Does anyone here actually enjoy being a lawyer? Forum

[mmac]

I do! I work for myself now though. I generally liked working at firms (liked my coworkers anyway, but not the day-to-day drag).

[Excellent117]

I genuinely enjoy practicing law. I’m a rising fourth year in big law. I can confirm that most people do not love it although in general most people do not enjoy their profession. I find legal strategy intellectually challenging, I like writing and research, and I like the competitiveness of litigation. I have always enjoyed competitive strategy games including poker.

I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like a canned answer a rising 2L gives as a response to "why litigation" during a screener interview.

If you want to be challenged intellectually as part of your day-to-day work, practicing law is not for you. If you're a truly intellectually curious person, then you will need to find an outlet ASAP in biglaw, otherwise you will go crazy. And even if you find that outlet, the odds that you'll be able to engage with it enough during your biglaw career to maintain your sanity are quite low.

You're not doing anything new or groundbreaking when you practice law. No profession or industry is slower or more hesitant to react to changes around it. Creativity isn't rewarded, it's viewed with, at best, immense skepticism or, at worst and most often, deep disdain.

[nixy]

Eh, I’m not in biglaw, but I am in litigation, and I like tracking down cases that fit my facts/support what I want to do, or that shoot down what opposing counsel is arguing. There’s creativity in analogizing/distinguishing cases. It’s not creativity like painting the Mona Lisa or inventing a new form of AI or something, it’s almost always creativity within a set of clear boundaries (you’re not going to be able to be creative in the sense of arguing for a new legal standard to replace Daubert, but you can be creative in arguing for why your/their expert evidence does/doesn’t meet the Daubert standard). So not earth-shattering, but it’s still intellectually engaging. I also think putting together a case for trial is creative/engaging in the sense that it’s about story telling and fitting everything together to make a coherent narrative.

To the extent law requires a lot of work that isn’t the above, I agree that a lot of the other stuff isn't very intellectually challenging, and even the above probably won’t satisfy your intellectual curiosity if you’re the kind of person who wonders why the rule is X and why it has to be X and wouldn’t it be better if the rule weren’t X. But for me, it’s still often engaging.

[JCougar]

LOL at Biglaw being "strategic."

Biglaw is romanticized on here because of the starting salaries, but associates usually hate their jobs, and don't last long. Associates do mostly boring, rote discovery work or editing, and if you screw one thing up, you're replaceable with a fresh fish desperate to pay off their debt. Associates are usually terrified of the partners, and never get any real responsibility arguing motions and doing depositions--therefore, it's a really bad way to build any real skills or confidence.

It's also not strategic work. There's basically one strategy: Churn out as much legal toilet paper as possible on every case while defending 100% liability cases just to make life more difficult for the plaintiff. Biglaw clients are almost invariably Fortune 500 companies, and their job isn't to think of ingenious legal theories--its to crush the little guy with as much BS paperwork as possible so they give up or run out of resources before they win.

File motions to dismiss each time the complaint is amended based on goofy legal theories just so can bill hours. Bury a small plaintiff's shop with 8,000 discovery documents the night before a deposition, and bill $300/hour for the document review. Destroy evidence. Delete emails. You have no idea how prevalent spoliation of evidence is. Witness tampering as well. Perjury is the norm.

I have yet to see a single motion filed by any Biglaw firm that isn't just a complete waste of time or laughable on its face. Case citations that are either wrong or hurt their own case, completely made up BS with no actual basis in caselaw, etc. But they are always asking for extensions of time and page limits, because the only thing that's important to them is billing hours.

You couldn't pay me enough money to do that--even without the debt. I'd hate myself.

[nixy]

The above is really weird. I’m not romanticizing biglaw (again, I don’t work in it), but when I clerked I saw plenty of competent non-frivolous motions from biglaw firms. So I don’t know what your context is or your standard for laughable is.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

LOL at Biglaw being "strategic."

Biglaw is romanticized on here because of the starting salaries, but associates usually hate their jobs, and don't last long. Associates do mostly boring, rote discovery work or editing, and if you screw one thing up, you're replaceable with a fresh fish desperate to pay off their debt. Associates are usually terrified of the partners, and never get any real responsibility arguing motions and doing depositions--therefore, it's a really bad way to build any real skills or confidence.

It's also not strategic work. There's basically one strategy: Churn out as much legal toilet paper as possible on every case while defending 100% liability cases just to make life more difficult for the plaintiff. Biglaw clients are almost invariably Fortune 500 companies, and their job isn't to think of ingenious legal theories--its to crush the little guy with as much BS paperwork as possible so they give up or run out of resources before they win.

File motions to dismiss each time the complaint is amended based on goofy legal theories just so can bill hours. Bury a small plaintiff's shop with 8,000 discovery documents the night before a deposition, and bill $300/hour for the document review. Destroy evidence. Delete emails. You have no idea how prevalent spoliation of evidence is. Witness tampering as well. Perjury is the norm.

I have yet to see a single motion filed by any Biglaw firm that isn't just a complete waste of time or laughable on its face. Case citations that are either wrong or hurt their own case, completely made up BS with no actual basis in caselaw, etc. But they are always asking for extensions of time and page limits, because the only thing that's important to them is billing hours.

You couldn't pay me enough money to do that--even without the debt. I'd hate myself.

My experience has been different than this. We’ve counseled clients not to move for reconsideration or appeal where it it would be expensive to do so and the chance of winning is unlikely. We’ve also in many cases convinced the court to limit discovery because it was in the best interest of the client and had the effect of lowering our fees. What you’re describing is seriously unethical conduct and I agree that it’s not strategic.

[JCougar]

My experience has been different than this. We’ve counseled clients not to move for reconsideration or appeal where it it would be expensive to do so and the chance of winning is unlikely. We’ve also in many cases convinced the court to limit discovery because it was in the best interest of the client and had the effect of lowering our fees. What you’re describing is seriously unethical conduct and I agree that it’s not strategic.

I have a case being appealed now where the trial judge laughed the defendant out of the courtroom because their legal theory was so absurd. It's caused 10 months of delay. They filed a 50 page appeal brief on a 1 page trial court order, a reply brief, and a separate reply to an amicus brief.

Have another case where their Motion to Dismiss misstated the holdings of four different cases to make it look like they were in their favor. It was not a matter of legal opinion...it was a black and white matter. That same case they called up one of my third party witnesses and lied and told him he may be a defendant in the matter to try and alienate him from our side.

Have another where they dug up some dirt on my client and tried to blackmail him into dropping the case. Blackmail request was just vague enough to avoid legal liability.

IMO, this kind of behavior is routine. All coming from Biglaw firms that people on here strive to be a part of.

[nixy]

I mean, anecdotes are nice and all, but lots of people are going to be able to offer different ones. Some biglaw firms are filled with scumbags. So are some mid-sized firms and so are some small firms. I think you’re identifying a law problem, not a biglaw problem. (That, and that you may have a personal distaste for the adversarial system.)

[JCougar]

I mean, anecdotes are nice and all, but lots of people are going to be able to offer different ones. Some biglaw firms are filled with scumbags. So are some mid-sized firms and so are some small firms. I think you’re identifying a law problem, not a biglaw problem. (That, and that you may have a personal distaste for the adversarial system.)

Adversity is fine. Dealing with unethical behavior is just the cost of doing business in law, I guess.

Football is adversarial. They still have referees that penalize you for breaking the rules. Most state bar ethics committees don't give a crap, though, IMO.