Here is the response of one attorney to my recent post, "Sex, the Married Man, and the Practice of Law." I would appreciate other testimonies - both positive and negative - as well as advice for those who struggle with their law careers.
Prof. Scaperlanda,
I read your recent post on happiness where you note that "in short, this student – and I don't know if she is part of a small minority or a majority of students – couldn't dare to hope for true happiness, true love, true contentment, and true joy. Like Augustine, a restlessness seemed to reside in her heart, but unlike Augustine, she seemed to conclude that the search would be too painful and ultimately prove fruitless. Therefore, the restlessness needed to be muffled."
You note that you have foundational questions which you deal with in the second half of your course, namely "How does the law fit into this vision for my life? Is a legal career a vocation or merely a means to an end – monetary or otherwise? Can I live an integrated life or must I fragment myself to be a successful attorney? How do I balance work and family? Is it possible to live a happy fulfilled life? Is it possible to live a happy and fulfilled life and be an attorney?"
I have been practicing law for roughly three years now, have taken two bar exams, and work for a small Midwestern town. I consider that I am probably far enough into the practice of law to have taken its measure, and can only now begin to deal with the questions you have asked. Balancing work and family is relatively easy with this firm, due to low billable-hour requirements. Nonetheless, I am not happy in the firm, and despite suggestions that a change of firm is what I need, I suspect that given the reasons for my unhappiness are more related to the law itself.
I would say that, due to our system of law as it is now, it takes a very certain kind of person to practice law and be both happy and successful doing so. In any given area, one must be willing to both love the law, and to divorce oneself from exploration of the law in a philosophic manner. Equity, the incredible and wonderful modifier of the law, is dead when not directly encoded. One rarely gets to make "good faith" arguments that some area of the law ought to be changed, because such arguments are made almost always on appeal, and no person or corporation is mad enough to appeal given the costs in any suit. Therefore, judges are often not interested in arguments from equity or reason, and are truly only interested in if one's client wins or loses on the letter of the law. In short, we now live in a system of complete legal positivism. The only place one finds arguments not based in the code is usually in procedural venues, where the court is often free to take any approach it pleases, despite the rules of procedure saying otherwise (soon-to-be lawyers take note, if you were not told this already in your civ. pro. class - the judge always wins until you convince the appellate court otherwise).
And these are just a few of the problems within the law itself. If one works for a firm, then one must always practice "partnership happiness" law, whereby each partner with whom one works must be kept utterly happy - otherwise, it is a ding in the six-month associate review. In such reviews, the focus is always on the negative, and rarely on the positive. The hours billed are rarely high enough (even if the work flow comes through the partners), the analyses of the law never in-depth enough. And, of course, in a small firm, one is never paid quite enough to pay down the law school loans significantly.
In short, practicing law and achieving happiness depends greatly on one's turn of mind. If one is a thoroughgoing pragmatist, and willing to practice law simply as a means to an (eventual) economic end, then one will be happy in law. If one is idealistic, and practicing in an area where such ideals are appreciated (civil rights / constitutional law), then one will likely be happy. If one is curious about the philosophy of law, and are practicing law (and not in academia), then one will likely be disappointed and frustrated, and with a large amount of law school loans on one's back, likely to be trapped and quite unhappy. Then, it is essentially waiting for partnership, 7-10 years down the road, where an attorney may be paid closer to what he / she earns for the firm, and can begin paying off debt from school at a greater than minimal-interest rate.
I suppose, then, that I am somewhat pessimistic about the ability to be happy with law practice as anything other than a means to the end of supporting one's family and paying off debts. I do not find it intellectually, spiritually, or even ideologically fulfilling, and I do not see that it could ever be so for most people.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Saturday, May 24, 2008
My Professional Responsibility (PR) course is taught in two halves. The first half uses problems to focus on the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. Although the larger – more foundational and fundamental issues – arise and are discussed, they take a backseat to the Rules. This part concludes around the time of the MPRE.
During the second part of the course, the foundational issues come to the fore through the use of film, novel, and guest speakers using Shaffer & Cochran’s four models of lawyering as a framework. We watch “A Man for All Seasons” and “To Kill a Mockingbird.” We read “The Death of Ivan Ilyich.” And, we have guest speakers, including lawyers who are recovering alcoholics and who work with lawyer assistance programs. The focus here is on questions such as what is my life about? How does the law fit into this vision for my life? Is a legal career a vocation or merely a means to an end – monetary or otherwise? Can I live an integrated life or must I fragment myself to be a successful attorney? How do I balance work and family? Is it possible to live a happy fulfilled life? Is it possible to live a happy and fulfilled life and be an attorney?
With this background, I turn to Rob’s recent post on “Sex and the Married Man.” In that post, he quotes a New York Magazine article:
A relationship is a myth you create with each other. It isn’t necessarily true, but it’s meaningful. The key to that myth is that the other person is enough for you. You know in your head that another person isn’t enough for you. But if you don’t honor the myth, then it crumbles.
I learn so much from my students. A couple of years ago, a student in my PR class was addressing some of these foundational issues and it struck me - like a brick hitting me between the eyes – that a number of students, including this particular student, didn’t believe that they could live truly happy and fulfilled lives. For these students, “happiness is a myth you create. It isn’t necessarily true, but it’s meaningful. The key to that myth is that the life you have settled for is enough for you. You know in your head that it isn’t enough for you. But if you don’t honor the myth, then it crumbles.” In short, this student – and I don’t know if she is part of a small minority or a majority of students – couldn’t dare to hope for true happiness, true love, true contentment, and true joy. Like Augustine, a restlessness seemed to reside in her heart, but unlike Augustine, she seemed to conclude that the search would be too painful and ultimately prove fruitless. Therefore, the restlessness needed to be muffled.
This classroom epiphany caused me great sadness. Two questions. Have others seen this in some of their students, classmates, or fellow lawyers? And, how can we – I – model our lives and teaching to foster a sense of hope in these students about to embark on a legal career?
