<p>I've seriously considered a career in law for a varitey of reasons, which include my love for writing, my interest in public policy/history, and other factors, but sometimes I worry that I'm not charismatic enough. I've always pictured lawyers benig very pretentious and cut throat. I have no problem with working long hours, but sometimes i worry that the fact that I'm just average at public speaking/debate will hinder me in the legal career. Does this mean that I should consider something else, or can these qualities be acquired over time? Are there lawyers out there who are somewhat like me? If and when I do become a lawyer, I'll definitely stay away from trial law and probably focus more on dealing with corporate law/contracts, but is the fat that I don't fit the lawyer image very well make the legal career even more difficult for me? thanks for any comments...</p>
<p>Two points:</p>
<p>1) Your image of a lawyer is completely inaccurate.</p>
<p>2) Most lawyers never step foot in a courtroom, and most lawyers never interact with clients. </p>
<p>You don't need to be good at public speaking to be a successful attorney. As long as you're willing to work long hours, and enjoy the work, you'll be fine. There's all kinds of lawyer personalities, and very few are charismatic.</p>
<p>I'm sort of like you, jmarsh. I don't know if I have the qualities/confidence to become a successful lawyer compared to other personality types. I just wanted to know: In law school, are students required to practice courtroom trials? Are they trained in the art of debating? I just don't feel ready for that kind of stuff. I just want to know my facts and then graduate and do some paperwork at a firm in the tax department.</p>
<p>If anyone has a question concerning the moderation of this forum, the TOS requires that you send a PM to the moderator. Violating of the TOS are grounds for have posting privileges suspended.</p>
<p>I think "practice trials" in law school is called Moot Court, and I believe it isn't a requirement at most law schools (in fact, only top students qualify to participate, so not everyone even gets the chance to do so). I have also been told that the trial lawyers that we are so accustomed to are in fact not the typical lawyer. And like Cardozo said, I have also heard that most lawyers never set foot in a court room.</p>
<p>kfc4u: Moot court is usually by invitation or try out, but most (if not all) law school have a trial advocacy class, where you are taught basic trial skills and get a chance to practice them in a classroom setting.</p>
<p>I have practiced law for over 25 years, and while I actually have done some public speaking fairly successfully, none of it has been litigation. I have never been the type to raise my hand in class a lot and never been great at thinking on my feet. I draft documents well and have a tremendous memory for what I have done before, which helps me find model transactions and contracts that I have used over the years. My best quality has been that my clients over the years, for the most part, have liked me because I am not a "type". As a result, the majority of my practice is the same as it was in 1983, doing work that I like for people that I like. I consider myself one lucky lawyer. So, in short, don't be discouraged because of how you perceive yourself. You can do fine at law with a brain and hard work.</p>
<p>Moot court was a required half year course in my school - part of legal research and writing. It was my worst law school related fear and I got through it mostly by looking like I was going to faint. I did rally and get most of what I was supposed to say out and that was good enough. I think they were just happy I didn't pass out, hit my head and sue them. haha</p>
<p>Is there a lawyer type?? No, lawyers come in all types, but there are plenty of stereotypes.</p>
<p>In case one likes to argue in law school, but is not interested in moot court trials, there are a number of national appellate moot court competitions outside of the law schools, in which students compete in arguing appeals.</p>
<p>Moot court was required for all first-year students at my law school.</p>
<p>In places with relatively few lawyers, the percentage who never set foot in a courtroom is probably lower. Attorneys who do appear in court are not necessarily that charismatic. (Did you catch much of the OJ trial? We all remember Johnny Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey, but how charismatic was Christopher Darden? Marcia Clarke was more annoying than charismatic, in my book. Barry Scheck was very effective, but not a flamboyant presence in the courtroom.)</p>
<p>Transactional attorneys (most big-firm attorneys, and most in-house attorneys fall into this category) rarely set foot in a courtroom. I'll confess to being puzzled by Cardozo's statement that "most lawyers never interact with clients." In big firms, young associates don't interact much with clients; for governmental lawyers, the "client" may be an abstraction like "the People of the United States of America." For most lawyers, though, client interaction is a fairly significant part of the job.</p>
<p>"I'll confess to being puzzled by Cardozo's statement that "most lawyers never interact with clients." In big firms, young associates don't interact much with clients; for governmental lawyers, the "client" may be an abstraction like "the People of the United States of America." For most lawyers, though, client interaction is a fairly significant part of the job."</p>
<p>Hey, Greybeard. I actually thought about this after I wrote it, because you're of course right that sole practitioners, and many attorneys in smaller firms, have by necessity a great deal of client interaction. </p>
<p>My statement is more in regard to larger firms, where generally a relatively small number of partners actually interact with clients, and a larger base of associates, of counsel, etc., do the grunt work behind closed doors, rarely or never interacting with clients. </p>
<p>I'm not sure what the actual numerical breakdowns are, but I think we can agree that many attorneys fall into the category of quietly working behind the scenes -- even in litigation at larger firms. If the OP wants to avoid this kind of client contact, they therefore shouldn't have a problem.</p>
<p>In the litigation departments of large law firms, document review (and "cranking out discovery responses") can eat up a huge number of associates' hours. They're also likely to spend a fair amount of time taking and defending depositions.</p>
<p>There are exceptions, but the ratio of associates to partners at most large law firms is fairly close to 1:1.</p>
<p>Appellate lawyers don't fall into the category of attorneys who never go to court, as they do on occasion make court appearances for oral arguments, but my impression is that they would spend a higher percentage of their time than most attorneys working "behind the scenes" *reviewing trial transcripts looking for reversible error, and drafting briefs.</p>
<p>I'll have to confess that I've never met the client that has employed me for the last five years, since that client is of course a fictitious person. I do spend a lot of time dealing with fellow employees of my client, and with my counterparts at other corporations.</p>
<p>"In the litigation departments of large law firms, document review (and "cranking out discovery responses") can eat up a huge number of associates' hours. They're also likely to spend a fair amount of time taking and defending depositions."</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>"There are exceptions, but the ratio of associates to partners at most large law firms is fairly close to 1:1."</p>
<p>This statement surprised me, because there have generally been more associates than partners at the firms I've worked in. This apparently reflects a general organizational philosophy described in a passage I came across:</p>
<p>Pyramid scheme-- There is a curious parallel to the policies of academe and the recruitment of junior associates in the private sectors of law and accounting. In major accounting firms, newly hired junior associates are worked very hard for a number of years, but only about one in ten makes partner. At major law firms a similar pyramid scheme is employed. James Stewart explains in his book The Partners: Inside America’s Most Powerful Law Firms (1983): </p>
<p>"The key to profitability in such firms is the partner/associate ratio and “pyramid” staffing of client matters. There must be more associates than partners —the bigger the disparity the better — since the firms make money from associates by billing their clients for their work at rates which more than compensate for the associate salaries and overhead (376)."
<a href="http://universitysecrets.com/ch11.htm%5B/url%5D">http://universitysecrets.com/ch11.htm</a></p>
<p>While the cited work is obviously somewhat dated, this had always been my impression as well.</p>
<p>In looking at firms on the net, I had a hard time finding any real hard numbers (at least, without unduly exerting myself.) I did find some firms alleged as having 3-1 or 4-1 associate/partner ratios, with one 2-1 ratio firm describing their ratio as "low". However, there were in fact numerous firms that claimed close to a 1:1 ratio, which surprised me. </p>
<p>I think part of the reason for my surprise is the fact that a relatively small proportion of associates actually make partner as most large firms. However, this can also be partly explained by the generally high turnover at such firms -- with such turnover, firms can clearly keep partnerships ranks limited while working through numerous associates, and still maintain a somewhat close ratio. </p>
<p>The best overall data I found on associate/partners data was the following link, which appears (unless I'm reading it wrong) to support the idea of a nearly 1:1 ratio in the very largest firms, but closer to a 2:1 ratio in most larger firms (over 20 lawyers).
<a href="http://www.altmanweil.com/pdf/2003SLFESample.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.altmanweil.com/pdf/2003SLFESample.pdf</a></p>
<p>Either way, in most firms I've worked in (which have ranged from 20 attorneys to 150) most lawyers never appeared to directly interact with clients, rather doing the tasks you noted, or basic research and writing.</p>
<p>Smaller firms, on the other hand, which may actually account for most attorneys, may well require far more client contact on the part of the attorneys involved. (This is obviously true when you get close to the level of a solo practitioner.)</p>
<p>Cardozo,</p>
<p>Here's a link to another web site that has a fair amount of data on associate-partner ratios:</p>
<p>I had the same reaction you did. I never went the big-firm route myself, but my impression when I was in law school was that the ratio of associates to partners in big firms was much higher than most firms are reporting now. In Los Angeles, for example, there were two firms with 4-1 associate to partne ratios, and some others where the ratio was four partners to every associate. My informal algorithm (looking halfway down the list) seemed to reveal a median of about 1.25 associates for every partner.</p>
<p>My best guess is that this data reflects a change that took place in the last five years. When times got tough in 2001, lots of big firms started laying off associates. I don't think they've ever really returned to the kinds of ratios they used to aim for.</p>
<p>Greybeard: As an appellate attorney, you are right on about the fact that 97% of my time is spent in the solitary acts of reading the record on appeal, and research and drafting briefs. Even if I orally argue the 20-30 cases I handle every year, it would still represent less than 30 hours of actually court time.</p>
<p>The point we can take is that there are multiple applications of a law degree: in-house corporate counsel, working in an AG's office and representing the State in all its legal work, insurance (policy writing, claim adjustment, legal advice), private practice in any number of specialties that have nothing to do with litigation, etc., etc. Only a portion of these types of jobs involve trial work. My husband has been an attorney for 25 years, and has only been in court 3 times. The second time was as an invited spectator at the US Supreme Court, the third time was to speak to a judge at the request of the State AG. </p>
<p>The first? Well, that was in litigation. He volunteered for pro bono work (quaking in his boots, since he was clueless). But he never actually had to speak in front of the jury since the defendant started a fistfight in the courtroom while being seated, and before the trial started. So the police hauled him off to jail again instead of continuing the trial. My husband breathed a sigh of relief, and went back to his regular job.</p>
<p>Hayden,</p>
<p>You're bringing back some of my courtroom memories. In one of my two jury trials (both of which I lost), my client, an elderly woman who spoke very little English, grabbed a felt-tip marker from opposing counsel during his summation, crossed out the chart he's been drawing while saying, "No! No!", then announced in her native language that "this trial is killing me," and collapsed on the floor. The judge ushered the jury out of the room, and called an ambulance. He asked us if we wanted a mistrial; both sides decided to take their chances. (The judge later told me he thought my client had improved her standing with the jury; the jurors I spoke to confirmed that this was the case, though not quite enough to tip the balance in her favor.)</p>
<p>Greybeard: I have been in this business too long when I find it amusing that having a client pass out in court is funny.</p>
<p>I once won a case for an elderly lady, and to show her gratitude, she sent the JUSTICE who authored the opinion two tickets to Disneyland. The Justice returned the tickets to my client, with a cc. to me, suggesting she might want to thank her "very fine attorney" who had done all the hrad work to win the case. I never did see those tickets!</p>
<p>Concerneddad,</p>
<p>You just won an important case. How are you going to celebrate? </p>
<p>I've got an even more painful story: as a young attorney, a client once hired me to evict his mother. After I succeeded, she camped out in my office and said that I needed to find her a new place to live, as I had "ruined her case." I called the police; a single cop arrived, and said, and said to the woman, "please don't make me arrest you - I hate arresting old ladies." (She was then about the same age I am now.) When she refused to leave, he asked me to drop to the floor and grab her around the ankles while he put her in hand-cuffs. I did as he requested; she was actually quite strong, but we managed to subdue her. He then led her from the building, while she sobbed and screamed to all of my neighbors in the office building, "the lawyer ruined my case."</p>
<p>I later made my rounds to explain to my neighbors that as opposing counsel, it was in fact my job to ruin the woman's case. I'm not sure any of them believed me.</p>
<p>Greybeard, I think we need a "Lawyer's Cafe" where can swap war stories, and I can tell you in deatil about the client who sent me a neck tie for Hanukah (he had strangled his wife), or the client who brought a bag of money and his monkey to a client meeting!</p>