kaa2018

Hi all, I am hoping to get some advice. I'm a 35 year old lawyer. I graduated with an Art History degree from a fine but not notable state school in Ohio (my GPA was 3.9). I then went to law school, getting into a top-25 program in NYC and, for the last decade, have been practicing law. My law practice is generally commercial litigation, but I also handle a fair amount of art law (e.g., litigations involving consignments to galleries/secured transactions, authenticity issues and representing artists in disputes with gallery owners). Lately I have been thinking about foregoing my legal career -- and most importantly the client stresses that come with it -- and trying to get admitted to an Art History PhD program. I now live in the SF Bay Area with a husband who has a great job and a toddler daughter, so I am limited geographically. I would likely only apply to Stanford and Berkeley. My main question is - am I the type of candidate who admissions committees would find interesting or compelling? Or would I appear like an individual who is aimlessly looking for the next-best-thing? I don't want to waste my time reconnecting with old professors, studying for the GRE and working on papers/personal statements if I really don't have a chance. Any insight would be tremendously appreciated!! Thank you!