<p>Actually, if anything, I think dissatisfied lawyers are more likely to be ones like me who went in with very idealistic aspirations. The issue never was money - it was time and a diminishing sense of being able to accomplish the sort of "good works" that led me to the law. I have to say I left the profession with a good deal of feelings of frustration and disgust at the legal system and at the way lawyers handle themselves within it. It seemed to me that in civil litigation, most lawyers were more concerned about running up costs & billable time more than in coming to an equitable resolution of the case or dispute - basically, again and again, in cases of civil litigation or divorce, it seemed to me that in most cases lawyers made things worse rather than better, often running up the costs of litigation far beyond what the case was worth. </p>
<p>Truthfully, as a litigator, I have to say that at least in California, the court system is 10 times worse to deal with than it was in the late 70's when I graduated from law school. A lot of focus on inane procedural rules, not much room for justice. I actively practiced for 17 years, and things went from bad to worse on most fronts. So maybe part of the dissatisfaction comes from having seen better days - remembering a time when there was such a thing as professional courtesy, to start with. Everything that unbelieveablem has posted really echoes & mirrors my own experience.</p>
<p>Amen to what you're saying about the California court system. Sometimes it seemed like the courts were trying to punish litigants: those Fast-Track cattle calls (50 lawyers crowded in a courtroom listening to a judge schedule their next status conference for those of you fortunate to be mystified by the term).</p>
<p>That's what I like about negotiating with other in-house counsel: nobody's trying to run up billable hours, and nobody wants to waste time.</p>
<p>Yeah, it was the fast track stuff that pretty much put me out of business - I was a sole practitioner at the time that came in. Pretty hard to handle when you don't happen to have a stable of new associates on hand to keep up with the paperwork and make all those ridiculous status calls. </p>
<p>Negotiating stuff is fine, but I was bored by the transactional stuff - I'm not so good with detailed paperwork. (No offense intended to those who like that sort of thing, it just wasn't my cup of tea). If I had stayed in practice, I would have gravitated toward an ALJ type job or doing mediation.... but something better came along.</p>
<p>"I'm not a lawyer, but I'm wondering if the apparently high rate of dissatisfation in the profession stems from the fact that many students entered for the prestige or the money rather than an actual interest in the law."</p>
<p>I would also have to disagree with this conclusion. If what you are out for is prestife or money it is probably a lot easier to be satisfied. </p>
<p>As for those with an "actual interest in the law" -- I think the real problem is people not necessarily knowing ahead of time what it really means to have an actual interest in the law. Is it an actual interest in the law to think that as a lawyer you will be able to use the law to better the lives of people? If yes, you're probably on the road to disappointment when you see how many obstacles "the law" puts in the way of that goal. </p>
<p>The problem is that an "actual interest in the law" is not the same as an actual understanding of what the practice of law will be like.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that an "actual interest in the law" is not the same as an actual understanding of what the practice of law will be like.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is very enlightening. I wasn't trying to draw a conclusion, but to understand the source of dissatisfaction. My son thinks he has interest in law, so I was curious. BTW, I find the same to be true in health care. So many enthusiastic graduates come to work in a hospital hoping to use their knowledge to make a big difference for patients only to realize that they are bogged down in daily tedium (short staffing, double shifts, paper work, meetings, budget constraints, rules that change weekly, etc). Here, too, the daily reality certainly is not the ideal.</p>
<p>Thanks for the insight into the legal profession!</p>
<p>The contrast between ideal and the reality is something I was fortunate to experience early on in engineering. I was in an engineering work-study program with the U.S. Navy right out of high school. The experience did not motivate me to continue to make it my life's work, which was kind of jarring, because it had been my "dream job" for years as a teen and which is why I pushed myself through all the advanced high school math & science classes. </p>
<p>I wound up nailing the career option down--or out--during my junior year with my academic reenactment of Pickett's Charge. What I can see clearly in retrospect is that temperamentally I wasn't a good match for engineering work. The background was good for analytical & problem-solving skills and for being "numerate" and I don't regret that part of it at all. I do wish that I hadn't felt like a failure for several years, instead of recognizing that I had merely made a wrong choice that was correctable, and that I hadn't then spent so many years as a rolling stone looking for a place to land.</p>
<p>"What I can see clearly in retrospect is that temperamentally I wasn't a good match for engineering work....I do wish that I hadn't felt like a failure for several years..."</p>
<p>This is such an important insight and a topic that is often neglected until people grow up and get career counseling while having a midlife crisis. ;) Lately I have been giving a fair amount of thought to the Myers Briggs as it relates to my kids and their interests and their imaginings about their careers. I do see that it is offered in college career offices. It would be a very useful guide even for the student who knows his or her field of choice, whether it be law or something else, because each of these includes a variety of career paths. If you have a good sense of who you are you can talk about how you would like your day to look and where you will thrive.</p>
<p>Funny thing is that by Myers-Briggs, I'd superficially "pass" as a good candidate for engineering (type NT). And even some of the routine career testing wouldn't find me amiss. Best test I ever took...and I won't give away its tricks in case anyone ever takes it, it's best taken "straight" and "cold", was at the UCLA career counseling center years later. </p>
<p>The test puts you through all sorts of hoops and then gives you an assessment of where you are with 14 or so criteria, which are ranked according to importance <em>to you</em>. I got an absolute top score on "self-expression," an absolute minimum on "security." Sounds like a writer to me. I forget what the order of stuff in the middle, like "achievement", "recognition," and "social interaction" was.</p>
<p>But I think internships, which is essentially what my work-study program was, are an invaluable way of learning about the day-to-day life in a field before fully committing to it. The emphasis on college internships has really grown in the past few decades; I approve.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The problem is that an "actual interest in the law" is not the same as an actual understanding of what the practice of law will be like.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Very true. . .especially as a transactional lawyer. It's one thing to study corporations in law school, quite another thing to incorporate one. At least in my law school, you really didn't learn much about practicing law--learned that on the job at the law firm.</p>
<p>I agree with the above. After raising 4 children I went to law school to be a child advocate, but think my psychology grad school courses were more useful (e.g. in conducting a guardianship-battle mediation, getting a hostile 15-year-old to talk to you, or talking a paranoid-schizophrenic parolee into accepting the need for a conservatorship while recruiting his relative to take on the job.) Anyone thinking of going into a particular field should try to shadow a professional in that area or do an internship.</p>
<p>The Dad said:
[quote]
What I can see clearly in retrospect is that temperamentally I wasn't a good match for engineering work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And by "tempermentally wasn't a good match," he means "had a habit of spouting off about Polish generals." </p>
<p>All of the personality tests that I've taken come up as engineer, engineer, engineer. Reality is that I love that way of thinking but can't spend my life inhaling carcinogens and doing lab work.</p>
<p>Hey, I only spouted off about Polish generals <em>once</em>. When a history prof observed that some generals were better at retreating than others.</p>
<p>"All of the personality tests that I've taken come up as engineer, engineer, engineer. Reality is that I love that way of thinking but can't spend my life inhaling carcinogens and doing lab work."</p>
<p>Mine usually comes out as Old Testament prophet. (not a lot of job security....)</p>
<p>"It seemed to me that in civil litigation, most lawyers were more concerned about running up costs & billable time more than in coming to an equitable resolution of the case or dispute - basically, again and again, in cases of civil litigation or divorce, it seemed to me that in most cases lawyers made things worse rather than better, often running up the costs of litigation far beyond what the case was worth." </p>
<p>There was a time I agreed with this observation, which has at least some element of truth to it. But I have come to believe that if you have competent, experience lawyers on both sides of a case, they will usually independently come to the pretty much the same conclusion about what the correct settlement is in most cases pretty early in the process -- long before their clients are ready to settle on those terms. Everything that happens between that point and the time the case actually settles (or goes to trial, if the lawyers can't convince their clients to settle) is basically an elaborate, expensive ritual designed to grind down the unrealistic expectations of the clients so that they will (eventually) settle. The ritual involves a lot of posturing and making of claims the lawyers know won't really fly at trial, and squabbling over paperwork that really doesn't make any real difference to the case, and other basically pointless activities. I know that's not very idealistic sounding, and the process isn't very satisfying, but it actually does work, in a lot of cases. I've tried to shortcut the process a variety of ways, and haven't been able to come up with one that works. So it may be cynical, or it may just be realistic, to describe the high cost of litigation as a necessary evil.</p>
<p>S has recently decided he is interested in law but it was his summer internship that convinced him. He is working with a forensic sociologist preparing death penalty mitigation documents. Do you think he is gettting a realistic view of what the field would be like? He attends meetings with the public defenders and thinks that is what he would like to do.</p>
<p>Death penalty appeals is a very specialized section (death penalty) of a very specialized section (appeals work). I don't think it represents the normal fare of a public defender. Can he arrange to shadow a public defender on a normal day?</p>
Wouldn't it be better if the competent, experienced lawyers simply advised their clients properly in the first place? Anyway, I don't buy that argument - simply because any honest attorney worth her salt will do whatever is needed to give the client a realistic appraisal of the case from the outset - if the client's expectations are out of sync with reality the attorney doesn't have to accept the case. So the issue really is more of one of lawyers who are either incompetent, or inexperienced, or more focused either on generating fees or their own professional achievements (i.e., taking a case to trial because of the publicity or experience entailed in handling a big case) - than on the client's well being. </p>
<p>There are some cases of course where there really are contested issues of fact significant enough to warrant the heavy litigation... but the vast majority are cases than can and should be settled far sooner than they are - or if they are tried, the lawyers should do a better job of narrowing issues and reducing litigation costs. A lot of the money goes down the drain litigating collateral issues.</p>
<p>Anyway, to the extent that your your observation may be accurate... I've got better things to do with my life than engage in elaborate, expensive rituals. (I'm just coming out of a wonderful week that makes me very, very happy that I've got the kind of career where I don't have to deal with the kind of people who are party to such rituals, whether they are in the role of lawyers or clients).</p>
<p>"because any honest attorney worth her salt will do whatever is needed to give the client a realistic appraisal of the case from the outset - if the client's expectations are out of sync with reality the attorney doesn't have to accept the case."</p>
<p>so much of this goes to the very heart of part of the problem with the legal profession. it is a basic underlying principle that a lawyer's obligation is to zealously represent the interests of his client. it is a clients right to pursue their "rights" even if an objective third party may say they are being a bit unreasonable -- as long as they are not asking the lawyer to do something illegal or unethical -- they have a right, and the attorney has an obligation to represent the client. now good representation will also include counselling the client as to the likely outcome, but if the client decides he wants to pursue things anyway, again, as long as it doesn't involve anything illegal or unethial, a lawyer's job is do the client's bidding.</p>
<p>it is NOT the lawyers job to act as an independent arbitor of what is right and wrong. of course if what the client wants isn't legal or ethical, the lawyer has an obligation to tell the client and not do it, but MOST situations aren't black and white in those terms. it is the "legal system" not the individual lawyer who is supposed to determine where "right" lies. the lawyer is just one piece in that system. </p>
<p>it is not a matter of incompetence or inexperience on the part of the lawyer when people want to take their shot at what the legal system may offer them. (though there are incompetent and inexperienced lawyers who can make things worse) americans are awfully litigious -- as an attorney part of counseling clients wasn't just telling them if they might win or lose if sued, but how to avoid being sued, because even if you end up winning the cost, both monetary and otherwise, of a lawsuit can be enormous.</p>
<p>this is one of the ways i think young lawyers get disillusioned - they think they are going in to this to work for the "right" and they find out that they are working for the client who they may not always think is right. depending on the lawyer's level at the practice, there can be the ability to turn away a client, but lets not forget, a law practice is a business. how many businesses do well if they turn away clients they don't like? not as easy to do on a regular basis as you might like.</p>
<p>Love Meyers-Briggs - I do not try to take it beyond its boundaries, but I find it to be useful in describing behavioral preferences, as far as it goes. My son is an INFP - mom with the mouth completely zipped (who is on CC, after all?). He is currently leaning towards psychology or psychiatry, which is right on the money for an INFP.</p>
<p>As for the law - NO intent to offend any lawyers, apologies in advance -my observations are that even the most loving and compassionate individuals often develop what I would call an unhealthy degree of cynicism through the practice of law, possibly because it encourages one to find loopholes in order to most effectively represent clients, and can often expose one to the darker side of human nature. I don't know that I would choose a profession that facilitates this kind of attitude, even though the intellectual challenge can be fascinating - too risky. It was one of the natural paths from studies in philosophy, but at the time it seemed to me to be too dry.</p>
<p>However, looking at the lifestyle of my former family law attorney relative to my own - there are compensations!</p>