Life is too sort to spend 2300 hours a year working on someone else's idea of what the right problems are.

This is a hard, hard decision.

Decius wrote:
As much as I think engineering is a dysfunctional profession, I am often shocked at how other professions seem to work. As all of you know I've been interested in the law for a long time. So I took the LSAT. I got a good grade. So I applied to some schools. I got into a good school. And now, right now, I have to make a decision that will determine the rest of my life. I don't know if I can go through with this, inspite of how much I love the subject matter or what kind of difference I feel that I can make.

Its all about fear. Law firms pray on fear. Some of that fear is real. A lot of it is imaginary, and it is the imaginary fears that have created a system that appears to take really bright people and chew them up.

When I look at all the C&Ds that end up on Chilling Effects, I see fear. A lawyer has convinced a corporation that if they don't vigorously defend their trademarks by threatening every blogger who mentions them in passing they won't be successful at defending that trademark when they do have a real competitive threat. This fear isn't real. There is a substantive difference between a competitive threat and a blogger, and any lawyer worth his salt ought to be able to articulate that difference in a court room. But its in the interest of the firm to stoke that fear. That fear turns into billable hours. By telling corporate managers with a straight face they have to generate these C&Ds or toss their trademark away, the firm generates revenue.

Fear is the reason that a handful of lawschools have dominated the market. All the professors, all the judges, and most of the top lawyers all come from a handful of schools. Those schools are expensive. Astronomically expensive. Because they can be. Because every school in the country wants professors who went to the top schools, and every corporate manager is afraid that if he isn't getting defended by a student from a top school he is going to loose his shirt.

You don't see that in engineering. No one cares what school professors attended. They care whether or not they are engaging communicators and whether or not they are doing useful research. This is because engineering is about results. Law is not about results. Its about perceptions.

Law students have to assume hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to attend one of these top notch schools, and in fact many of the not so top notch schools are similarly expensive and offer the added benefit that its really difficult to get a job when you graduate because everyone is afraid to have you defending them. That debt becomes an indenture. You have to pay it off. The only way to pay it off is the get a job at a big firm. The big firms have to pay you $150,000, because a third of it is going to pay off your loans, and the rest of it is the minimum you'd really expect someone with that level of responsibility to be paid.

The firm can only afford to hire so many people ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
As much as I think engineering is a dysfunctional profession, I am often shocked at how other professions seem to work. As all of you know I've been interested in the law for a long time. So I took the LSAT. I got a good grade. So I applied to some schools. I got into a good school. And now, right now, I have to make a decision that will determine the rest of my life. I don't know if I can go through with this, inspite of how much I love the subject matter or what kind of difference I feel that I can make.

You would make a great lawyer. Not an attorney, but a lawyer. The difference is someone who uses their knowledge to make a difference in people's lives or craft paradigm shifts for things yet unseen versus someone who just rehashes already existing documents for obscenely expensive hourly fees.

When I look at all the C&Ds that end up on Chilling Effects, I see fear. A lawyer has convinced a corporation that if they don't vigorously defend their trademarks by threatening every blogger who mentions them in passing they won't be successful at defending that trademark when they do have a real competitive threat. This fear isn't real. There is a substantive difference between a competitive threat and a blogger, and any lawyer worth his salt ought to be able to articulate that difference in a court room. But its in the interest of the firm to stoke that fear. That fear turns into billable hours. By telling corporate managers with a straight face they have to generate these C&Ds or toss their trademark away, the firm generates revenue.

Well, I think that masses of bloggers can be even worse than a true competitive threat. There's much truth in the swarming/flashmob/long tail affects that we see in today's world. But you hit the problem right on the nose when you say that it's about self justification. A lot of the world's evils are caused by people who are just acting for self-preservation or self-relevance. That doesn't make it any less evil tho.

Fear is the reason that a handful of lawschools have dominated the market. All the professors, all the judges, and most of the top lawyers all come from a handful of schools. Those schools are expensive. Astronomically expensive. Because they can be. Because every school in the country wants professors who went to the top schools, and every corporate manager is afraid that if he isn't getting defended by a student from a top school he is going to loose his shirt.

Here's where I disagree. There's a handful of well respected lawschools for the same reason that there's a handful of respected business schools. It's more about brand than tradition or results. Lots of people go to Harvard and don't do anything with their lives. Maybe someone in their family once did. Or maybe they just never convert the knowledge into something useful. But it happens all the time. There's probab... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

What bothers me even more, frankly, is the fact that some of these fears are real... Sometimes, people win in court not because they are right, but because their counsel is more persuasive for bad reasons... nice suit, good degree, better spoken, etc.... These totally useless measures are what may determine who goes free and who goes to prison. That is a fundamental problem with our entire system.

I'm reminded of the phrase "fear is the mind killer" from Dune. Also reminded of an episode of Ally McBeal I saw back in the day. The defense launched a persuasive arguement for victimhood of his client. His client is acquitted. At the end, Ally cannot believe it. She asks him, "Do you really believe all those things you said?" He says, "Of course not." "Then why did you say that?" she retorts. "Because I was paid to."

I don't know enough about the profession to know whether you get to choose your cases based on your own ethics. But I can guess that you'll never dream of making Partner in a firm without taking up cases that you yourself do not believe your own arguements for or against.

These are the problems I would personally have to wrangle with the most: Can I separate what happens inside the court from the rest of my life? Will I retain guilt for helping someone remain free that I really thought was guilty, or vice versa? Will I be able to maintain any hope of making an effective contribution to the system to steer it in the right direction? How am I going to feel the first time I inherit large spoils of victory? Will I become a dick?

Still, in your case, it sure would be funny to always be able to say, "There is another receipient of Cross examination, heh heh, get it?" :)

Hijexx wrote:
Also reminded of an episode of Ally McBeal I saw back in the day. The defense launched a persuasive arguement for victimhood of his client. His client is acquitted. At the end, Ally cannot believe it. She asks him, "Do you really believe all those things you said?" He says, "Of course not." "Then why did you say that?" she retorts. "Because I was paid to."

Which reminds me of a quote from my father who was a prcaticing attorney for over 20 years. He said once, "Behind every asshole lawyer is an asshole client." Obviously he was aware of the hyperbole, but the point is still valid... in general, lawyers are paid to provide a service to their clients, despite not necessarily being in agreement with their client's motivations. Lawyers get a bad rap, but it's usually the people they represent who are the real greedy or malicious ones.

As for Tom's quandary, i'm not sure i have much illumination. I know I couldn't possibly be a big-firm lawyer... I'd lose my mind. Nothing's important enough to me to spend those kind of hours, consistently, doing it. Even more so if the day-to-day tasks are tedious or repellent to me. I can't subvert myself enough, even if the eventual payoff would be high. I've put in the occasional 70-80 hour week. Even once or twice for more than one week in a row, but not all year long, every year. Fuck all that.

I'm interested in law as well. I've even thought to go to law school, but as I have no desire to get into the firm-grind, it wouldn't be a top 10 or 20 school. I'm not gonna spend all that money, going massively into debt, knowing that the law degree would primarily be to serve me in other endeavors (e.g. business or engineering, from the perspective of protecting my work or knowing how to set certain things up safely). I'm seeing now, from reading the linked article, that even going to a lesser school wouldn't do me much good since i'd pay nearly as much for a far less valuable experience. *shrug*

Of course, Tom, having a technical degree, you're eligible for the patent bar. I have no idea what that niche is like, compared to a the more general legal market, but it's something to look into. I hear the patent bar is a bitch and a half, but I'm sure it's doable. It's a specialization that may (or may not) help mitigate some of the harder choices.

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the unwarranted attacks and slights against my profession, and more so, against my particular practice area found in this stream.

As a person whose letters have ended up on Chilling Effects, I ask that you consider that there may be more to how the world works than you might read in one article (or any number of them).

And as a person who did not get a large firm job right out of a top-tier school, who has huge amounts of student loan debt, and yet was able to make my way into one of the top five largest firms in the world, and don't feel like I "pray [sic] on fear," I take some exception to your comments.

Let me break it down (like this).

Being a lawyer (much like life) is what you make it. There are limitless specialties, practice areas and types of jobs you can take. Not everyone is a litigator, who apparently "win in court not because they are right, but because their counsel is more persuasive for bad reasons." There are innumerable other things you can do as an attorney.

(Indeed, rarely does anyone win in court because they are "persuasive for bad reasons." Either you are indicting the jury system because you feel your fellow citizens are too dumb to come to a rational decision, or you are blaming the winning party for winning because they had a better reasoned argument. It rarely comes down, in court, to pedigree. Many of the best and most famous litigators went to lower-tier schools.)

That said, you have identified a primary rub.

If you go to law school, like any other professional school, you have to pay for it. Thus, you have to actually take a job that pays money in order to pay it back. And when it comes down to it, law school, per year, is no more expensive than any other degree (that you actually have to pay for).

As a result, you can't simply become an "officer of the court" for free, just because you want to serve for the betterment of mankind as a public interest attorney. Not unless money is no object.

Thus, you have to take a job to pay your bills. Sound familiar? The easy route to get out from your crushing debt, as it turns out, is to take a higher paying job. And, if you can believe it, employers who pay a higher amount, don't do it out of the graciousness of their heart! They make you work (read: bill) more hours.

So, you end up in a situation where students are fighting for the higher paying jobs, in the higher paying markets, and it becomes an employers market. Thus, they can demand the people from the best schools.

Is there truly no difference in the quality of education between a top-ranked school and a third tier school? Is that why you went to such a terrible engineering school? (That's sarcasm, before I get flamed.) That said, don't get me wrong, I have met a lot of dumbasses from Harvard Law, and I have met a lot of people who came from lower-ranked schools who were intelligent, hard-working, a... [ Read More (0.7k in body) ]

Ryan, Thank you for your post and perspectives. I appreciate your insight as someone who is on the other side of the decision I'm trying to make. On the other hand, I think you are reading some of my comments both too broadly and too personally. I obviously don't think all lawyers are hucksters and snake oil salesmen. In fact, I have great respect for most of them that I know, and if not I would never have considered pursing this. My view of the situation is, as you point out, not black and white.

For example, my observation on trademark enforcement shouldn't be equated with "all trademark enforcement is wrong or wasteful." I should hope that you aren't going to tell me all trademark enforcement is reasonable. I'm sure you're aware of a wide array of contrary examples. It is certainly in the economic self interest of firms that represent trademark interests that the scope of enforcement required be as broad as possible. One is naturally led to wonder whether that fact has had an effect on the breadth that is required. This is not the the same thing as saying that most trademark enforcement is bad or unnessecary or even that trademark lawyers are evil. The question is far more subtle. Systemic results are not always (or even usually) caused by individual malice.

If you go to law school, like any other professional school, you have to pay for it. Thus, you have to actually take a job that pays money in order to pay it back. And when it comes down to it, law school, per year, is no more expensive than any other degree (that you actually have to pay for).

Frankly, given what I do, I am comparing this to advanced degrees in basic science and engineering, which you don't have to pay for, or management and economics, which are expensive, but don't have the same sort of lifestyle associated with them upon graduation with the exception of the crazy world of business consulting firms. I do think being a doctor is just as hard as being lawyer.

Thus, you have to take a job to pay your bills. Sound familiar? The easy route to get out from your crushing debt, as it turns out, is to take a higher paying job. And, if you can believe it, employers who pay a higher amount, don't do it out of the graciousness of their heart! They make you work (read: bill) more hours.

I think there is a substantial difference between the number of billable hours required at most law firms and business as usual in the majority of other professions. People in any industry can end up working huge numbers of hours, but ultimately, they're in control. If you want to go balls to the wall in a start up, and I have, typically you're doing this because the problems you are working on are exciting and the rewards are huge, not because this is how everyone does it and you have no choice because you are saddled wit... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Good stuff here in your response. Thanks for your thoughfulness on what I was saying.

Here is what I agree with you in your response, coupled with some observations:

1) I should hope that you aren't going to tell me all trademark enforcement is reasonable.

Of course you are right here. As in any system, it is pushed to its extremes. The better question is not whether firms are pushing it or if the laws are broken that get us there. This is what happens when you have undereducated (on the subject) congressmen putting this stuff together.

2) Frankly, given what I do, I am comparing this to advanced degrees in basic science and engineering, which you don't have to pay for, or management and economics, which are expensive, but don't have the same sort of lifestyle associated with them upon graduation with the exception of the crazy world of business consulting firms.

I agree, you bastards in the science field have had it easy for far too long! :)

Basically, at this point, there are grad school degrees and there are prof. degrees. Lawyers and doctors work their asses off. Business school grads are beginning to face a similar fate-- the value of an MBA is quickly dropping to the point where the only people making real money with it are those in a big consulting firm. It's only benefit-- two years, rather than three. $35k saved there.

Now, some things that I believe I can provide some insight on:

3) The point I'm making is that I don't understand why some law firms can't pay less and expect less (in terms of hours, not quality) and hire more people. The economics are similar, and my understanding of the sort of work typical junior associates perform is not really difficult enough to require a degree from harvard.

Here's the thing: the economics don't work out. I have seen this firsthand. You don't make as much money with more associates and less hours. Reasons: overhead. More staff to support them, more physical space needed for them, you have to pay their health insurance, and other benefits. All of those things go directly toward partner profits. Partner profits are regularly reported in the legal press and directly affect your ability to get top talent (read: large portfolios of business) in partners and top talent out of law schools.

The most profitable firms in the world require 2400 billable hours a year and will fire you if you don't make it. But if you do, they will pay you $160,000 as a first year and give you five-figure bonuses. Read abovethelaw.com and law.com for more details on the big firms.

That said, you don't *have to* go to a big firm. There is literally every size in between. I have a friend who just went from a multi-thousand attorney firm to a three-person firm. My dad has been in-house at multiple countries and in private practice at several firms. There are many paths.

4. The question I'm trying to answer for myself is whether those... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

ryan is the supernicety wrote:

But to say that "you'll never dream of making Partner in a firm without taking up cases that you yourself do not believe your own arguements for or against" (hijexx) is just not true. You can control your own destiny.

Duly noted.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the unwarranted attacks and slights against my profession, and more so, against my particular practice area found in this stream.

here here...two points I'd like to make here...

as you all know I've had more than my fair share of run-ins with lawyers and I can tell you its never really the lawyers for your enemies that get you pissed off, no more than you get pissed off at a marine for going to iraq no matter how much you hate the war...lawyers are the warrior class of our culture, and trust me, they're often the only honorable ones in the fight (because to them its a job, its no emotional and they are able to act with reason when their clients can not)...

the other point is that, yes, as I've said before, lawyers eat babies (so do journalists for that matter)...i say that as a joke but there is some truth there...here is why thats a good thing...when your ass is on the line, when you really need a lawyer, you don't want Dennis fucking Kucinich on your side, you want someone so mean he makes opposing councel leave the court room looking like the boogie man just smacked them around...

just like its been throughout history, its not the warriors that are to blame for the war, its the ones they work for...