Of Jobs and Callings

Law school is the one thing I've ever said I'd never do. While I (obviously) got over that particular commitment, I have never felt entirely at home in the law school environment. Most of my peers want more practicality; I'd like more theory. My peers think law is the best, most effective way to structure human relationships; I am frequently suspicious of the law and its tendency to serve as an instrument for imposing one's will on others. Most of my peers are bright and interesting and socially adept; I'm bright and interesting and, let's face it, awkward beyond belief.

A stunning majority of my peers also have jobs lined up for next fall, while I am scarcely beginning the Ph.D. application process. Words cannot convey the magnitude of relief I feel every time I think about interviews and networking and job hunting. For a while there I thought maybe I'd give BigLaw a try; later, I figured a federal clerkship was the way to go. But the application process was a nightmare and those few interviews I endured were just agonizing.

"Do you have any hobbies?" they ask. I have a lot of interesting hobbies, it turns out. Linux computing? Can't mention that, that's anti-corporation, nobody wants a long-haired hippie working for a respectable law firm. My action figures, video games, and comic books are a triple threat; any one of those would get me labeled infantile, never mind all three. I could mention that I'm a big fan of contemporary fiction, but no one who takes time to relax with a good, non-legal book could possibly be ready to commit to 80-hour workweeks.

Turns out they just wanted to know if I (a)golf or (b)play tennis. Neither of the above, boys (never been interviewed by a woman yet). I don't golf. I don't play tennis. I would never make partner at your firm.

But then, I wouldn't work 80 hours a week, either. I have a wife and kids and I'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much. I'm so tired of hearing lawyers state that working insane hours shows commitment, gets the job done, demonstrates work ethic. That's not work ethic; that's completely insane. Even 60 hours a week might be reasonable if it was only once in a while; I've worked some 50- and 60-hour weeks in my day, so I know I can do it, but every week? I'd sooner play tennis.

"Why do you want to work for our firm?" Because your reception area is tiled with Italian marble and you pay your employees in gold bricks. Because you're one of the "big dogs" in a profession so obsessed with pedigree that it hasn't substantially altered its pedagogical approach in over a century, despite a veritable mountain range of evidence suggesting that the Langdellian approach is worse than broken. Because there are mouths to feed. I know you want to hear that your firm is the best, the coolest, the only place I've ever wanted to work. You want me to lie to you; you savor the lies of applicant after applicant. But I just need a job, and you're hiring, and isn't that good enough?

Except I don't need a job, and my whole world is brighter for that. What does any of this have to do with the practice of law, anyhow? I'm a meticulous researcher, a fantastic writer, and a competent oral advocate, to boot. I look forward to running my own soft-IP and appellate practice, once I pass the bar; part-time, only taking those clients I want to take. I plan on doing some family law on the side, mostly pro bono I suspect. Mostly I will focus on my Ph.D. There will be no golf.

I never felt particularly at home in the law school, but this year it doesn't bother me. I realize now that law school was never more than a stop along the way, even when I intended to practice full time. Understanding the law is important to me, and being able to practice law will come in handy, but I'm not really a lawyer. I'm a philosopher at heart. The games lawyers play in interviews are the games lawyers play in the courtroom, in the boardroom, in the back room. I suck at these games. Truth and Good and Beauty have no place there; it's all bright-lines and bottom-lines and bread-lines.

That's okay. There's work to do there and it has its own value. But its not my place, and now I realize that while I tried so hard to fit into the mold--for my childrens' sake--it was never to be. I have my lovely wife to thank for making this freedom possible!

Having said all that, I have some fabulous friends who are now or will shortly be lawyers; they will endure the interviews with more grace than I could muster. They will find meaning in their work and (hopefully!) they will find employers who treat them with dignity and respect. They might even make the profession--or, dare we hope, the world--better. I suspect that some of my peers, at least, feel as strongly about law school as I do about philosophy. If you are reading this, I apologize for my intrusion into your world. I will never appreciate it as you do, but know that I appreciate it in my own way, and that I appreciate you for loving something that so confounds me. The experience has been enlightening and interesting and enjoyable.

But for myself, I am looking forward to a year of education without worry, and after that, a triumphant return to my passion.

Comments

Timely posting for me personally

Hi Kenny,

I really needed to read this tonight, which I know probably sounds silly. After somewhat of a tiff with a prof over a detail of his attendance policy (which I wasn't challenging, but was asking for clarification... which apparently he took as a bombsaway assault on his personal character, fitness as a prof, and general member of the human race... I'll tell you more on Monday) I've realized how damn seriously the legal profession takes itself. Law school churns out students, at least some of whom were once idealistic enough to believe in Truth, Good, and Beauty. These students, for the most part, are wildly unprepared to actually practice law, but could give a lesson or two on how not to answer Professor Lee's questions on in rem jurisdiction. Those who have sought Big Law, the students who were either clever enough or manipulative enough or slutty enough to make it to the top ten percent, will sit at their desk as the Big Law firm, be assigned a project they have no earthly reason to know how to do, and miserably fail. This will continue to happen for the next three years, wherein these associates will most likely fail to make rain and cost the firm more in salary than they bring in with clients.

This is all just a mess. It makes me question how I can be a happy and morally productive member of society and be an attorney. Cue audible sigh here.

It's a Fair Question

I think it's possible to be a happy and morally productive member of society as an attorney, but (1)it's not easy and (2)it's probably not very lucrative. One thing I don't mention in this post is work as a public servant; public defenders and the like are quite valuable to society (prosecutors certainly can be, but unfortunately that's a system where the worst ones are promoted while the best ones labor in relative anonymity). But I don't really have the temperament of a trial lawyer, so that was never the path for me.

And contrary to prevailing perception, federal clerkships and BigLaw and public service aren't the only options available to you. I think the biggest challenge we face is that whole "pedigree" thing--which leads people to view the legal profession as having only a handful of valid career paths (sadly, many law firms and even some judges reinforce this through narrow-minded hiring practices). The CSO tries to counter this with their half-credit "career paths" lecture series, which is nice, but actions speak louder than words, and the externships and OCIs and "let-a-professor-buy-you-lunch" programs are not favorable to alternative career tracks. I suspect the pressure on the CSO to do things that will improve our rankings is... palpable.

It's not an easy puzzle to solve, but you've got time. You'll figure it out.

Interesting, as usual . . .

Bless you and your philosopher's heart ;)

I still wrestle with finding my place. I'm not a social sciences or humanities academic--I tried that before law school. I don't think I'm a law firm guy either. It hasn't taken me long to realize that I'm a relatively poor attorney, at least as far as my value to a law firm is concerned. I don't have the drive to fight (and just as importantly, generate) the profitable legal battles, and have little in common with people of "the business world." So, I imagine that my foray into the for-profit legal arena will be short. But, perhaps these are just "stops along the way" for me too. Maybe I'll become a legal academic . . . law school suited me (as it apparently does not suit many people). I'm not certain yet, but I'm leaning that way. All this only presents another difficult question for me, though. Whatever I do, I want to meaningfully contribute in some way. In order to be a good law professor, must I muddle through some years of practice in order to be more than an interesting (perhaps), but almost utterly irrelevant, legal academic? In other words, would any value that I might be able to bring to students be significantly enhanced by putting myself through a few years of something I don't really like to do? If so, am I morally obligated to try to make myself into only a "half-ivory tower" college intellectual? Still battling with this one . . . .

All this said, one thing I have gained over the last few months is a healthy admiration for my business law peers. They are both very good at what they do, and they do real good. They're hard workers. They are effective dispute resolvers. And, by and very large (from my limited experience so far), they do it honestly. There is a lot to admire, even in people who have chosen not to be public defenders or other public servants. They get their hands dirty in the everyday business environment, and it's really remarkable to see those who are able to do it and come away relatively unscathed. The confront the cynicism and defeat it. Maybe my way of dealing with BigLaw and big business is to avoid it. And what does that say about them versus me?

Well...

Mostly I think what it says about them versus you is that you have different skill sets... and different sensitivities. Maybe it also suggests that they are willing to risk a big personal loss for the possibility of a big personal gain. Maybe you're just risk-averse. d^_^b

I think that many of our peers are able to overlook and overcome the "dirty hands" problem by viewing it as a means to an end. And some of them do come away relatively unscathed... but many do not. Good luck finding your place--I'm sure wherever you end up, you will make valuable contributions, whether you realize it or not. You are intellectually mature and a careful thinker, you can't help but contribute!

Thanks for posting, too--interesting to have the perspective of a recent graduate. I admit I didn't expect much sympathy from classmates on this post! Perhaps I'm not as "out of place" as I thought.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
Not Really a Turing Test
3 + 15 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.