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.