I spent this entire time either at university, working in law-related jobs, and working the other odd jobs that got me through university. This culminated in working as a law lecturer, after I got my PhD. 

For one thing, universities began to introduce requirements that you get grants in order to conduct research. While I get that it can be necessary to introduce competitive resources allocation in relation to e.g. medical experiments, law is a subject that per definition does not require a huge amount of investment into research, because the infrastructure through which that happens (court cases) is already publicly-funded. So, I initially tried to get around this by saying that there was just nothing I really needed the money for. Legal research is often focused on identifying and closing loopholes, monitoring the legal system's functionality, and identifying and seeking to resolve logical inconsistencies. It rarely requires you to leave a desk.

However, it should be noted that in these cases, you aren't competing for university funds; the university is telling you that you need to bring millions of dollars of 'funding' with you from outside sources in order to be allowed to research and teach there. This is pretty nuts in European universities which are publicly funded and conduct a public mission - training the workforce to a high standard and certifying the existence of those skills. I often had to work with certifying bodies to ensure that the curriculum matched industry-specific requirements. No one goes through four years of grueling lectures for the hell of it, right? 

Let's just say the mission changed. Rather than being responsible for educating and certifying the workforce, and conducting research in the public interest (and a well-run, internally logically consistent and up-to-date legal system is a public good), which it would thus be logical for the public - as you're ultimate boss - to pay for, universities became diploma mills judged purely on the number of graduates (never good for quality control), and where a lot of research is now conducted with the funding of external organizations, most of whom have their own interests at stake. So, basically like the tobacco industry conducting research into smoking. If you bring this up, and I speak from personal experience here, you will be screamed at that it is not comparable because smoking was bad and they are good.

Today, I see gaping legal loopholes in everyday life, particularly in regards to consumer protection, that can and should be closed. It wouldn't be even slightly difficult to do so. But there is no one at the helm doing this kind of thing anymore, because too little research is conducted in the public interest these days. 

I was offered other positions, but these required me to move country in return for neither job security nor reasonable pay, and having already moved country twice in my life, I decided enough was enough.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I wouldn't advise anyone today to go to university without a clear action plan on why you are going. I did have this. A quarter century ago, it was quite difficult to get admitted to a law programme, more difficult to pass it, and also having a bar exam was necessary to being a lawyer, which was, at the time, a very good job (and still can be). I also went to university almost entirely for free, which means I exited university with zero debt.

I definitely would not advise going to university without the specific goal of entering a profession today for which the university serves as a gatekeeper. Unless you specifically need that, I would definitely advise just starting to work. University graduates are a dime a dozen. People who know how to work are comparatively rare.