Two times a week we release issues that will feature in a forthcoming Dear Jeremy guidance column in the Saturday Guardian so that readers can provide their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments together with Jeremy`s own understandings. Here is the most recent issue exactly what are your thoughts?I am an attorney in a specialist field and am well paid. It took me a long period of time to qualify and enter an area that I took pleasure in. The work has altered significantly and the business I work for takes decisions that I am no longer comfy with. Job security is necessary to me, so a move into an equivalent legal role, but with a different (perhaps charitable) organization, does not appeal. I have actually worked in different types of legal environments and possibly I need to conclude that the law other than honorable discharge upgrade, in spite of the commitment and effort I put in to get to a senior position, is just not for me.

I am exploring alternative careers, including in the health care environment.

My colleagues, buddies and parents are concerned I am making a decision that is too extreme and turning my back on a safe job.

My existing task includes a long commute by car. My employer provides me fantastic flexibility but I put on t feel like my performance is not valued, nor do I feel like I wish to provide more to the organization. The idea of continuing in this function, or this sector, up until retirement fills me with dread.

More information is readily available at www.veteransdisabilityinfo.com

Am I being ignorant to think that I can start a new profession (including going back to university) in a brand-new field at the age of 40? I appreciate the NHS is in a period of change (and always will be), and that the healthcare sector is badly rewarded, however I believe I would be more satisfied in a function that is more worthwhile for the good of society and may make a distinction to somebody`s day or life.

Do you require suggestions on a work issue? For Jeremy s and readers assist, send a short email to dear.jeremy@theguardian.com. Please note that he is not able to respond to questions of a legal nature or to respond personally.

A federal judge on Thursday overruled Mississippi`s restriction on adoption by same-sex couples, saying it violated the equal security clause of the U.S. Constitution, according to court records.

The choice by U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan was available in response to a suit submitted in August 2015 on behalf of 4 legally married same-sex couples, two of whom are already raising children, in addition to the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council.

The plaintiffs argued that the restriction victimized legitimately married couples.

The Mississippi restriction on adoption by same-sex couples was the only one of its kind in the United States. Gay marriage was legislated in the state in 2014.

The lawsuit came simply weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled gay marriage bans as unconstitutional throughout the nation.

Two sets of our clients have waited lots of (nearly nine and 16) years to become legal parents to the children they have liked and taken care of since birth, Roberta Kaplan, lead attorney in the case, said in a statement on Thursday. We hope that it ought to lastly be clear that discrimination versus gay people just because they are gay violates the Constitution in all 50 states, consisting of Mississippi.

The Mississippi Department of Human Services, which was called in the claim, might not immediately be reached for remark.

In his decision, Jordan described the viewpoint by the Supreme Court that struck down the same-sex marital relationship restrictions.

It seems highly unlikely that the exact same court that held a state cannot prohibit gay marital relationship because it would reject benefits expressly including the right to embrace would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit, Jordan wrote.

Pointing out 2010 census information, the lawsuit stated one-third of the 3,484 same-sex couples living in Mississippi were raising children.

About 100 children in Mississippi are in foster care and lawfully offered for adoption, the lawsuit said.

Complainant Susan Hrostowski, who has a 16-year-old boy with her wife, co-plaintiff Kathryn Garner, stated they had actually run as a family in spite of the law but that the choice indicates everything.

There is no greater delight on this planet than to have him as my son and for the world to understand, appreciate and verify that he is my kid, Hrostowski stated.

A law graduate who came top of her class has lost a lawsuit against her previous school after taking it to court over her failure to find a task in almost 10 years. Anna Alaburda, 37, finished from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, with flying colors almost 10 years ago but has so far been unable to score a full-time job practicing law. She took legal action against the school for $125,000 in damages, asserting she was drawn into paying her tuition by inflated employment stats. Ms Alaburda’s suit was the other day dismissed by a jury in California. After she finished, Ms Alaburda went on to pass the state bar exam and set out to use the law degree that cost her about $150,000, according to The New York Times. She was provided a job after she graduated with a law firm that wanted to give her a $60,000 salary, however she turned it down.

The previous law student said she got only the one job offer, which was less positive than non-law-related jobs that were available, even after she sent her resume to more than 150 law offices. Lots of law students struggle to find work after finishing; however she was the very first graduate to take legal action against a law school after finding herself unemployable in her field. She declared Thomas Jefferson School of Law inflated its work information for its graduates to encourage students to register. Ms. Alaburda submitted the suit in 2011, saying that she would not have enrolled at Thomas Jefferson if she had actually known the law school’s data were, in her viewpoint, deceiving. Ms. Alaburda, who has financial obligation of about $170,000, has actually operated in numerous part-time positions, mostly temporary jobs examining files for law practice since graduating. And she may have to continue doing so after the jury rejected her claim with a 9-3 bulk. Michael Sullivan, a lawyer for the law school, acknowledged ‘separated mistakes’ and ‘clerical mistakes’ in data collection but said there was no proof that the school lied. He said the verdict set no precedent however might send a signal to other students who sue. ‘Having an opportunity where it’s fully litigated, and depositions and documents analyzed, to see the hype, the chatter about that did not prove to be the truth, as found by a jury, I believe that’s a practical message,’ Sullivan stated after the verdict. Thomas Jefferson agents kept in mind broad efforts to improve reporting at all law schools and expressed regret about any stain that the lawsuit brought upon on the school’s reputation. ‘This is not, you know, Trump University,’ Sullivan said. ‘It is so not that. It is such a really outstanding law school.’