At a very young age, we’re taught to get along with others. It’s a fine lesson for the age and circumstance, but as we mature, we need to recognize that not everything mommy told us turns out to be a universal truth. Some never do.
For some time now, the leading advocate for young lawyers, Dan Hull, has pursued an aggressive agenda designed to enlighten them to some of the more useful, but less pleasant, realities of the practice of law. Not the least of which is that there is no such thing as work/life balance when it comes to providing excellence to clients.
This has raised the ire of the Slackoisie, the lot of which has whined incessantly about why it can’t have everything to which they feel entitled. Rather than look toward their professionalism, responsibility, duty, all dirty words to Generation Y, they seek the magic bullet that will enable them to achieve success in the absence of inconvenient effort. A leader in this effort, like a pig sniffing out truffles, was the host of this week’s Blawg Review, Adrian Dayton.
Adrian used his moment in the sun to promote two concepts, the first being twitter.
For some time now, the leading advocate for young lawyers, Dan Hull, has pursued an aggressive agenda designed to enlighten them to some of the more useful, but less pleasant, realities of the practice of law. Not the least of which is that there is no such thing as work/life balance when it comes to providing excellence to clients.
This has raised the ire of the Slackoisie, the lot of which has whined incessantly about why it can’t have everything to which they feel entitled. Rather than look toward their professionalism, responsibility, duty, all dirty words to Generation Y, they seek the magic bullet that will enable them to achieve success in the absence of inconvenient effort. A leader in this effort, like a pig sniffing out truffles, was the host of this week’s Blawg Review, Adrian Dayton.
Adrian used his moment in the sun to promote two concepts, the first being twitter.
One day one of the individuals I was following on Twitter sent a message or “tweet” that changed the direction of my professional life.
“Does anybody know a contracts attorney?” Was the message. There I was, a young associate practicing Corporate Law, so I responded.
Within 48 hours our New York firm had a Texas client, the client paid the retainer by credit card, and all communications were conducted by email and phone. Not only had I found a new legal client on Twitter- it was almost too easy. Over the next few weeks I tested out multiple searches, and was blown away by how many individuals and companies were on Twitter asking about legal services. Then I started developing a system to find the leads on Twitter and other social media platforms and turn them into clients.
It’s a wonderful anecdote, not so much to prove Adrian’s point but to show the failure of anecdotes to prove their purported point. One case does not a practice make. There are many lawyers out there. The streets are littered with them. Why would Adrian’s Texas client need to twit to ask blindly for a lawyer? It suggest that the client can’t find anyone locally who would deal with them. Perhaps they’ve gone through all the local lawyers and been tossed out on their butt, whether for being unduly annoying, demanding or cheap. But something is wrong when a client has to twit to find a lawyer, and will give up a credit card number to any lawyer with a twitter account.
On the flip side, what client would want to find a lawyer on twitter? A desperate one, no doubt, since there is no possibility that the client could have any sense of competency in his counsel. There is nothing one can say in 140 characters that would provide an adequate showing of skill to justify retention as a lawyer to any but the worst conceivable client.
Adrian thinks he’s discovered a panacea. In reality, he’s discovered a trap for the unwary. Worse still, nowhere in his paradigm does he concern himself with what to do with a client once he’s got one. This is perhaps the greatest failing of the focus of the Slackoisie, where they demonstrate no comprehension that they are lawyers, not soap salesmen. Nowhere does Adrian mention anything about honing his skills, providing excellent representation, serving his clients. It’s all about getting the credit card number.
Left to his own devices, he would have us all become the Alexis Neely’s of the internet, vessels filled with disgustingly sweet goo, utterly devoid of substance. Spouting words without meaning, I’m left to wonder whether the Slackoisie has the slightest clue what substance is? I suspect some do, playing the Adrian Dayton’s for their available cash to get them to jump on board the newest, shiniest bandwagon to quick and easy happiness. They keep selling “secrets”, and the children keep believing that there really are secrets to happiness, just as they believed in Pretty Ponies and Unicorns before that.
That the Slackoisie have a different view of life is neither surprising nor a matter of deep concern in itself; it has long been common for youth to believe that everyone who came before them is an ignorant Luddite, and only they possess a clear vision, unmuddled by convention. As if nobody before them ever thought of a new way to do something.
While some demand their due, that the world rotate on its axis to make their lives more special and wonderful, others whine about the need for their elders to “understand” them. They want to sit down and negotiate a truce of sorts, where we can hash out our differences and reach a compromise. They have found an ally in Diane Levin at Mediation Channel, As a mediator, every disagreement is an opportunity “bridge the gap.” If Diane was a hammer, every disagreement would look like a nail.
After describing the rancorous arguing that has ensued between members of different generations of lawyers, Dayton, a Gen Y lawyer, observes:Dayton has thus signaled his willingness to bridge the generation gap. So what about his counterparts on the other side?What does that tell us? That there is a real conflict – and lack of understanding – on both sides. The biggest message I took away from it was that we’d better figure each other out – we’re going to be together for a while.
There’s nothing to mediate. There are no “counterparts”. If the Slackoisie don’t like the lifestyle at Biglaw, reject the billable hour demands, want to go without undergarments, let ’em. It’s no skin off our nose. They can have anything they want; they just can’t have it on our dime. No one has a gun to their head, forcing them to work 2300 billable hours a year. Every one of them, every single one, is free to hang out his own shingle at any moment.
As far as Biglaw’s “needs” are concerned, who cares. There are still plenty of young lawyers who want to earn as much money as possible. And more significantly, the Biglaw model has crashed anyway, and they are far more likely to disappear in the next few years than hire the next class of money-hungry wannabes. So don’t worry about the pressures of Biglaw, as it won’t be there anyway.
But when you go to work for someone, you will be expected to earn your keep. Lawfirms don’t exist to provide you with a corner office and BMW so you can leave early and drink Jello shots with your buds. When the going gets tough, no one needs a lawyer who leaves the office whenever they have something more fun to do. And stop telling us how wonderful your work is. It’s not. That you disagree is immaterial, as you aren’t in a position to judge your competence. It takes years of hard work and experience to improve the quality of your work to the point where your efforts merit your self-assessed kudos. Some never improve. Most never achieve excellence. It’s not that easy to do.
Surrounding yourselves with others who similarly whine and believe in magic bullets isn’t going to turn day into night, or you into lawyers. Even if you could use twitter to get enough clients, good clients, paying clients, to maintain a practice, you wouldn’t have the capacity to serve them. And don’t throw up an anecdote about how one young lawyer somewhere did a really good job. The reason the story gets told is that it’s so rare. It won’t happen to you because you really, really want it to.
The thought is embodied in this letter from a former youngster who learned a little something along the way.
For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.There is no argument to be had here. There is merely a learning curve that the Slackoisie has yet to climb. There is nothing to mediate, nor a gap to be filled. We all want to live in our wonderful fantasy land, where clients with loads of money troll twitter for lawyers to give it to without any demands that they perform services that might interfere with the kids little league games or dinner with our best friends forever.
Oddly, clients have similar thoughts, where they retain counsel wholly dedicated to their cause, night and day, fully prepared to drop everything at a moments notice to put in 36 hours of work in every 24 hour period. They expect lawyers to know all the magic secrets too, but not the same ones that Adrian dreams about. The magic bullets clients dream about are the ones that win their cause, do so swiftly and at a fraction of the cost (if any cost at all) they might otherwise be charged. So whose dreams are more worthy?
Adrian’s second Blawg Review theme are his 12 Virtues, “that will make our world a better place to live.” That’s nice.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, there’s a lot more to balance than life-work. There’s balancing a client’s expectations with what is feasible or even possible, then balancing that with whether it’s worth it to him to even try to get there, balancing what you’re going to have to do with what the client can manage to pay you.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me. Things have a way of turning out more complicated than they seemed at the beginning, and in the odd case when they don’t, people think you didn’t really do anything.
Maybe a kid was going to be indicted and you helped insure that he was not, largely because he shouldn’t have been, but the trick there is convincing the right people that this is so. I mean, lots of people are indicted who shouldn’t be.
Now, the reality is that the benefit you helped obtain is priceless, almost on a par with saving the kid’s life. But how do you explain this to someone who hasn’t seen what being indicted can do to you and your life and your plans?
Yes, the stuff from these newly minted lawyers seems really naive; but this is one of the pitfalls of youth, hardly unique to generation x or y or whatever.
The reality is that significant accomplishment requires significant sacrifice. Hundreds of men died building the Panama canal. The Brooklyn Bridge got built, but not until the stress of the project killed its author. How does any of that qualify as work-life “balance”?
Maybe it should be easier, but judges outrank me and they want their lives to be easy and “balanced”, too. Representing the people I do, I am always in the position of making their lives more difficult. No wonder they don’t like me.
But, you know, tough. If I’m the low man on the totem pole, it’s my life that gets thrown out of balance unless my superiors are willing to bear their share of the load. So be it. I’m going to insist that they do their job, rather than decide that since no one else is doing their job I don’t have to do mine either.
There are a lot of people in prison who shouldn’t be there. The whole profession, judges included, are responsible for this. And to a great extent the reason for this is that the professionals are in a much better position to achieve an acceptable “work-life” balance than the people whose lives they have ruined and who are routinely deemed to no longer matter.
I will not accept this state of affairs when it crosses my desk and becomes my job. Work-life balance will have to wait.
In software project planning, we have the iron triangle of software development, often summed up as “Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick any two.”
I’m sure lawyers could achieve good work-life balance by having fewer clients. This suggests an iron triangle for lawyers: Work, Life, Income. Pick any two.
On the other hand, I wonder what Zen-Master Katz has to say about work-life balance? I suspect that he has trouble understanding that there’s a difference between the two.
I guess that’s really the solution to work-life balance, if you are lucky enough to pull it off: Do work that you love, so your work enriches your life.
The same truism applies here. You can have all the free time you want, provided you’re willing to give something up for it. But there is one difference that all the enablers forget. Lawyers have a duty to clients that transcends just getting a job done. We have people whose lives depend on us, being there when we’re needed, doing the job right the first time, not screwing up and apologizing later. A programmer can fix a bug. We may not get a second chance after the jail door slams shut, and the client really won’t appreciate doing a few years because we were busy enjoying work/life balance.
Really! And you don’t think the strength of this response to a kid so supposedly unworthy as young Adrian doesn’t deserve just a wee bit self-reflection?
Keep whining dinosaur, while the Gen Y slackers take all your clients. It’s horses-asses like you that make people hate lawyers. Your lack of civility and intelligence-insulting sophomoric name-calling and stereotyping that infect the legal system with $500/hr heartless billing machines. Since you apparently have no grasp of current affairs, I hate to inform you that Gen Y is soon to have more economic power than the baby-boomers. So, while your financial bankruptcy comes to match your intellectual bankruptcy, you can use your 1976 rotary dial Bakelite to call your peers at the “home” to cry.
Yes. Some lawyers have people whose life is in their hand. But not all. Yes many jobs require you to temporarily suspend work/life balance. Surgeons, Doctors, National Guard during emergencies, police, fire fighters. Temporarily. You need to understand what you sacrifice when you decide that maximizing physical wealth is your goal. Yes working at a large firm you have to realize you are paying your dues. Again a temporary state.
When you decide that your life is going to be only about billable hours, I think you give up a great deal. But don’t complain that you don’t have the corner office. Enjoy the balance you have that the guy in the corner office may not enjoy.
Boutique lawyers also give up a lot. I worked for a CEO who was a former lawyer. Running a $600 million company was less stress for him.
We may not like the way the system works, but for many financial rewards are received in exchange for most of their life.
Not everyone wants what you want. Finding what wealth means to you and making the sacrifices to get there are part of every career.
I treat Adrian like an equal, albeit one who is mistaken in his view of life, which is why I take note of his ideas and address them directly. You would have me treat him like some idiot pet and go easy on him? I suspect you’re the one who treats Adrian as unworthy, telling me it’s unfair to beat up on a child.
If you close your eyes hard enough and click your heels three times, maybe your fantasy will happen. In the meantime, I hope you find a job and can move out of your mommy’s basement.
You’ve almost got the idea. There are plenty of jobs where one can achieve balance. Law just isn’t one of them. It’s not about money, but about responsibility. It’s not about money, but about assuming the responsibility for other people’s lives.
Speaking as a lawyer who used to be a computer programmer, I have to say that things on the programming side can be just as serious as on the legal side – sometimes they are the same thing. The last system I worked on actually had as one class of users prosecutors.
And a bug can be very costly to fix – especially if it happens early and is not caught until much later. An error in the design phase that might take an hour to fix then could take 10,000 hours to find and fix when you are in integration testing – there tends to be a geometric progression in time spent to fix errors each time you advance a phase on a project.
That’s why it is especially important not to make even a single mistake in the earlier phases – and why it is extremely important therefore to make sure you take your time in the early phases and not work more than 8 hour days then. Tired people make mistakes. You really can only do 6 or 7 hours of good solid knowledge work in a day at 100% of your capacity. After that, you degrade. And given the costs of errors made early on, you can make a project get done sooner with less errors by sending people home at 5pm every day. I wonder how true that is of the legal profession. Do you best serve your client by making sure you do not work too many hours and make a mistake as a result of fatigue that you would not have made if you went home, relaxed, and got a good night’s sleep?
Scott, too bad you’ve based your opinion of me on a single post and some mistaken assumptions about mediators. If you knew anything at all about me or what I believe, you’d know how absurd your reductivist view of me and my opinions about ADR are.
Also a shame that you’ve missed my point: Adrian has called for a little constructive dialogue. What’s the big deal?
Your analogy works well in some respect (get it right the first time), but not as well in others. When you’ve worked a grueling day, and the call on a new arrest comes in at 5:59 p.m., your client just isn’t going to happily spend an extra night in jail because you want to enjoy a nice supper with the family and a good night’s rest. Unfortunately, we are called upon when needed, and when needed, we must either be there, ready to do our job, or someone will suffer. For those who demand work/life balance, they would let their client sit. In my view, that’s a total abrogation of our responsibility. We do not put ourselves, our convenience, our pleasure, ahead of our clients in a time of need.
Diane,
This doesn’t reflect my opinion of you, but only my opinion of this one post of yours. I don’t know why you would assume that one post reflects a “reductivist” view of either your or ADR. You extrapolate far too much by assuming that if I don’t agree with you on everything, I must disagree with you on everything. I’m a big believer in ADR, but that doesn’t mean that everything in life is negotiable.
As for the “big deal” in engaging in dialogue with Adrian, I’ve engaged in numerous dialogues with Adrian before you discovered he existed. I’ve met Adrian and like him a lot, and I’ve explained to him in person why I disagree with his views. He’s a great person who happens to be wrong on this subject.
But the problem, giving rise to your “big deal” question, is that it belies an assumption that there is something to negotiate. This is one of the roots of the problem, the sense of entitlement that creates the belief of the Slackoisie that just because they want something, they are entitled to get it. You can’t always get what you want, and it’s time that someone said so. Enabling the belief that everything is on the table is what causes much of their dissatisfaction and unhappiness. At some point, they need to come to grips with reality, that they can’t get it all and give only as much as they feel like in return.
What’s the big deal? A little honesty is the big deal.
I see your point – is not all legal work is knowledge work in the sense that you need to be mentally fresh? I imagine showing up for an arraignment at 11 pm is a far different thing from trying to write an appellate brief. Not that both don’t require skill, but the mental precision needed varies with the task.
Being on call potentially all the time seems like it would always deprive you of ever being well rested, so you’d never be at 100%. At least that’s what I take from your assertion that you can’t have that work/life balance and be a lawyer. Is it just the case that to truly serve your clients, you need to be good enough and experienced enough that if you are at only 50% mentally (or whatever) from your constant fatigue, that is still sufficient to fully and professionally represent your clients? Do you vary that based on the tasks at hand, getting extra rest when you are writing that supreme court brief (or really can you if you could be called at any time)? Or do you just not do that kind of work, referring your appellate briefs to someone who specializes in appellate practice?
Obviously, different work requires different skillsets, but don’t assume that going into court at 11 pm means that one is working at 50%. That’s not how it works with trial lawyers. While we may not be fresh as daisies at all times, and this is almost always the case when we’re on trial, doing research late into the night, reviewing documents, preparing argument, our ability to be 100% is part of what it takes to do the job. I realize that it’s hard to appreciate if you don’t do it, but it’s impossible to be a trial lawyer and be incapable of functioning at full capacity whenever needed.
As for appellate briefs (and I do my own, thank you), it’s a different skillset altogether. Trying to compare the two skillsets is mixing apples and oranges. But even appellate work requires the ability to do the job as needed. When a brief is due, it has to be done, done as perfectly as humanly possible, and filed timely. Same with the ancillary appellate work. You can’t file a day late and tell the court, “sorry, but I was busy yesterday with something more important.” You can’t show up for oral argument whenever it’s convenient. You can’t file the notice of appeal whenever you get around to it. And you can’t take forever to perfect the appeal while the client sits in prison waiting for you to find a convenient time to get around to his work.
You are godlike; the rest of us miserable slackers bow down to your superiority. How could you possibly find the time to consort with mere mortals here in these comments. The downtrodden need you. Please go to them now. We’ll return to blighting the planet with our imperfections. Ready 24 hours a day & never at a loss! Go get ’em super hero!
Scott, You’re being an asshole. Wake the F*&* up & go back to doing something constructive.
Scott,
Go ahead and pretend that you and your Biglaw buddies are still calling the shots. You are certainly calling the shots when it comes to YOUR employees, but good luck attracting the next batch of Gen Y that want more. (Not more money, just more life)
You present two very narrow options for attorneys: 1. Work 2000+ hours per week for busy lawyers like yourself (OR) 2. Hang out a shingle.
That’s an over simplification of the situation. There are plenty of firms that are willing to negotiate (providing flex-time, work from home options, smaller case loads) with the brightest members of Gen Y- because they recognize their talents. You have made it abundantly clear you are not one of those Attorneys or from one of those firms.
The need for the mediation is evidenced by the hundreds of responses these discussions keep creating. Feel free to ignore us working this out.
By the way, to explain why I don’t go into much detail about giving 110% for my clients, its because that is not the topic of my blog. My blog is about legal marketing strategy. I will leave advice on excellent client service to experienced and amicable attorneys like yourself.
As for your attacks on social media and twitter, you can see my response here.
Some aspire to do the best they can. Some prefer to wallow. I had always thought that you were one of the ones who tried to do her best. My mistake.
Point of order: why does “Fuck” require bowdlerization, but not “asshole”?
It didn’t take long for your fragile self-esteem to crumble. To the extent that anyone might confuse you with a reasonable person, you’ve just proven conclusively where you go when someone disagrees with you. It’s ugly, Vickie. Sorry you can’t handle anything beyond love and approval.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I keep hearing all about how your guys are taking charge. Call me when the revolution’s over
You make assumptions: that I’m a peace & love person (not) : that I get pissed off when you dis my friends because I’ve got a “self esteem” problem (no, I have a temper problem). I get paid to mediate (be patient, explore party interests, deal with massive testosterone-fueled egos) but I do not get paid to suffer fools in the blogosphere so I will do what I should originally have done and that is to write you and your blog off my list of reading material. Best to you in pursuing your own perfection.
Mark,
My mother has asked me for 45 years to please not say “fuck.” She never asked me not to say “asshole.” I do what I can to comply given my many disappointments as a daughter.
Vickie
Well, aren’t you the gender stereotype. Have a nice day.
To the extent Adrian presents Twitter, social media, or the internet as a solution to the work/live dilemma he lost me.
Social media (etc) is not the solution to the work/life balance. It’s naive to think so and as experienced lawyers we should definitely give younger lawyers the benefit of critical thinking.
That said, there’s plenty wrong with the “old model”. Getting people to work hard and getting people to intensely focus on their work is not one of them.
Venkat,
You misunderstood, my blog post was a response to Scott’s attacks on Twitter- not his attacks on work-life balance. Completely different topics.
The problem with the advent of twitter, facebook, blogs, is that they allow an otherwise worthless lawyer to present an image of superiority. There’s nothing wrong with getting a “name” from twitter, but to hire a lawyer just because they are on twitter or facebook and their marketing skills make them look outstanding, is a mistake.
On the issue of working hard, to me it’s simple. The lawyers who are around after hours, weekends, have good written material out there, will get the good clients and good cases. The “factory” lawyers, those looking for a check and a quick out, will spend their lives in lower courts and be home for dinner by 4. Nothing wrong with that at all. We need ticket lawyers, DUI lawyers, federal lawyers, lawyers who just handle murder cases, it all depends on who you want to be.
The biggest problem in the legal field is unknowing clients, who hire based on a brochure, a promise of “success,” or a cheap deal.
Scott and I disagree on many things generational. Still, these kids really need to heed his advice on client selection.
One of the best things I learned from Norm Pattis (who is about Scott’s age, I think) was about client selection. A client who creeps you out will make your life Hell. They are time thieves and emotional vampires.
A client who needs to find a lawyer on Twitter has creeped out many lawyers. That’s the only reason they are looking for lawyers on Twitter.
Thus, Adrian’s positions are hard to reconcile:
1. Use Twitter to get clients.
2. Work-life balance.
Sorry, Adrian, but the clients who will find you on Twitter are the ones who will steal all of your time. If you think having a demanding boss is bad…. Just wait until you get wrongly grieved, and thus have to spend dozens of hours defending yourself from frivolous state bar proceedings.
The worst your boss can do it get you fired. Talk to any older lawyer about nightmare clients. What they can do to your life is much worse than what any “bad” boss like Scott could ever do.
Scott would send you packing. A nightmare client (the kind who will find you on Twitter) will never let you leave.
Adrian’s latest twitter post talks about how you twit with each other, fall in love, meet, have lunch, get retained. Would that work for you?
You are so totally wrong. Norm and I are NOT the same age. He’s at least 6 weeks older than me. At least.
No, and I think there is a difference between getting a client from twitter, and getting a referral from twitter.
What’s interesting is that the spilt is between practicing lawyers and non-practicing lawyers/consultants. After all, what would we know about how to practice law?
Those that teach………
Adrian:
That’s the general impression I have from reading your blog. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
A Response to Scott Greenfield About Excellence and Work Life Balance
When I saw that people on my Twitter list were really pissed off about a post written by Scott Greenfield, I decided to check it out and see what’s up. His post makes several points, but I’ve decided to respond to the two that I most disagree with. First, about excellence. Scott’s post implies that young lawyers are (a) incapable of producing excellent work, and (b) incapable of judging excellence. Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit on every level. Neither age nor experience are guarantees of excellence. I know plenty of old lawyers who can’t get their cites right, cite bad…
I’m moving about–but really want to weigh in on this one. I will later. Earlier R. Bodine (Holden’s replacement) in DC read me some things from this “thread”. Am starting to get angry. But clients/work interfere with my being involved with the increasingly low-rent place called the blogosphere. Even while some try, none of your commenters can screw up the law profession, or journalism–but there are some things that need to be said.
Meanwhile, Scott, in these comments, is beginning to remind me of “JD”–my cat at the California place who stalks lizards and other smaller, weaker animals. These critters are all way beneath JD. He’s a total predator. He could take out other cats, dogs, smaller coyotes and some really big-ass birds. He once even went nuts and attacked my vintage SAAB—for no reason, and while it was moving. And he was fine. Big Moxie and Brains. Anyway JD, who like Scott bores easily, finds all these goddamn animals in the garden. He even lures them. They come, he catches, he bites down–but he plays with them for way too long. He doesn’t kill fast enough.
That’s because I’m trying to educate. Some people learn slower than others. Some people learn much slower than others. And then there are people who’ve never actually practiced law, and they take a really long time.
“It takes years of hard work and experience to improve the quality of your work to the point where your efforts merit your self-assessed kudos. Some never improve. Most never achieve excellence. It’s not that easy to do.”
True, multiple studies have shown it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something. Short cuts don’t exist and talent doesn’t get you to the front of the line.
A great book: “Talent is Overrated” chronicles many studies in various fields. Similar to Gladwel’s “Outliers” but more in depth.