<p>All of what said is valid in that there are potentially as many sources of dissatisfaction as there are dissatisfied attorneys. For me, the source of my dissatisfaction stems not from the financial, prestige, lack of civility, too many hours, doctrine, but from the turn the courts have made over the last 20 years away from correcting constitutional wrongs, and instead applying in ever widening fashion the concept of "harmless error." It takes its toll when you bust your professional a$$ to find and brief substantial constitutional infirmities at a trial, only to be told, "foul, but no harm." And let's not mention what you have to deal with trying to explain that concept to you client!</p>
<p>Concerneddad: I can't help but wonder - when you are explaining to your client that the constitutional infirmity was ruled "foul but no harm" are you typically talking to someone who actually did the crime, or someone falsely convicted?</p>
<p>In all the years I have been doing this type of work, I have represented between 2-5 people that were factually innocent. Of course that is not surprising because I only handle appeals, and thus all of my clients have had the crucible of a trial before coming to me. Still, guilty or not, issues that tilt the playing field further in the government's direction need recourse.</p>
<p>Moreover, even thos who are not factually innocent of all crimes, are not necessarily guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. The act of bringing criminal charges is an executive function, often frought with political ovetones or gamesmanship. When plea bargains are not reached, and the government "over-charges," the defendant faces the prospect of being found guilty of the greatest charged offense simply because jury instructions are often very confusing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
theDad writes: 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.
[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I think this is the answer the OP needs to see. Have his daughters get a job in a law firm doing anything -- filing, typing, you name it. Just being inside lets you see what the job is like and whether its a fit for you in a way that reading 5 pages (or 50) of posts won't do. Internships when they are in college are also a great way to explore.</p>
<p>I'd recommend internships for everyone, whether they're thinking of becoming anything from an astronaut to a zoologist.</p>
<p>CD - if I'm not mistaken, the courts have also been very reluctant to give any remedies to the defendant - you can have foul, harm, but no remedy.</p>
<p>Count me as a generally happy lawyer. It beats many other ways of making a living imho. </p>
<p>I am self employed. In private practice in a rather specialized field with my brother in law. We are sort of like well paid social workers. It is pretty rewarding.</p>
<p>I don't work very long hours. Roughly 40 hrs a week or less. Go in late on days I don't have hearings. No weekends in the office, but maybe a few hours Sunday night at home, if I have a hearing on Monday morning.</p>
<p>Most importantly I have no boss. I make a good boss. I'm probably too lenient, but otherwise fine. Our two employees never leave, though in years past we fired one or two. I was always a lousy, rebellious employee, in the 10 years before law school and in my brief one year career as a lawyer employee. My experience as an empoyee makes me appreciate how generally good my two employees are.</p>
<p>That being said, I would rather manage a Dairy Queen than do what many lawyers do. I find the long hours and whole routine of the big firms to be repulsive, so I never bothered to even try. Of course, by the time I went to law school, I realized that on such issues as the environment, EEOC issues, union-managment, corporate crime etc. they were almost always on the side of injustice, but it paid well. I also understand that in many business transactions who is to say which company is in the right. I frequently cannot understand why those with the qualifications to work at those firms would would want to do so. I know-- even very rich wrong doers who pay extremely well to be represented deserve representation-- but I have always felt I had better things to do.</p>
<p>I worked in government before going to law school. I think government work could be rewarding, but the lawyers I know who do that usually think that they are underpaid and often times doen't seem to be that happy. They often think lawyers in private practice make more money, but if you factor in lucrative government pensions, they come out pretty well in many cases. Calmom mentioned ALJ's. I thnk that would be a very good job.</p>
<p>"I also understand that in many business transactions who is to say which country is in the right."</p>
<p>In the business transactions I work on, one party generally wants to sell something the other party wants to buy. I don't see either party as being on the side of justice, or injustice, with respect to the transaction. The outcome is determined largely by the law of supply and demand.</p>
<p>Regarding the other areas of practice mentioned by Texdad, I don't subscribe to the calculus that more punishment means more justice, and less punishment means less justice. D.A.'s routinely overcharge people with crimes. (And the rich criminal defendant is still something of a rarity.) The EPA sometimes asks for excessive remedies. Sometimes people who are fired for nothing more than poor performance file complaints with the EEOC claiming they were the victims of discrimination.</p>
<p>I've managed corporate litigation involving IP theft where there were clearly wrongdoers, and clearly a party that had been wronged. It happens that I worked for the party that had been wronged. But it never occurred to me to bemoan the fees paid to defense counsel. There was still the question of what was the appropriate remedy for the theft. There were plenty of people working for the defendant who had done absolutely nothing wrong, and plenty of stockholders who had invested in the company with no knowledge of any wrongdoing by anyone who worked there.</p>
<p>Not to be overly diplomatic, but on issues of clear right & wrong, there is always a lawyer on the side of right and always a lawyer on the side of the wrong. Won't argue who is being paid more... but, idealistic kid that I am, I'm happy that people have representation. You still need someone to guide you through the system and to be in your corner. IMO, very few, if any, people are so evil that they don't deserve that as humans. (End of pseudo-diplomatic rant.)</p>
<br>
<p>D.A.'s routinely overcharge people with crimes. (And the rich criminal defendant is still something of a rarity.) The EPA sometimes asks for excessive remedies. Sometimes people who are fired for nothing more than poor performance file complaints with the EEOC claiming they were the victims of discrimination.</p>
<br>
<p>All of this is true. I was quite taken aback during my first few months as a judicial clerk because most of the discrimination cases were patently frivolous on their faces. Less than twenty percent of those cases even ALLEGED facts that could sustain a discrimination claim (never mind the problem of proving those facts). Even where there is a corporate wrongdoer, much of the time they have a good legal defense which serves an important policy goal -- like when a corporate officer is shielded by the business judgment rule. Not many of the cases are black and white.</p>
<p>ConcernedDad - Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But I will say that most of the time the courts have found harmless error in my cases they were probably right.
I think what many people don't realize is that the court system actually doesn't routinely find ways to let criminals go free and shower money on people who bring frivolous lawsuits, but in fact does the opposite: The number of people wrongly convicted undoubtedly exceeds those who are wrongly acquitted, and far more legitimate claims are uncompensated due to technicalities than vice versa.<br>
And in the non-criminal area the false perception actually makes it harder to deal with cases fairly and efficiently. Clients have been fed a drumbeat of propaganda which has led them to believe that anyone who walks through a courthouse door either a) gets a million dollars or b) is bringing a frivolous lawsuit. (Which fallacy the client believes depends on whether they're the plaintiff or defendant.) Add in a little normal human self-righteousness and you create a serious need for expensive client education in order to bring the parties to the correct settlement point.</p>
<p>I am interested in working in corporate law after i graduate. can you please help me understand what the first few years of working in a big firm will be like?</p>
<p>also has anyone made the switch sucsessfully from corporate law associate to ibanking?</p>
<p>Excuse me if this is repeat a post.</p>
<p>Calmom, and others who have left law practice for other careers - What type of work are you doing? Does it involve your law knowledge, or is more about the skills and personality traits that made you a good attorney? Or are you doing something using other takents?</p>
<p>It is amazing that there are as many disgruntled attorneys as disgruntled physicians, although the disgruntlement is for slightly different reasons!</p>
<p>There are folks who practice law & are happy & a lot of folks who aren't. My dad & brother have a two-person firm & are very happy in their continued practice of law (so much so that dad won't retire though he's been a senior citizen for over a decade). Folks I know who have become judges are generally very happy in their practice of law. Some friends who have gone to work for government are pretty happy too & do use their legal training (working for US attorney's office, researcher for legislative reference bureau, senate majority's office, state commission on aging, politics).
Unfortunately, I do know a lot of attorneys who do NOT like the nasty traits law brings out in other attorneys--those who practice in their office & their opponents. It is a very adversarial profession & the hours & challenges can get pretty gruelling.</p>
<p>" Unfortunately, I do know a lot of attorneys who do NOT like the nasty traits law brings out in other attorneys--those who practice in their office & their opponents. "</p>
<p>As Danny deVito said in My Cousin Vinny: "It's the 95% of them who give the rest of us a bad name."</p>
<p>
[Quote]
It is amazing that there are as many disgruntled attorneys as disgruntled physicians, although the disgruntlement is for slightly different reasons!
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Except you don't see as many physicians as lawyers leaving their profession to pursue other careers.</p>
<p>Sorry to stray off-topic here, but can someone tell me more about nonprofit work?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Except you don't see as many physicians as lawyers leaving their profession to pursue other careers.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>There;s a couple of reasons for that - MDs are masochistic whiners who are happiest when they are complaining the most, and unless an MD is a good businessperson by nature, there are fewer well paying careers that an MD can change to without significant retraining. I know there is one frequent poster here who has an MD spouse retraining for a new career, but it will not be what I call "well-paying". Those reading, writing, negotiation and speaking skills are more marketable than our intense knowledge and technical skill.</p>
<p>Many docs & attorneys counsel their kids to go into professions OTHER than medicine & law because of personal disillusionment, burn-out etc. Lots of the skills in law do transfer to the business & volunteering world & just advocating for yourself & in personal business dealings. Some docs become motivational speakers, professors, researchers, consultants to insurers, etc.</p>
<p>The same is true in architecture. I think the issue in the professions is that we view them so highly it is nearly impossible for them to live up to our expectations. Especially over the course of decades.</p>
<p>SRMom, I think you are on to something - expectations are unrealistic, career goals are set early on (especially in medicine) when you don't really know much about yourself, let alone what you want to do in life. Also, in medicine (this is the prof I know), you generally become so specialized, and have to spend so many years and so much energy reaching that level, that there is very little lateral movement - you are overqualified for everything, but unable to really do any other type of work. For MDs you can come out of teaching and research to private practice, but it is harder to go the other way. The medical director and insurance/pharmeceutical jobs are nice, but few in number.</p>