"But it does pay well."

It actually doesn't. Even the biggest and most prestigious entertainment law firms in L.A. (i.e. Lavely & Singer LLP) pay below market rates when compared to other corporate/litigation firms of similar repute. I doubt many, if any, entertainment firms have starting salaries over $100K.

Most ent. firms think they can get away with paying low salaries because "hey, you're in the ENTERTAINMENT business! woo-hoo!". You'll get to meet famous clients and occasionally enjoy perks like tickets to the Oscars or Lakers games. They treat you like you should be happy just because you've got your foot in the door of the entertainment industry, as if it were some major deal.

Entertainment law is for the birds. Contract negotiations and right to privacy/publicity issues get boring real quickly.

I spoke to in-house people at Disney and CBS. They both specifically mentioned a) how little they use their brains and b) how much they get paid to avoid doing so.

Everyone outside the legal field who is reading this is thinking "$100K means you're not getting paid well? Is this planet Earth?"

In-house folks are not the best people to speak to if you want to get a "feel" for entertainment law. First of all, in-house gigs in the entertainment business are quite rare, making them ultra-competitive to get. And because it's the entertainment industry (read: Hollywood), you better believe that connections/networking/politics goes much farther than credentials/grades/experience. I worked in-house for Universal Pictures this past summer, and half the lawyers there were dumb as rocks. Many of them went to crappy law schools, and I'm surprised half of them even graduated. They "knew somebody" to get in the door. To these types of people, $80K per year is "great pay", considering with their intellect, they'd probably be making $35-40K, at best, in any other profession.

Secondly, in-house folks, for the most part, work 9-5. Thus, $80K for 40 hours per week sounds awesome. But again, the majority of "entertainment lawyers" don't work in-house for major studios...they work at boutique firms, and can often pull 70-90 hour workweeks just like their counterparts in BIGLAW. However, their counterparts in BIGLAW are pulling in $125K to start, and after 5-6 years can be making as much as $220K (and let's not forget annual bonuses ranging anywhere from $17.5K - $50K). Meanwhile, the entertainment boutique lawyer will be lucky after Year 6 to break $150K (including bonuses).

The only way to make REAL money in the entertainment business is to make partner at a respectable boutique (or at a BIGLAW firm with a strong entertainment contingent like Proskauer Rose, Greenberg Traurig, Greenberg Glusker, etc). You can say that in-house folks make REAL money when you break down their salary-per-hours-worked, but they'll never be "wealthy", at least not by L.A. standards.

"Everyone outside the legal field who is reading this is thinking '$100K means you're not getting paid well? Is this planet Earth?'"

Well when median home prices in L.A. county are approaching $600K, and those in the "nice" parts by the beach or on the westside are nearing or topping $1M...$100K per year, after taxes, is not as much as it seems. Let's not even discuss Manhattan or the Bay Area, where $100K/year is barely considered a "living wage".

My point was -- ent law pays well relative to the intellectual capital required, which as you confirm is not much. Yes a BIGLAW associate gets paid more; they know more and they do more.

BTW "wealth" is not positive cash flow. Wealth is capital. Wealth is what you'd be worth if you stopped working tomorrow. For most people, even well-paid biglaw partners, that's a negative number.