The question below was left in a comment to a recent post called The Easiest Practice of Law. It was the latest in a series of posts here directed toward the Slackoisie, who I try my darndest to help despite their lack of appreciation for my efforts. Still, I press forward, lest they spend their days at JD Undergound making each other stupider.

My Easiest Practice post offered what I saw as a pretty clear message:

The other question is whether there is any area of law, any niche at all, that this person gives a damn about.  Does it interest him? Does he feel he might make a difference and help people? Is there any tug, even the slightest, that draws him toward an area of law?

And yet, someone by the name of Mike Zenna thought it prudent to write this in a comment, which never actually saw the light of day because he failed to respond to the verification email.  Perhaps he thought better of his question. Perhaps he was too busy eating Cheetos. I dunno. But his question struck me as one that needed a response, if not for Zenna, then for others like him who failed to get the memo.

I am a new but gainfully employed attorney; I have about 1 year of experience in a litigation practice that deals with construction law, real estate law, transactional, etc. What I am interested to learn from any more experienced practicioners [sic] out there is this; is there an area of the law that one might focus on exclusively and can be well understood within a reasonable period of time so that one could branch out on their own in a competent fashion? To be more clear, on any given day I may deal with a real estate issue, an issue in a construction contract and review a licensing agreement. I find that I am learning a bit of this and a bit of that but the lack of focus is depriving me of the chance to become familiar with any one area of law which is what I want most of all. Due to my personality traits, I prefer to focus on one area of law and become as much of an expert in that area as I can. So, any suggestions?

First, I applaud your desire to gain expertise in an area of law. Not to belittle the generalists, who play a crucial role in providing legal representation in areas where there aren’t enough lawyers or demand for a lawyer to limit his practice to a specific niche. 

But you ask if there is “an area of law” that can be “well understood within a reasonable period of time.”  The vagueness of your question (what is a reasonable period of time?) reveals its own answer. Every area of law can be well understood in a reasonable period of time. Malcolm Gladwell says it takes  10,000 hours to become an expert, is that the reasonable period of time you speak of? 

It’s not likely, given that you later write that it’s only for the purpose of “branch[ing] out on their own in a competent fashion.” So you’re really talking about competent rather than expert? There is a big difference, as competence is the minimal standard, that below which you shouldn’t be allowed to practice law at all.

Just so it’s clear, by the way, Gladwell is wrong. To someone who desires to be truly expert, it doesn’t take 10,000 hours, but a lifetime. They never stop learning and there is always greater expertise to be gained, but then, Gladwell has low expectations.

Yet you’ve ignored the point of the post. Do you want to be a real estate closer? Do you want to do trusts and estates? Do you want to spend the rest of your natural life reading contracts or would you like to get out of the office and walk into a courtroom like a Boss?  Do you give a damn about anything?

But Mike, the end of your comment puts the lie to that little piece of respect you might otherwise have gained by claiming an interest in expertise:

And don’t waste time saying something like “all areas of law are complex and ever evolving” or “any area of law can become familiar with enough time.” That is not helpful. I want to know about an area of law that is relatively simple to learn. Contrast no-fault law with class action toxic tort cases. see?

Don’t waste time? Whose time? Yours? Mine? Other experienced lawyers time? You, with your year of heady experience as a gainfully employed lawyer, seek the advice of “more experienced practicioners [sic],” but on condition that how they respond meets your approval and isn’t a waste of your precious time?

Aw, Mike. Why’d you have to go and write that?

You were always free to accept or reject whatever advice you were given. If it worked for you, great. If not, so what? But what you cannot do, ever, is demonstrate a level of hubris and narcissism so disturbing and outrageous that more experienced practitioners want to take you behind the woodshed and give you a damn hard slap.

Every slackoisie seeks answers that conform to their easy-peasy, self-centered view of the world. That’s what characterizes the slackoisie, and what hampers their ability to escape ridicule of more experienced practitioners. Life doesn’t come the way you want it, neatly packaged with special little snowflake bow.  And the guys upon whose time you prevail to serve your personal interests as if they owe you an answer because you’re so awesome can respond with an answer that will not make you feel warm and special.

Since I try to be helpful, even to the slackoisie, I will not respond to your offensive caveat with the generic “bite me,” but rather with an answer that will be truly tailored for your personal needs: haircut damage law.  It’s perfect for you. No need to thank me. I’m here for you.