THE STANKOWSKI REPORT #16: How Being a Lawyer Changes a Person

by Stan Stankowski

Lawyers are strange people. We don’t exactly do the same things other persons do. This is evident in any number of things that happen throughout the day. To get to the point, here are a few situations that most non-lawyers would not experience--

Scenario #1

Stan:  Hey Man, check this out!
Other Associate:  What’s up?
Stan:  It's this freaking opinion from the 11th Circuit, 222 F.2d 333 (11th Cir. 2004).  Funny as shit.
Other Associate: I’ll check it out!
<half an hour later>
Other Associate:  Dude, that was fucking hilarious.
Stan: I know, can you imagine Judge X writing that, he’s about 80.
Other Associate: No shit.

Reason why this is odd: One would think this would wear off after the first year of law school. And it does. But it comes back around. Sad really.

Scenario #2

Stan: Check please.
Waiter: Of  Course.
Other Associate 1: Well, what did everyone think?
Stan: 6-8
Other Associate 2: Ehhhh, 5-6
Other Associate 3: I don’t know about that, it barely rates….4.
Partner: Apparently, none of you have been to a restaurant where proper venison tartar is served. This is obviously a 2. No more.
Waiter: Here is your check, may I get anything else?
Stan: No. Thanks for your help.
Other Associate 3: How much?
Stan: $498.
Partner: Well, you pay for what you get.

Reason why this is odd: Who the hell eats $500 dinners on a regular enough basis that they would rate one a 6-8, much less a 2? This is a perk, but good lord, even I feel overly pretentious at these functions. (Corollary: I got pissed at a valet the other day for changing my radio station. It is not good to get that snobby. I certainly remember a time when I would avoid the valet at all times, much less be annoyed that he changed my station.  What the hell people?)

Scenario #3

Partner: Did you have plans this weekend?
Stan: Of course, but what do you need?
Partner:  A mind-numbingly boring brief that may or may not ever be necessary.
Stan: Not a problem. I’ll have it Monday.
Partner: Are you sure?
Stan: Yes.
Partner: Good Man.
Stan: Thanks. <proceeds to cancel entire weekend>.

Reason why this is odd:  I didn’t miss a beat. I didn’t even get irritated. I was actually a little thankful that I could get some hours in. This is sick, people, not enviable.

What to take from this? Well, it is hard to say. There is a little abnormal luxury (by the way, no one at the table in scenario #1 actually had to pay, you just get reimbursed). There is a lot of abnormal finding of humor in stupid opinions. There is an uncommon willingness to sacrifice other things for work. Of course, this may be completely normal in all professions, but I wouldn’t really know. 

Either way….I still am able to sit back occasionally and realize that this whole thing is a bit surreal. I think that is important.

About the Author: Stan Stankowski is the pseudonym of a first-year associate working in a litigation firm somewhere in the South. For more details, read his introductory post, as well as Evan Schaeffer's introduction. The collected Stankowski Reports are here.

Comments

[tony]

how sad am I that I immediatly looked up 222 F.2d 333, hoping it really would be a hilarious case?

[Ted]

Not as sad as me for immediately recognizing that it couldn't be a real cite, because 222 F.2d was issued in 1955, rather than 2004.

[Aaron]

Could the exchange in the first two comments be fairly categorized as "Scenario #4" (or perhaps "Scenario #1a")? ;-)

[Petey Pablo]

Even sadder: Thinking that Anderson v. Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. IS a really funny opinion.

[Evan]

Here is my contribution to the literature of unusual judicial opinions: "Federal Judge Sways to Rhythm of Talking Heads," which was the only post I've ever done that was picked up by the uber-weblog Boing Boing.

[Stan]

For your edification, the case at issue was

2004 WL 1717660

Enjoy.

[Greg]

The answer to this, as pointed out by the judge below, is that the call of 78.72 perches as the length of the third line in the deed from Smith to Simmons is manifestly a mistake.

That's funny.

[jen]

equally as depressing; after countless months of document review finding a particularly embarrassing husband-wife spat about infidelity in email form and feeling the need to share it with everyone else in document review hell. also depressing--I couldn't think of any way to make that funny :(

[mythago]

because 222 F.2d was issued in 1955, rather than 2004

They *had* Federal reporters in 1955? ;)

If it makes you feel better, Stan, I find that it's still possible to entertain laymen with cases like Fisher v. Lowe and Mayo.