official statisticReport
2003516,220$91,490BLS OEWS May 2003 Official statisticReport
2004521,130$94,930BLS OEWS May 2004 Official statisticReport
2005529,190$98,930BLS OEWS May 2005 Official statisticReport
2006547,710$102,470BLS OEWS May 2006 Official statisticReport
2007555,770$106,120BLS OEWS May 2007 Official statisticReport
2008553,690$110,590BLS OEWS May 2008 Official statisticReport
2009556,790$113,240BLS OEWS May 2009 Official statisticReport
2010561,350$112,760BLS OEWS May 2010 Official statisticReport
2011570,950$113,310BLS OEWS May 2011 Official statisticReport
2012581,920$113,530BLS OEWS May 2012 Official statisticReport
2013592,670$114,300BLS OEWS May 2013 Official statisticReport
2014603,310$114,970BLS OEWS May 2014 Official statisticReport
2015609,930$115,820BLS OEWS May 2015 Official statisticReport
2016619,530$118,160BLS OEWS May 2016 Official statisticReport
2017628,370$119,250BLS OEWS May 2017 Official statisticReport
2018642,750$120,910BLS OEWS May 2018 Official statisticReport
2019657,170$122,960BLS OEWS May 2019 Official statisticReport
2020658,120$126,930BLS OEWS May 2020 (employment) Official statisticBLS OEWS May 2020 (pay) Official statisticReport
2021681,010$127,990BLS OEWS May 2021 Official statisticReport
2022707,160$135,740BLS OEWS May 2022 Official statisticReport
2023731,340$145,760BLS OEWS May 2023 Official statisticReport
2024747,750$151,160BLS OEWS May 2024 (employment) Official statisticBLS OEWS 2024 (pay) Official statisticReport
2025754,500$159,670BLS OEWS May 2025 Official statisticReport
Embed this timeline on your site

Free for any site. Paste this where the timeline should appear; it stays interactive, every datapoint stays cited, and it sets no cookies on your page. How embedding works

<iframe src="https://futurehistory.earth/embed/23-1011"
  width="100%" height="430" style="border:0"
  title="Lawyers, a Future History timeline"
  loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:13px;margin:4px 0 0"><a href="https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/23-1011">Lawyers: jobs and pay over time</a>, from Future History</p>

See all roles in Legal