First Post: Jeremy Blachman's of April 29, discussing the odd phenomenon of Harvard 3Ls wishing their fellow classmates good luck, including the luck of not ending up with permanent careers as lawyers.
Second Post: Scheherazade’s post of the same day, admitting “another reason I am still a lawyer is that it lets me have a life that makes me very happy.”
On this blawg, I've shared a little bit about my early inspirations for becoming a lawyer. I also wrote a post about what I think is one of the great things about having a law degree: play your cards right, and you can fashion a career that will suit your personality. Finally, I’ve had some things to say from my perspective as someone who worked for six years as a civil defense lawyer in a large firm, and for slightly longer as a plaintiffs' lawyer who now has his own practice with his wife.
The Harvard 3Ls might be right that lawyers aren’t cool—but if that’s true, why do I know so many cool lawyers? (Note to self: don’t use the word “cool” anymore, it’s too vague, it means too many different things to too many different people.) Is the problem that's being articulated the unease that accompanies becoming a certified member of the "establishment"? Is the problem one of giving up the opportunity to behave artistically--or more cynically, irresponsibly? Reading Jeremy’s post, followed by Scheherazade’s post and the comments, it occurs to me that we’re all suffering from a profession-wide identity crisis, perhaps the sum total of many tiny individual identity crises.
Am I happy as a lawyer? Hmmm. I know I didn't like getting to the office this morning, opening the paper, and finding a half-page ad stating in 100-point type: “Sharks in Illinois? . . . Like hungry sharks, predatory trial lawyers are always on the hunt . . . To save our courts from sharks in fancy suits, we need real change,” etc., etc. (The graphic of the giant shark was really shocking.) On the other hand, I think this sort of rhetoric comes with the territory. It's also nothing new, as evidenced by this post at overlawyered.com (you have to follow the link to see what I mean).
Perhaps I should also point out, as UCL said in his comment to Scheherazade’s post, that I am proud to be a lawyer—I take pride in the work I did as a civil defense lawyer, and take pride in what I do now, which is represent the “common people” in their disputes with corporations and insurance companies. I can’t say I’m always so proud of my fellow lawyers, a confession I don’t feel obliged to explain except to point out I am a longtime reader of Walter Olson and Ted Frank at overlawyered.com, who frequently get it wrong in my opinion, but who sometimes get it right. (They'd probably say the same about me.)
I used to spend a lot of time thinking of ways to escape the profession, but I don't so much anymore. Like Scheherazade, I think most days as a lawyer are fun and bring opportunities for completely new and unexpected things to think about. Sometimes, I engage in brief bouts of self-pity about the way having a law license automatically sets you apart from those who don't; I always sense a slight unease and suspicion from non-lawyers, at least until they realize I’m not so bad. I’m sure it’s a feeling that’s common to many lawyers, particularly the overly-sensitive ones.
It’s that feeling of exclusion, by the way, that led me to title this blawg “Notes from the (Legal) Underground.” I’ll explain in full another time, but it has something to do with my belief that (a) lawyers have alienated themselves from the rest of society (while remaining a very powerful force within that same society) and (b) lawyers have alienated themselves from one another. These twin problems are compounded by the fact that--as one of Scheherazade’s commenters pointed out--“most lawyers do a terrible job of explaining to themselves or anyone else why what we do is important and valuable.”
Now, how can I say all that in a comic way?
Comments