When the market for lawyers crashed, so too did the work/life balance scam being promoted by those who sought to rationalize their choices. Just as misery loves company, so do those who chose unconventional paths but refuse to face up to their choices.
There is nothing wrong with making the decision to reject the typical lawyer path. It’s not for everyone, and given the numbers of warm bodies being churned out of law schools, and the lies promulgated about being able to “have it all,” there were bound to be plenty of people for whom the law really wasn’t a good fit. Let me emphasize: There is nothing wrong with this.
But why, then, are some lawyers who decide to pave their own way ashamed of themselves?
I would expect them to deny it to their dying breath. but the evidence is indisputable. They hold hands and chant, like third graders in the choir, that they are real lawyers. Sadly, Susan Cartier Liebel, founder of Solo Marketing University, has chosen to use her bully pulpit to become the head cheerleader for this delusion.
Those who proclaim ‘real’ lawyers as only those who live and breathe the law – well this tragic stereotyped lawyer is often the one pictured as working 100 hours per week forgoing their families, their health, and other personal or business interests. This scary ‘real’ lawyer is the one most prone to falling into disabling depression, life-altering addiction, deliberately committing egregious acts to get disbarred because they can’t voluntarily slow down or admit they don’t want law to consume their souls anymore or the pressure to sustain the ‘image’ is no longer bearable.
‘Real’ lawyers come in all shapes and sizes and flavors.
There is no guru on any hill anywhere I know of who has been universally recognized and authorized to determine who has the requisite amount of passion and purpose, the right blend of hours worked and the perfect balance of all of life’s activities to call one lawyer over another a ‘real lawyer’… except the bar commissioners who give (or take away) a legal license based upon your ability to do your job and your other activities within ethical boundaries.
Susan has always had a nasty, if particularly unpersuasive, habit of lapsing into what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness.”
Merriam-Webster’s #1 Word of the Year for 2006:
1. truthiness (noun)
1 : “truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report,” October 2005)
2 : “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true” (American Dialect Society, January 2006)
By creating a strawman, a caricature, and then jabbing at it a few times if not landing a serious blow, she rallies the misbegotten to her side, stroking their fevered brow. They need validation, fearful that others are laughing at them, and she offers it, collecting friends and admirers like Father Damien collected lepers. Except Father Damien actually helped them, rather than made them feel better about their disease.
It’s fine to argue that any person with a valid license to practice law is a “real lawyer.” It’s just unhelpful and deceptive. The problem stems from an abject denial that there is any difference between these “real lawyers” and those other “real lawyers” who have full-time practices with law offices and staff and a decent copy machine.
If they weren’t ashamed, they would embrace their choices and take pride in what they do instead of faking it to feign the appearance. Again I emphasize, there is nothing wrong with taking an alternative path. What is wrong is pretending that you aren’t, that your path is “just the same” as lawyers in traditional practice and that there is no difference. Lawyers who have chosen different paths may have a license to practice law, but they do not have a license to deceive.
A license to practice is an anachronism in certain respects. It entitled its holder to perform all manner of legal work, even though the horse and buggy days of the general practitioner are largely gone. Medicine has done a far better job of acknowledging, teaching and qualifying specialists, while the law has kept its head buried in the sand.
The kid 12 minutes past his admission is just as much a lawyer as the old man with decades of solid experience. The lawyer who is adept at his work is no more a lawyer than the one who botches case after case. The lawyer in his pajamas at a keyboard is just as much a lawyer and the one who can appear 24/7 in court when the call comes in. If the definition of real lawyer is one who has a ticket, then there are no distinctions. But there are, of course. The distinction are life threatening to the client who is deceived and sends his paypal payment to the wrong lawyer.
Many of the alternate paths offer sound options for lawyers. The virtual law office may work very well for some types of practice, enabling a lawyer to charge less, earn more, and perform just as well as a lawyer in a wood-paneled downtown office. All the VLO lawyer need do is explain to the client that there is no office to drop by should an emergency arise and he desperately needs to speak with someone. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but a trade-off. Informed consent seems an appropriate description.
Other lawyers, those who want to handle a bit of work but only on the time frame that suits the lawyer’s lifestyle rather than the client’s needs, may also be a fine path provided the client understands that the lawyer will not be there for him when the lawyer’s kids have a recital at school. If the client doesn’t mind sitting in the hoosegow waiting for the standing ovation to subside, then everything is cool.
Even the unbundling of legal services path has its merit, provided that it’s limited to those instances where the client doesn’t suffer for the consequential issues he couldn’t possibly foresee (since he’s a client, not a “real lawyer”) when the unbundled work is done and the client is unceremoniously left hanging by his fingernails. There are no doubt instances where unbundling will serve a client well and save some decent money, but the critical issue for a “real lawyer” is to identify the risks of unbundling and make sure the client understands that he may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Of particular note are those lawyers who have adjusted their practice to fit their family demands. I have enormous admiration for those who want to return to or continue to practice law while simultaneously caring for their children.
Aside: Some assume that this refers to women, and that anyone questioning is sexist. Quite the contrary. This reveals their covert prejudice, as if there are no male lawyers who care for their kids and adjust their practice to change diapers, feed hungry mouths or clap at recitals. I’m one of them, having never missed one of my son’s fencing meets, and I wont tolerate being told that only women care for their children.
Those who do must, by definition, give up significant time and availability. It’s a perfectly legitimate choice for a lawyer to make. It also carries very real ramifications for a lawyer’s ability to complete that 79 page contract that absolutely, positively must be done in 6 hours when the kids are home with the measles.
I was once put into a foursome with some relaxed looking guys. I asked one what he did, and he told me he was a reformed lawyer. He drove the ball 250 yards, straight and true. I shanked mine. I wished I was a reformed lawyer, but I’m not. He was proud to let me know that he had plenty of time to work on his swing.
There are people who hold law licenses but don’t practice law. They are not real lawyers. They may be reformed lawyers, or former lawyers, but they are not real lawyers if they don’t practice law. The license is just a piece of paper. Being a lawyer is what one does for clients.
Susan is right, that “lawyers come in all shapes and sizes and flavors,” but they’re not all “real lawyers” as far as being honest with the public, and with themselves. If their alternative paths are not harmful and do not detract from the ability to serve their clients, then take pride in your path. Admit it happily and readily. Promote it. Own it.
If you hide it, conceal it, lie about it, pretend that it doesn’t exist, then you’re not a “real lawyer.” Real lawyers practice law. Real lawyers are honest about what they do and the consequences for clients. Real lawyers are not ashamed of the choices they make. Real lawyers do not deceive themselves or their clients. Real lawyers are not liars. Real lawyers do not hide in the choir of others who share their misgivings about taking alternate paths. Real lawyers are not enablers or apologists of such deception.
Go down whatever path works best for you. If you can’t be proud of it, own it, be honest about it and put your client first, then you aren’t a real lawyer. No truthiness changes it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I like your definition of real lawyer because it actually requires something even more than simply “practicing law.” But I would say that the amount of disdain showered on lawyers who quit practicing has long puzzled me (on this very blog I was mocked by a reader for being a “CLE professional,” a dig that I actually found to be quite funny). With those who become marketing/tech consultants, I think the concern is that lawyers are being “duped” into engaging with consultants just because they say they’re lawyers, and I can understand that. But shouldn’t a “real lawyer” be able to weed out the bullshit?
SCL post shocked me.
SM marketing scams is one thing. But a celebration of mediocrity re: the nuts and bolts of lawyering hits a nerve. It hurts, frankly.
I had no idea that people are out there attempting to create degraded underclasses of lawyers–of “nice”, “no commitment/passion” and “happy half-ass”–and calling it “unique”, “unconventional” and “different”.
They’ve made it so simple–and it’s worrying and something we should all fight. Happening at a time when lawyer quality is down in every type and size of law firm in the U.S.
It threatens not just clients. It threatens the only thing we had going for us: a tradition, at least, of sacrifice and service.
Yes and no. Being a real lawyer doesn’t mean possessing any social media or tech savvy. I’ve seen first hand the trend of lawyers whose complete knowledge of both can be summed up “knows how to turn on a computer,” get swept up in what seems to be (to the untrained eye) a frenzy. They may be able to cross like nobody’s business, but they’re clueless on social media, marketing and technology.
So they hear that they absolutely must jump in immediately or die a painful death. They don’t know what to do, so they turn to lawyers who “just happen” to dabble in social media in their spare time, who hype up this frenzy, tell them to run out and buy a mac, start SEO spamming, twitter away and blog via ghosts. Hey, they’re lawyers right? Real lawyers, just like me. They would lie, would they? And so lawyers, real lawyers, sign up, jump in, outsource their SEO and reputation, flawg, splawg and anything else that end in lawg.
Or there are the baby lawyers, who hear loud, clear and constantly, from the experience lawyers (like the one who runs SMU) tell them what they must do to survive, if not thrive. Who are these baby lawyers to ignore advice from these “real lawyers” who are so well known, have a million twitter followers and tons of blogs on the internet. Surely they must know what they are talking about. Surely this is the future. After all, real lawyers would never lie, right? Real lawyers would never spin the truth to promote their agenda and justify their own peculiar choices, right?
They should be able to weed out the bullshit, but experience shows that isn’t always the case.
Lawyer Lite is never mediocre. It’s differently lawyerly. After all, isn’t it really all about what makes the lawyer happy?
The Four Noble Truths (of Lawyering)(with apologies to Siddhartha Gautama):
Lawyering, like Life, means suffering.
2. The origin of Lawyerly suffering is attachment: desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity at the expense of one’s clients.
3. The cessation of Lawyerly suffering is attainable by upholding the integrity of the legal profession through public service, professional dispassion and personal ethics.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering is the middle path between hedonism and asceticism; the gradual path of self-improvement does not require an iPad2 or cloud computing software.
There’s an iPad2?
It’s curious behavior. On one hand, these people scream, “I am a trail blazer!” Then they cry when people don’t use traditional labels to describe them. A hazard of taking a different path is that the labels of the old paths don’t apply, right?
Thus the entire debate is really about their failures, insecurities, and need for validation from the Old Guard. If they were really doing awesome things, why would they care if people called them “real lawyers”?
They should be too busy “blazing trails” and “destroying paradigms” to fuss over what a bunch of “old white guys think.” And yet they are the most notorious Googlers, always wondering what people say about them.
It’s pretty funny.
Not sure why people are so caught up in self-definitions except for insecurity about what they do. I’ve practiced -I have not practiced. I don’t hold myself out in any manner not related to what I actually do day to day. How others want to define that is of no importance to me. As you know, I enjoy speaking and writing about hate speech and the 1st Amendment. I don’t consider myself an expert. I just consider myself who has a passionate opinion and tries to due his homework before expressing it regardless of my law degree and license to practice. I can tell you that if someone came to me and asked for a 1st amendment or hate speech opinion that had penal pr civil consequences, that requires more than a passionate opinion. It requires real legal advice. I would refer that person to those with real practices who make their living giving legal advice and not rendering passionate opinions. Does that exclude me from the “real lawyer” ranks? Who cares. Not sure what that makes me in the legal profession but in It’s real and it’s who I am.
Not trail blazer. Legal Rebel. And an excellent point.
You’re a lawyer?
I used to be, at this point in my life, whats the difference..
You are whatever you say you are. You’re one of the most honest, straightforward guys I’ve ever met.
I have a lot of respect for a Congressional committee staffer I first met years ago over the phone. We later got to be friends. He’d gone to Yale Law but had a non-lawyer job on the committee. He was about 30 then. Our first exchange:
“Hey, are you a lawyer, too?”, I asked.
“Yes–but I’m a half-assed [his exact words] lawyer. I hated law practice–and knew I would never stick it out long to be good at it”.
Since then, this guy has done big things in completely non-law settings. But he knew that law would require sacrifice that was not “in” him. And, frankly, I would hire him today–except as amazingly talented as he is (and, man, is he!) It’s Simply Not “In” him.
Re: Law Lite Promoters, thinking “out of the box” is for people who have at least mastered Old School thinking–not for hucksters, marginals and The Lazy.
Most of these “kind-of” lawyer people should have not gone to law school–or should have sprouted out in a different direction a few years out. Law, AT A MINIMUM, is for (a) diligent & driven problem-solvers/doers and/or (b) passionate warriors. How many people in the profession you guys know fall into either (a) or (b)?
My guess: about 20% Everyone else? Please leave. Repeat: please leave. Get out. God’s speed–but get out. In most people’s case, the law was a big mistake.
Most of the people in the profession do not belong here–pick any generation–and this has gotten worse in last 10 years due to the lack of strength, resilience and toughness of the previous crops of JDs. Indeed, most of the new people I see are UNIQUELY UNSUITED for lawyering or any kind of problem-solving where working for others–clients, customers, buyers–actually counts. It’s not just our profession.
“Please don’t try this at home alone.” Can’t find a mentor? Work harder–much harder, like your life depended on it–at finding one. There is some luck/bad luck involved in that. If you still can’t find a mentor, give up the ghost and try another profession. It’s not completely your fault. Too many lawyers in US. And most of you were unsuited for it from the day you were born.
Ok. You were misled. Sorry. But you should not be out there: (1) hurting clients; and (2) hurting yourselves.
Law schools attract both average IQ and smart weaklings; they can’t think of anything better to do. They have no idea what’s coming down the road–or of the responsibilities. Smart–even very smart–is ever enough. Not ever.
This profession is hard, folks. People who try to make it easy should be fought tooth and nail.
It’s about Passion, folks–Passion in different personalities and styles–but Passion. Most of you just don’t have it–and there is nothing wrong with that. Just find something else to do.
Please.
(Excuse/forgive any typos, Scott. Sorry for length. Back to mines.)
RE: above: “…last 10 years due to the lack of strength, resilience and toughness of the previous crops of JDs.”
This should have read “we saw in” the previous crops of JDs. Not “of”.
In other words, I think that until 10 years ago, most lawyers had the moxie to tough the training period out. No longer. It’s babies, whiners & tubbies–with lots of disturbingly “dainty” emasculated guys thrown in. (Women grads are much, much better. Bigger balls. Guys = often creepy–not one mean bone.) Most of the new crop are “smart”–and sometimes they are brilliant–but it’s not ever enough.
In these younger folks, high expectations, coupled very cruelly with low values and standards about life and work, are a formula for failure and unhappiness.
Have a nice day.
Hey. Don’t forget about Adrian Akron.