Why Law Firms Play "Hide the Associate"

Most law firms of any size these days have a website. Basic websites are easy and inexpensive to set up, and the potential exposure for firms is enormous. (Check out my related post on the merits of blogging as business development.)

One problem with firm websites, of course, is that they are replete with spin. Every firm does "cutting edge" work, has a "strong" stable of clients, and boasts lawyers who are "leading experts" in their fields. OK, fine. You don't need me to help filter this spin. Everyone knows there are a lot of worker bees out there engaged in monotonous drudgery.

No, what I want to focus on is what information is NOT on firm websites. Take a look at a few blue chip firm websites in New York, or Chicago, or D.C., or elsewhere. (I don't want to pick on particular firms, so it's up to you to choose what firms to examine.) What do you notice--in addition to the spin, that is? Here's the answer: many firms do not list detailed information about their associates! Firm sites brag on and on about their partners' areas of expertise, client bases, and publications--but for associates you often only see a name, phone number and e-mail address.

Why would this be? Are firms not proud of their associates? No, they are proud (and if not, they "encourage" associates to leave). Do they think associates cannot engage in business development, so that it is not necessary to tout them to the world? Again, the answer is "no." Associates bring in large and small clients all the time.

So what's going on?

What's going on is that firms are playing "hide the ball." Or rather, "hide the associate." Firms often try to keep information about their associates from other firms and headhunters (legal recruiters), to make it harder for their associates to be poached by other firms. And make no mistake: poaching is the name of the game at big firms. Salaries for junior associates are so high these days that most associates generate a loss until their third year of practice. So it is more cost-effective to let someone else train the junior associate newby (and take the loss) and then poach them away.

Here's the irony. This system does not work. Everyone is playing this game. So while a firm might keep information about its associates off the web, it is also harder for that firm to find out about attractive potential hires from other firms. It would seem far more efficient (and moral) for firms to treat associates better as a way to disincentize them from leaving. But no. It is easier (albeit sillier) to simply block others from seeing what your associates do.

I have seen this happen: one day a firm website contains associate biographical information, and the next day it is gone. One explanation I have heard is that associates are not partners, and only partner information should be posted. This is specious, in my view. If you have an equity stake in a firm as partner, wouldn't you want to maximize the firm's potential by promoting your greatest assets--namely, all your lawyers? (Hint: that is a rhetorical question.)

The truly ironic part is that instead of preventing people from leaving practice, this approach gives associates one less reason to stay. I myself am off the firm treadmill and happily employed as a law professor. And my school does not hesitate to post my information online, even though I do not yet have tenure. To do otherwise would make no sense.

How Law Professors Write Exams

I am admittedly a bit behind the curve here, but now that most law students have finished exams, perhaps they can joyfully relive a bit of exam week by reading about how law professors write their essay exams. In my experience, it takes a bit of time to write a fair exam.

So check out the conversation that took place recently on the law professor blog Prawfsblawg. It is worth reading in no small part because the professors involved inevitably got sidetracked and discussed what they think is wrong with the current law school exam system. Comments from any students still reeling from exams are welcome!

After I finish grading my exams I may post some thoughts on how to avoid common study-related and exam-taking mistakes next semester.

Vote for Sports Law Blog!

Some of you know about Professor Michael McCann and Greg Skidmore's Sports Law Blog, which provides superb coverage of sports matters from the legal side of the fence. Sports are a significant part of our society and culture, and they are an enormous business too. Lots of money is made in the sports world, and the sums paid--to players, for stadiums, for coaches, and so on--just continues to increase. And the foundation for any business (including sports) is the law. So for my money, a sports blog is great, but a sports LAW blog is even better.

Fortunately, I am not the only person who thinks so. Sports Law Blog has been nominated for the Best General Sports Blog of 2005 in the Red Reporter Awards, and personally it is my favorite of the nominees. I highly recommend that you check out Sports Law Blog for yourself. If you'd like to cast your vote for the blog (or any of the other nominees), please click here.

"Business Casual" Woes

Here's a more "law career"-type post to follow my last one on national security and terrorism. This time, the topic is the all-important subject of business casual dress.

This is admittedly a silly topic, and yet we keep talking about it, so it must matter. The December 2005 issue of the ABA Journal weighs in on the matter, and I recommend reading that article. Issues involved include questions such as: should you err on the side of caution and overdress? Or underdress? How do you pack for a business trip?

Only a few short years ago it was easy to pack for a business trip: you took suits. And casual Friday was a brand-new phenomenon. But today most workplaces are business casual every day. This is, I believe, just another manifestation of our societal shift toward informality. It is an egalitarian and enormously positive development, and it means that the lack of a well-tailored suit is no longer a barrier to entry into the legal profession. That is a good thing.

In other words, I disagree with Mr. Ben Stein, who in the New York Times in August argued that today men dress like "total slobs," and that their casual dress (read: not coat and tie) adversely affects their professionalism. I myself regularly billed more than 2,000 productive hours a year in casual clothes. The pressure was no less great just because I was wearing khakis.

So who is right--Ben or me? For lawyers, the answer is easy: YOUR CLIENT IS RIGHT.

The cardinal rule of legal writing is that you write to your audience. If the judge does not like split infinitives, then do not use them in your brief. If your client wants e-mail and not hardcopy mail, then you oblige her. The same goes for the way you dress. It is no accident that business casual dress started on the West Coast, with its software and high-tech firms and their informal culture. To them, the lawyer in a suit was essentially saying, "I am not on board with your business vision or mindset," while the lawyer in the golf shirt was saying, "I get it. Hire me."

So if you have clients that do not care how you dress, then dress informally to suit your taste. If they do care, then dress to their culture. That of course requires you to know what their culture is, and you may need to ask at first. But once you know, then dress to it.

One final point: do not for a minute think that your "clients" are limited just to your actual clients. Smart junior associates always dress in a manner acceptable to their most important "client": THEIR EMPLOYER. The senior partner can make or break you; don't let it be over a ratty pair of pants and scuffed shoes.

Crazy Law News

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days. My mother had a stroke last week. Pretty devastating! It sure makes me appreciate my own freedom and agency.

So, I read a story this morning about the founder of Vermont Law School, who also ran for the Senate. He has been charged, convicted and sentenced to jail for defrauding a woman of $115,000. What a creep! What a hypocrite. Imagine spending years teaching students about the integrity of the profession, of the law, and then ending your career like this.

Here's a good idea - suspend or take away licenses for high school students who drop out or have failing grades. Now, that would be motivating. Anyone know if any provinces are considering this tactic?

I liked law school, but maybe not this much - A generous millionaire thanks his law school - Donates $2.5 million to University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Wow! Cool story. Glad to see alumni giving back when they can. This is another good example of how diverse your career can be with a law degree.

Professor William Bradford's Resignation Offers a Cautionary Tale

I have been thinking a lot in recent days about the resignation of Associate Professor William Bradford from the faculty of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. (This has been big news in law school circles.) On the one hand, it sounds a lot like the sort of academic infighting that is of limited relevance to the larger world. On the other hand, it’s a perfect cautionary tale for anyone planning or already embarked on a career in law teaching or practice. For more details on the matter, check out the December 6, 2005 posting on the Volokh Conspiracy (a great blog).

For starters, let me clearly state what this posting is NOT about. I am not bashing Professor Bradford. Nor am I defending him. Others are doing a fine job of that. I am just looking for the lessons to be learned.

By way of background, I met Bradford at a conference last year, where he spoke on national security law matters (his area of specialty). He was smart, well-spoken, and even more convinced of the rightness of his (somewhat extreme) views on national security law than most law professors are about their beliefs—which frankly is saying a lot. Bradford seemed like the kind of person who did not mind shaking things up a bit.

That is not a bad thing in law teaching, of course. It in fact can be a good thing, since it generates debate and discourse. And after all, the role of law professors is to advance knowledge, not just reach consensus and play nice. Yet the Bradford tale provides three lessons on ways to avoid trouble in your law career.

First, did Bradford ruffle feathers on the Indy faculty? I do not know, but clearly certain tenured faculty members there were opposed to him. Whether he justly deserved their opposition or not is wholly irrelevant for my purposes. Rather, the lesson for any professor seeking the holy grail of tenure or any law firm associate seeking the brass ring of partnership is to tread softly if possible and not antagonize people. The old saying is that “friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.” If someone has a vote over your future, they have a vote, and that is that. Whether that person is opposed to you for valid or invalid reasons is quite beside the point: you either win her over (either through the merit of your work, your interpersonal skills, or preferably both), neutralize his opposition by having other people in your corner, or find another job.

Second, Bradford padded his resume by exaggerating his military service record. The lesson is that you simply cannot lie or fudge about your professional and personal background. At all. Ever. The point is that we are lawyers, and lawyers are—and should be—held to a higher standard than the general public. Intentionally misrepresenting your background and credentials can derail your career. And in this digital age falsehoods are uncovered easier than ever.

Third, while the current ABA Model Rules for Professional Conduct do not use the phrase “Appearance of Professional Impropriety” (it appeared in the header for Canon 9 of the now-superseded Model Code of Professional Responsibility), this phrase should always be foremost in the mind of anyone considering a career in law. Bradford apparently posted “cheap shot” comments to a law school blog under names other than his own. He was caught by an Indy law student running the blog who noticed that different “commentators” on the blog had IP addresses matching Bradford’s. This just smells bad. Even if it did not technically violate any rules (which it may have), it just seems improper. The lesson in practice (and teaching) is that if something smells fishy it probably is, and just to be safe you shouldn’t do it. And any potential payoff does not match the fallout if caught.

Law Movies

One really cool, yet not very accurate, way of finding out what the law and what lawyers do is to watch law-related movies. Like I said above, law movies do not always very accurately portray legal procedure or true legal theory or doctrines. However, I know that for myself, watching law movies and law-related t.v. played a large role in inspiring me to go to law school. I still like to collect law movies and to watch them on occassion. Sometimes they serve to inspire me to continue on in the legal field. Sometimes, they are just plain entertaining. Sometimes, it can be really fun to find all of the legal flaws in a given movie. Sometimes, it's fun to analyze a movie lawyer and imagine emulating some of their personality, especially the confidence aspect.

Here are some of my favourite law movies:

To Kill a Mockingbird - Atticus Finch, a lawyer in the Depression-era South, defends a black man against an undeserved rape charge. Starring Gregory Peck. Excellent courtroom drama, and some fine acting for its time. The book is also definitely worth reading.
Philadelphia - When a man with AIDS is fired by a conservative law firm because of his condition, he hires a homophobic small time lawyer as the only willing advocate for a wrongful dismissal suit. Starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. Cool movie, but very sad!
My Cousin Vinny - this is just plain fun watching. Danny Devito is absolutely hilarious in this film!
The Firm - I love the beginning of this movie. It glamourizes the idea of being a hot-shot law student, and a resulting hot-shot lawyer. I love how he gets wined-and-dined. Cool.
Runaway Jury - one of my favourite movies and books - I liked the acting in this movie. Of course, the book is better because the reader gets to infiltrate the minds of the characters more.
A Civil Action - one of the most realistic law movies that I have seen, although many of my friends go nuts when we discuss whether the main character should have taken the offer.
The Paper Chase - a very entertaining view into Harvard Law School in the 70's. An accurate portrayal of 1L, I thought. I loved the ending of this movie.
The Pelican Brief - not my favourite as I don't really think that Julia Roberts can act very well. But a feel-good popcorn chewing movie.

Movies I plan to see in the next year or two:

12 Angry Men - A jury has to decide a seemingly open and shut case of a young man (who, as with most of the jurors, remains nameless throughout the film) who has been accused of murdering his father in a fit of anger. The evidence couldn't be clearer that this guy did it. Murder weapon, motive, eyewitness testimony all in place. One juror (Fonda) however, wants to talk the case out. He's not 100% convinced that the guy is guilty. And so it begins.
Anatomy of a Murder - James Stewart, a Michigan attorney, and his colleague defend an Army officer for murdering his wife's rapist. Directed by Otto Preminger.
...And Justice For All - "In this scathing, deadly serious satire, Al Pacino is brilliant as a public defender battling injustice in a legal system gone mad. The insanity, corruption, and infuriating blunders will conspire to make most viewers enraged, and rightly so."
The Verdict - A lawyer sees the chance to salvage his career and self-respect by taking a medical malpractice case to trial rather than settling. Starring Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling. Director: Sidney Lumet.
A Man for All Seasons - "A highly honored film (winner of six Academy Awards in 1966, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor)"; account of the life of one of the great men in English history: Sir Thomas More, English lawyer, scholar, statesman' and a victim of the wrath of King Henry VIII; "Robert Bolt's beautiful screen adaptation of his own highly successful and award winning stage play of the same name. It's a reasonably accurate accounting of the events of the last years of Sir Thomas More's life."
The Jury
The Hurricane
The Chamber
The Juror
Judgment at Nuremberg
Adam's Rib

Have a legal-related movie that you love, or maybe hate? Let me know in the comments section. I'm always looking for new films to view.

Solicitor vs. Barrister

Some of you might be wondering what the difference is between a barrister and a solicitor. I wondered this myself for some time, even during law school.

These are English terms. Many Canadian lawyers do not distinguish whether they are a barrister or a solicitor, where apparently they do make a more concrete distinction in Britain. Some lawyers that I know use these terms openly when describing their legal practice. Most don't except to put "barristers and solicitors" on their firm sign and perhaps their stationary.

The basic definition of a barrister is someone who predominantly represents clients at the "bar" in court. In Canada, any lawyer can represent a client in court, but many do not wish do make this a large part of their practice. I suppose that solicitor work is any work that does not involve barrister work where legal advice is given.

Most lawyers in Canada refer to their work as either litigation work or solicitor work. Many lawyers show a genuine interest (or, in turn, distaste) of one or the other. Many lawyers, especially solo practioners, practice both barrister and solicitor work.

Some lawyers have suggested to me that it might be wise to choose one or another type of work to accomodate the development of true expertise in a more narrowed field. This may be more practicle in some firms, but I think that many lawyers would be better lawyers if they at least dabbled in "the other side" once in a while.

solicitor and barrister defined: In England and some other Commonwealth jurisdictions, a legal distinction is made between solicitors and barristers. A solicitor has exclusive privileges of giving oral or written legal advice. A barrister has exclusive privileges of preparing and conducting litigation in the courts. In Canada, the title "barrister and solicitor" is sometimes used even though there is no legal distinction between the advising and litigating roles. Canadian lawyers can litigate or give legal advice as can U.S. lawyers or attorneys.

Alternative legal careers

OK, so you are thinking about law school, but you don't know if you really want to be in a courtroom setting throughout your career. Or, you are in the middle of law school, and you have decided that Bay Street is not your gig. Or, even better, you are just finishing up your bar admission requirements and you are really wondering if billable hours will soon drive you insane. Here are my thoughts for today on alternative legal careers.

Step One: Get your LLB/JD, and do your best. Absorb the law school experience, even if you have dediced that you don't want to be a "traditional lawyer." Many people have gone into law school with the full intention of NOT being a lawyer. Why would they do that? Because just about everything that they absorb in law school will have some benefit down the road, regardless of the career choice.

Potential Careers:

• Polititian (As a matter of fact, fourteen of Canada's twenty prime ministers were, or continue to be, lawyers. Among the prime ministers who were not lawyers was a doctor, a diplomat, a labour expert, and a printer - and once you are done politicing, then maybe you'll be ready to return like this guy did.)
• Legal researcher
• Business Executive (here is a compelling case for lawyer-CEO's)
• Consultant
• Member of various Board of Directors (I have heard of some people who actually make a living doing this!)
• Lawyer for Contract (have a say in your hours and types of work!)

more ideas to come...

"Syriana" Misrepresents International Lawyers

This weekend I saw the movie Syriana, and it just begs to be blogged about. For one thing, much of the move is about lawyers and what scheisters they are. For another, it is about international lawyers and what scheisters they are. As an international lawyer turned international law professor, this movie is right up my alley.

So like a typical law professor, let me point out a few reasons why I think the movie is both good and bad, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

Why Syriana is Good:

1. Syriana makes you think. Writer/director Stephen Gaghan does not pander to the audience on the assumption that people are stupid, and his movie absolutely demands full attention every single moment. Do not take a pee break during this film or you will be hopelessly lost.

2. Syriana is overt social and political commentary. As Tarzan might say, "Commentary good, silence bad." You may find the message--that oil rules the world and warps our political decisions, personal values and business ethics--all too obvious and more than a little heavy-handed. But the movie offers a message other than "Blow up the bad guys and you get the hottie with the tattoo," so that alone is meritorious.

3. Syriana is the only movie, to my knowledge, that actually quotes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In fact, the FCPA is the basis not only for a full scene in the movie, but for an entire subplot. I did a lot of FCPA work when I practiced law; if only it had been this exciting!

4. The movie illustrates that U.S. foreign policy decisions have enormous and far-reaching consequences. Should the U.S. back the movie's pro-democracy prince (a very good Alexander Siddig from Star Trek DS9) who wants to strengthen his Middle Eastern country's business ties with Iran? Or his playboy brother who obviously does not care about social progress but is willing to allow the U.S. to maintain a military presence in his country? The U.S. very clearly does reap what it sows when it makes foreign policy decisions like this. Don't forget that the U.S. strongly backed Saddam Hussein's regime against Iran in the 1980s.

Why Syriana is Bad:

1. Syriana is boring. I hate saying that, and I may catch flak for it, but so help me it is a boring movie. Well done, intricate, pretty to look at, disturbing--and boring. Someone actually fell asleep in the theater while I was watching it (no, it was not me). Maybe it was the direction: this was Gaghan's directorial debut. Traffic, which was written by Gaghan but directed by Stephen Soderbergh, was less pedestrian.

2. At least when it comes to lawyers, Syriana is hyperbolic. As I said, I did a fair amount of FCPA and other international work in practice--including a good bit of work for companies in the oil business. And never, ever did I see--or even hear about--associates sending their bosses to jail or senior partners working to effect a regime change abroad. I'm not saying it could never happen. I am saying that if it ever were to happen it would be the exception, not the rule. The story would have been far more accurate--and no less boring--had it been more nuanced. For example, based on a set of questionable facts the lawyer decides to go against his instincts to make a judgment call in favor of his client, and has to live with the potential amorality of this decision. All perfectly legal (lawyers are supposed to advocate for their clients after all), and all perfectly disturbing in such circumstances--since what you have is a lawyer making a living and a career out of such behavior. But no--this movie has to have lawyers shafting their bosses and up-ending foreign regimes.

So I leave it up to you to decide whether this is a good movie or a bad one. I think it is an excellent but boring movie, which is classic lawyer-speak for saying that I think it is both good and bad. Or neither.

How to avoid burnout in and after law school

1. Develop really good study habits in your undergrad years - these will help you to manage your time more wisely and to continue to practice consistency.

2. Be consistent. From the day that you begin studying for the LSAT until the day that you write your bar admission test or last CPLED assignment, practice consistency. The demands are just too big to procrastinate. Never put off for tomorrow what you can reasonably complete today.

3. Find a really good mentor or set of mentors. Be a loyal mentoree. Achieve a situation where you can call up your mentor without guilt.

4. Read this book (I sure wish that it was there when I went through law school) and read "Getting to Maybe" before you start law school. In fact, read every resource that you can get your hands on, for the LSAT, for law school success and for finding the job of your dreams.

More tips to follow on another day. Happy blawging.

Clerking

I have a few friends that are currently clerking with one court or another, and have some friends that have clerked for a court. I often wish I had pursued that opportunity. I came across a nice article from University of Toronto's Ultra Vires newspaper by Jennifer Khurhana who clerked at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. It's a fresh take on the articling experience, and may inspire you to pursue this avenue. I definitely buy into her notions about loving what you do, and having time to smell the roses. That's why I chose (it's true - I chose amongst many excellent options) to article in a smaller city centre, where my billable hour expectations are considerably lower than those expected in larger city centres. Kudos to those who take a good hard look at where they want to be post-law-school. I have time to learn, each day I can arrive at work relatively fresh, and I can feel like I have something left to give my family at the end of each day. If you would like some more input on clerking, send me an email at adam dot letourneau@gmail dot com and I will email you some content on clerking from my book. The section on clerking was written by a student who interviewed with every level of court, and ended up with a clerking position with the Court of Appeal. It's good stuff, and you may find it helpful towards making an informed decision.

The Collected Stankowski Reports

If you want some hillarious reading from the perspective of a First Year Associate, read the The Collected Stankowski Reports. I loved his perspective on working a 70 hour work week, and Ten Things Every Associate Needs to Know. The anonymous writer is brilliant, and has an uncanny ability to drive at the truths of lawyering in a big firm. He brings the reader back down to earth so that they can laugh at their situation...at least a little bit. Working in a small to mid size firm myself, I still appreciate many of Stan's reports and insights. For those of you aspiring to law school, take Stan's viewpoint with a grain of salt. Not all law firms operate in the same way as his. You do have a relative amount of control as a young student-at-law/associate. However, reading these posts by Stan may be good food for thought for those of you who are dreaming about working in a Megaopolis Law Firm. About the Author: Stan Stankowski is the pseudonym of a first-year associate working in a litigation firm somewhere in the Southern United States. Enjoy Stan.

It's ruled sleep sex

Want a small taste of the bizarre nature of the law - the crazy stuff that goes through our court system? Check out the article "It's ruled sleep sex" by Natalie Pona of the Toronto Sun. Now is that weird or what! The guy gets off on rape by claiming that he was sleeping during the whole episode. Further, he has "sleepsexed" four other girlfriends. I guess the judge bought the idea that he was just a sleep-walking raging hormone. What kills me is that he only realized his heinous crime once he went to the bathroom after waking up, and realized that he still had a condom on. I guess his only saving grace, in my mind, is that he went and confessed right away to the police. I figure, if you know that you have this kind of problem, you should have it treated. Not unlike pedophiles - if you know you have a problem, and you know that it is abhored by society, go get some medicine, go get some help. Glad to see this guy is now taking some meds and staying away from alcohol. The poor woman who complained about the rape - I don't think she's too happy about the result! I think University of Toronto law professor Hamish Stewart is right when he says "We may hear more forms of this defence from accused persons." Let's hope that is not the case. There are already too many rapists getting off the hook because the victim cannot piece together enough recollection to prove the indicident beyond reasonable doubt. I recently watched an entire sexual assault trial where the guy was acquited because the girl had been so traumatized and embarrassed by the incident that it left pretty big holes in her story, which of course could not be filled by other witnesses, as it was only her and him in the bedroom. Pretty sick!

Speaking of sick, can you imagine how Karla Homolka's victims feel right now, knowing that the killer of their children is completely free to do as she pleases and roam as she pleases? What really kills me is that she is able to freely associate with criminals, including her former husband (aka The Devil), and that she can have free access to children or teens.

The Happy Lawyer

Many colleagues, both in and out of law school have made comments to me about how they have never met a Happy Lawyer. I plan to post a number of entries to this blawg on this particular topic, as I find it of great interest. I think that it is important for a number of groups - those considering a legal career, those stuck in the middle of law school, wondering if they should stick it out, and of course those who are in the thick of things in their legal career - wondering if they are in the right place at the right time.

Check out this post from Evan Shaeffer's Legal Underground called Why are Lawyers So Unhappy. Also, check this book called "The Happy Lawyer" by Larry Schreiter and this book by Jim Canterucci that I came across recently. I think that the attorneys that wrote these books are on to something, and I would like to pursue it. Look forward to future thoughts on this subject.

Law Firm Training Redux

On November 29, 2005 I posted a diatribe called "Law Firm Training is a Sham." Having been in practice for years, I saw how associate training typically does not occur in law firms. I think this is abominable, and it is one of my missions in teaching to turn out new lawyers who, once they are in positions of authority, will better understand the need for training and mentoring of junior attorneys. (Check back with me in 20 years to see if I have succeeded.)

The funny thing is that every few years or so a series of articles appears discussing law firms' "new" dedication to associate mentoring. Apparently we're in such a cycle right now. The National Jurist magazine for law students has a piece in its November 2005 issue called "Law Firm Mentors Associates Around the Globe," which praises the many wonderful things that my former firm, Baker & McKenzie, is reportedly doing to train and mentor its associates.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that this is not a "Baker bashing" article. Baker is a fine place to work in comparison to many other firms. I enjoyed my time there and am proud to be an alumnus. But so help me, I cannot resist exercising my First Amendment rights and commenting on this article. There are several things that bother me about it, namely:

ONE: "Baker & McKenzie . . . is one of a growing number of law firms emphasizing mentoring today."

• News Flash: law firms always say they "emphasize" mentoring. No firm ever says, "we don't believe in mentoring, and we really work to de-emphasize it." So to me, this statement means nothing.

TWO: "A new program recently launched by the firm requires all Baker & McKenzie partners to mentor all associates."

• What is really interesting about this statement is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. Does it mean that partners were not previously required--and accordingly many did not--mentor associates prior to this program? As a former B&M associate, I know the answer, but my lips are sealed.

THREE: "The point [of the new mentoring program] is to establish a standard for developing [associate] careers . . . to give all employees the same skills sets so they could work in any Baker & McKenzie office."

• OK, I'll buy that. It's an aspirational statement to be sure--I really do doubt there will be identical basic skills sets for lawyers in, say, Washington, D.C. versus Baku, Azerbaijan (yes, B&M has an office there). But that's not saying it's not a worthy goal.

FOUR: "According to Nicholas Coward, a partner with Baker & McKenzie . . . 'Law school these days provides students with only the basics of legal training and a lot of aspects such as people management are not covered, but are critically important to being successful.' "

• My question is this: Exactly how is this a new problem? Law schools have never provided any more than basic legal training. Law school is only a 3-year program. In fact, law schools today do a better job than ever before of preparing lawyers for practice--through programs such as legal clinics, trial advocacy programs, required (and optional) moot court competitions, law practice management courses, negotiations courses, and the like. What has changed is that firms typically do not mentor associates anymore. Associates no longer spend their careers at one firm, so there is less incentive for firms to train people who will leave. And with many starting associate salaries in the six-figure range, law firms need quick learners and self-starters who can be thrown in head first, fend for themselves, and pay for their exorbitant salaries through high billing.
• So in other words, I agree with Nick (my former boss, by the way) that law schools only provide students with basic training. But the problem lies with firms, not schools. Who knows--maybe he agrees with me and is leading the charge to fix it. This upbeat article certainly suggests so, but we'll see. I will stay tuned to see if this latest cycle of enlightened law firm mentoring has more impact than previously ineffective cycles.

One final point: in fairness, I should point out that (according to my decidedly anecdotal evidence) Baker has better associate retention than other firms I have been exposed to. In Baker's D.C. office, for example, there is a larger percentage of lawyers who started with the firm as summer clerks and are still there--even some who are partners. Including Mr. Coward himself.

JD versus LL.B.

Most Canadian law schools award the degree of LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws), while law schools in the U.S. offer the JD (Juris Doctor) degree. Toronto decided some time ago to offer a JD degree rather than an LL.B. They also increased their tuition dramatically, nearly on par with U.S. upper-end law schools. Ottawa has followed suit somewhat by offering a combined four-year LL.B/JD degree in conjunction with either the State University College of Law in East Lansing, Michigan or the American University (Washington College of Law) in Washington D.C. The JD is a U.S. degree, which enables the graduate to practice law in both Canada and the U.S. This seems to be a great idea, allowing for much flexibility for employment, and would be a great advantage to a prospective employer who does transaction work between Canadian and U.S. corporations. However, be aware that you will pay high tuition while attending Michigan or Washington for two years of the four-year program. The University of Detroit Mercy and the University of Windsor Ontario Schools of law were the first to collaborate to create a joint American/Canadian law degree program. Students complete 104 credits in three years and successful graduates receive both their JD and their LL.B. degrees.

Many other law schools have looked at the issue of the difference between the JD and the LL.B. There are many opinions on both sides; however, the predominant view at this time is that there is nothing wrong with the LL.B. in terms of gaining employment, especially within Canada. It is apparent that the combined JD (U.S.A.)/LL.B. would be an advantage if you wanted to work in the U.S. and could not gain exclusive acceptance at a U.S. law school, or if you think you might like to return to Canada one day. There is a long-standing tradition behind the LL.B. designation, and many people are not willing to exchange it for a JD designation easily.

You can find some brief discussion of the matter here. You can find an interesting survey with resulting comments at the Queen's Law Life blawg. There are some very sound arguments made.

A recent post at lawbuzz.ca discusses the switch that Western Ontario recently made. The conversation is lively, and there seems to be a lot of opinions back and forth.

Even before reading the above commentary, I was of the opinion that I would trade in my LL.B. for a JD if the option was offered to me by my alma mater. I am not too impressed with the idea of paying $150.00 for the privilege. I wonder which schools are currently seriously considering making the switch. I also wonder if there are students pressuring their law schools to consider making the switch. It would seem that the trend is moving in this direction, and I, for one, would not want to be left in the cold. Some may think that it is trite, however, I agree with the argument made in one comment at Queen's Law Life blawg that the LL.B. is an English tradition, where law students are admitted straight out of high school. This obviously is not the way in Canada. I think that the rest of the world needs to recognize that the Law degree in Canada is at least equivalent to a Masters degree, if not more. Most people can finish out a Masters degree in two years (post undergraduate). Law school was three years, plus a gruelling year of articling, which is where the real education begins. I think that these things should be recognized, and that a JD designation would help.

If you have any on-point comments, please don't hesitate to post it in the comments section.

Blogging as Business Development

There's an interesting article in the current issue of The Lawyers Weekly (Canada) (Dec. 2, 2005) concerning blogging as a useful business development tool. The article is exactly right. In this age of easy access to information, large firms have much less structural advantage in terms of getting their names out there. A smaller firm--even a solo practitioner--can set up a webpage, and most practitioners worth their salt do that.

But a blog is in some ways even better than a traditional web page. It is a way to show how well you write and what you think about various legal developments in your area. As such, it is a perfect promotional tool. To draw an analogy, a website is like a fancy Yellow Pages ad, while a blog is like a free seminar on your areas of expertise that you give to potentially millions of people.

Giving away free information is a wonderfully effective way to bring in new business. Potential clients feel assured that you know what you are doing (since you have already discussed your expertise) and are likely more willing to pay you for your services. And while you give away a little knowledge that you might charge for at the beginning of the client relationship, you can get far more business in return. (Just make sure you include the caveat that information in your blog is not really legal advice--you know, the legal fine print language you see all the time.)

The article gives two examples of such blogs: www.morepartnerincome.com/blog, which is maintained by Tom Collins, CEO of Juris, Inc., and http://www.gerryriskin.com/, which is maintained (not surprisingly) by a guy named Gerry Riskin of Edge International. Personally, for U.S. lawyers I prefer the former. The information on that site is highly relevant to people who manage law firms (e.g., how to maintain profit margins, realize collections, etc.). Think about how detailed this site's information is: Collins is giving it away for free! Which establishes him in the minds of many as an expert in the field of law practice management.

Law firms could do quite well following this approach in their areas of expertise. Some do, but more should. A great example of a law firm blog along these lines is McGlinchey Stafford's http://www.hurricanelawblog.com/, which provides a good deal of detailed information on hurricane recovery legal issues.

Legal Tales from Gilligan's Island

I don't know about you, but I kind of like law movies and law t.v. Both were definitely influential in my decision to go to law school. During law school, while bored in class one day, I came across the following very interesting article from the Santa Clara Law Review. "Although the series has been the subject of numerous studies, its legal facets are almost never mentioned. As a result, even the show's most ardent fans are rarely mindful of just how much law appeared in the series. Accordingly, this essay seeks to shed some light on the jurisprudence of Gilligan's Island." It makes for some fascinating reading, especially if you were a fan of the original or the long-running re-runs.

Back on track

I have decided to get this blog back up and running.

There are a lot of different resources and blogs and forums out there. I would like to have this site become a hub of information for prospective and current law students. I have added a bunch of my favourite law links and law blogs.

For those who are interested, I am 1/2 way done completing my articles.

For those who are in need of a resource for law school, check out my recently published book on the subject of Canadian law schools.

I recently came across an amazing entry at the [non]billable hour, a great blog hosted by Matt Hoffman. The title of the entry is "Being Part of the Solution: If Blawggers Ran Law Schools". I have to say that after going through law school that I agree with almost everything that Matt has to offer. I don't exactly know who all the people are that he is referring to, but I agree with his overall ideas of revamping the law school curriculum to reflect more of an apprenticeship/business oriented approach. Lots of people will disagree with this idea, saying that law school is more for teaching you the theory and how to think logically. However, after being in the field for 6 months, I wish that I had been given more tools to help me run a law practice, how to deal with clients, how to deal with co-lawyers, etc. If you have some comments on Matt's ideas that you would like to post here, I would welcome them. Perhaps you might have some suggestions that would be more particular to the Canadian law school experience?

China and Torture

I know this isn't exactly a "law career" matter, directly speaking, but I am an international trade lawyer, so I can't resist broadening my scope.

My last posting was on U.S. trade with China and how the U.S. cannot expect to unilaterally influence China's trade policy in a significant way. Facts are facts, and the U.S. needs to not buy in to the overblown rhetoric about its economic clout. Is the U.S. powerful? Yes. Powerful enough to unilaterally get China to do what it wants if the Chinese government disagrees? No.

Articles in today's Washington Post and New York Times reveal the results of a United Nations investigation into the Chinese government's "widespread" use of torture. Is that bad? Oh yes. Should the U.S. encourage China to stop this? Absolutely. But here are two points worth bearing in mind:

One: The U.S. has been leaning on China for years now in humanitarian matters, and human rights organizations like Amnesty International have been doing the same. And China has dragged its heels.

Two: When China did finally give access to inspectors, it was through the United Nations. Not the U.S., but the U.N. The lesson is that results in this area--and others of international importance--will usually come from multilateral efforts, not unilateral ones. The U.S. needs to bear that in mind and keep jingoism in check.

U.S. Trade With China

Please check out an Op Ed I wrote in today's Jackson Clarion-Ledger about U.S. trade with China. Too much of our national discussion on this topic involves the dueling assumptions that China is either (a) a nefarious troublemaker that must be controlled or (b) a potential panacea for the U.S. economy (since trade with China will help create jobs and so on). These editorials were no exception, so I could not resist responding. For one thing, I do not like Crossfire-style "is not/is too" debate--you lose nuance in your analysis and discussion. And you often miss the bigger point, which is what happened here. We can argue over whether China is good or bad in its trade policy, but what we really need to keep in mind is that the U.S. has far less influence over China than it thinks.

Yes, China recently joined the WTO, and it has opened its markets substantially. But why did China do this? Because of U.S. cajoling? No. It did so because it saw that it was in its best interests to attract investment and create closer economic ties with other nations. The U.S. played a part, of course, but it was a multilateral effort. Suggesting that the U.S. can directly affect Chinese trade policy just because of who we are smacks of enormous hubris.

Also, please check out my colleague Michael McCann's Sports Law Blog, which is excellent. Mike posted on how my Op Ed ties into sports law (which does!), so kudos to him for broad and creative thinking.

Law Firm Training is a Sham

OK, so the title of this post is a bit incendiary. But I am convinced that training at big law firms often ends up being a sham. No, I have not done a survey, and yes, I realize many firms have formal training and mentoring programs in place. But I stand by my statement.

When I was an associate I was actively involved in trying to improve training for junior associates, and we failed miserably. We tried hard, we had at least tacit management support (no one is "against" mentoring), but we failed. Why? Time. No one has time for real mentoring, and sadly that includes the junior associates who really need it. The urgent matter always takes priority over other matters, even vastly more important ones like training your people.

This boggles my mind, frankly. It was always--always--my experience in practice (and now in teaching) that if you tell people what you expect, then you usually get it. "Here's the background of the case, here's where we stand, here are the major issues, and here is the part I want you to do" is a great way to hand off an assignment. And the poor associate has some context and an expectation of what needs to be done. But what you get all too often is something like "Go read the file and then do X" (if I only had a dime for every time I heard that one), or "Call the client and talk to her about it," which is often code for "I want you to call the client so she can yell at you and not me." My all-time favorite, though, is the classic "Just take care of it." As for feedback, too many times it is an explanation of why you are a terrible mindreader: someone tells you to do a memo on X, and then you get "What you should have done was Y." Again, that's a classic. While this post is not meant as a screed against former colleagues, I am trying to call them as I see them.

It would make far more sense--and money, for that matter--for lawyers to train and mentor their people. I saw a lot of time written off over the years because an associate was left flailing in the dark. I saw some careers cut short because people were bad mindreaders. I saw associates learn by trial and error, and then, fed up with a lack of training, leave for another firm--which is a huge loss to the firm that ate that associate's losses as a new attorney. But perhaps most importantly, training and mentoring is good because it breeds loyalty. Associates have someone to turn to, someone they can trust for feedback, someone who does not say "Go and read the file" and then hang them out to dry when they guess wrong. So a firm not only gets better and more efficient work product, but people are less likely to leave.

You will note, of course, that I left. By the time I did I had figured out what the people I worked for wanted (when so-and-so said X, what he really meant was Y), but by that time it was too late. I stayed around as long as it was in my interests, but once I decided I should be elsewhere, there was little reason to stay.

So a word of warning to any senior people out there in a law firm: make the effort to train your people. They will make you more money, and they will be more loyal. Training takes time and significant energy (throwing a file at someone is easy), but the payoff is enormous. You almost never see it in practice, so if you do it you may rise to the top like cream.

Learning About the Dark Side

Having practiced in Chicago and Washington, D.C., it was at least minor culture shock to move to Mississippi and start teaching. I don't mean culture shock in the sense of being a Yankee in the Deep South, although there have been those moments too. Rather, the structure of the legal market in Mississippi is something I have never encountered. There is a deep divide here between the plaintiff's bar and the defense bar. In other words, a lot of lawyers here either sue people or defend them. And from what I gather, there is not a lot of cross-over, and each side of the divide views the other as the "Dark Side."

This was a new one on me. Don't get me wrong; there are insurance defense lawyers at big firms in big cities, and there are plaintiff lawyers there too. It's just that the bar in larger cities and larger states is not divided down the middle, so to speak.

From a teaching point of view, what this says to me is that at regional schools, a law practice management course should be paramount, and the course materials should cover the basic structure of the relevant legal market. When I was 24 years old and in law school I of course knew everything, but I find a surprisingly large number of students today (at my school and others) pretty ill-informed about the nature of legal practice and the legal markets they are trying to break into. Not all legal markets are the same, and students need to understand that.

This approach might be more difficult at a national school--and yet it could be done there too, perhaps at a more abstract level, with comparisons between different types of regional markets and ramifications for legal practice. Come to think of it, that would be a good approach at regional schools too, even those whose graduates stick close by and don't migrate nationwide. We can't forego substantive courses, but practical training like this would help address the all-too-common complaint that law schools don't prepare students for the actual practice of law.

Welcome to Law Career Blog

Welcome to Law Career Blog. This blog is intended to serve as a clearinghouse for those who have questions about careers in law. For nearly a decade I practiced international trade law with Baker & McKenzie (largest law firm in the world) in Chicago and Washington, D.C., and now I am a law professor at Mississippi College School of Law, where I teach International Business, International Law, National Security Law, and Administrative Law. (See the link to my bio and publications on this blog.) Personally, I think my breadth of experience gives me useful and balanced insight into the practice of law, the teaching of law, and alternative career path options.

What do I mean? Simply put, I am a lot like my intended readers. For starters, like many people who end up in law school I was once an undergraduate student who wasn’t sure whether law school was for me. And once I was in law school, I wasn’t immediately obvious what I should do with my degree. Teach? Litigate? Government service? Corporate law? Again, I am not alone in this. Once I graduated I experienced the practice of law, with all its glory and all of its warts—including great paychecks and killer hours. As a result, I have very decided views about the right (and wrong) ways to practice law—and perhaps even more importantly, about the right (and wrong) reasons to stay in practice. Finally, as a law professor (my first choice of professions, by the way), I see all sorts of issues in legal education that need to be addressed—or at least blogged about. So here I am.

My goal in this blog is simply to provide as much thoughtful commentary as I can about careers in law, how legal careers and law schools are changing, and how to find meaning and satisfaction in a career in law. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but the answers I have come up with have served me well so far.

Thanks for checking out the site. I’d love to hear your comments.

Greg

Most Associates Don't Want Partnership

It is all too rare these days to here someone say, "I just love the private practice of law. It's great!" Perhaps I have been talking with the wrong people, or perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with the private practice of law. My view (based on decidedly unscientific anecdotal evidence) is that it is the latter.

There have been tectonic shifts in the practice of law in the past 10 years or so in a number of key ways. When I graduated from Northwestern University School of Law in 1994, most of us assumed our careers would progress on the following path. First, we would land the best big firm job we could. If it didn't work out, then we would shop ourselves down to lesser firms or go into government work (on the premise that it's always easier to shop down than up). But for many of us, the dream was to work hard, make partner at a big law firm, and then be set for life. The work would be exciting, and the money would be superb. I wanted to teach someday, and yet I found this career path enticing in the extreme. I had day dreams sometimes in which I imagined myself retired as the patriach of my little clan, richer than God, with vacation houses in Europe and the Caribbean to boot.

I did ultimately decide to forego private practice's bonanza of cash for teaching. When I announced my departure from my firm, people there were wonderfully supportive and more than a little jealous that I was getting out. That was touching, but I guess not all that surprising. What did surprise me, though, was that many of the junior associates I talked to (at my firm and others) confessed to me that they did not intend to stay with their firms and make partner. Some did, but many did not. In other words, in the 10 short years since I graduated from law school, the presumption among grads at top law schools had shifted from one of trying to make partner to a presumption against partnership. What happened to cause such a massive change?

A lot of things happened, and I will go into them in later postings, but the point for now is that it is a brave and strange new world out there in practice. There are firms that are hiring people they hope will make partner (or some of them anyway), but based on my anecdotal evidence there are a lot of people who don't want that--rather, they just want a few years of experience practicing and a prestigious line on their resume, and then it's off to what they really want to do. That is not an unsustainable model, of course (existing firms get an endless stream of labor that turns over every few years, and the worker bees get that line on their resumes), but it does not match the hiring rhetoric of most law firms. Instead, most firms like to tell you that they only hire for spots they really have, and that they want all of their hires to make partner someday. My old firm told people that, and I believe they meant it. But the point is that it is a message falling on deaf ears. There is a total disconnect between what firms think their new hires want and what the new hires actually want. Unless this gets fixed, the practice of law in private firms will become even more disfunctional than it already is.

One final point is worth mentioning. My private practice experience was in Chicago and D.C. And yet, now that I am located in Mississippi I find many of the same sentiments among my current students and recent grads. So I really think this is a national trend, although it is probably more pronounced in larger markets.

Stay tuned for more postings on this.

Finishing up law school

Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel as though most people in law school are embarking on a voyage into the legal field without a clue as to how it all works. I also feel that most of my classmates are misled about what it is to be a lawyer.

I am 3 months away from graduating law school (University of Alberta). I feel greatly blessed that I have been able to make it this far without too many scars (at least not many deep scars), and that I have an article to look forward to. I am shocked by how many of my classmates are still searching for an elusive articling position.

I feel that I have succeeded in my law school endeavors. Because of this, I began writing a book about 6 months ago in an effort both as an exercise of personal therapy, but also in the hopes that I can help those who follow in my footsteps to get the very most out of law school. The book will be published in a few months.

I thought that starting a blog might be a good extension of the publication of the book. You might think that writing a book about becoming a lawyer as a 3rd year law student is rather bold - what gives me the authority? Well, in my mind, I have overcome pretty substantial odds in getting accepted into law school, I have succeeded in my classes and in other opportunities that have come up in law school, and I have succeeded in obtaining numerous offers from a variety of law firms. All this while supporting a family of 5. As well, my background before law school was in editing, writing and publishing, and in electronic publishing and programming. It seemed a logical extension of my talents and abilities to write a book. I also have a nice healthy student loan to pay off. Selling a valuable resource to future potential lawyers helps me and helps you. It's win-win, and that's the way that I like to play.

There really is nothing of value out there for Canadian law students when it comes to getting accepted into law school, succeeding in law school, and ultimately going beyond law school as a lawyer. I hope to fill that void in some small way.

I also thought that it would be fun to use this blog as a personal diary, and potential resource, recording my voyage as a graduate, articling student, and ultimately associate. I hope to keep this blog up to date and to provide as much information as I can along the way. A sort of Clark & Lewis expedition in hopes of clearing the way for those who decide to pursue the legal path.

The legal frontier awaits you. I hope you enjoy the ride as much as I have so far.

Adam Letourneau
www.canadianlawschool.ca