On the twitters the other day, a discussion broke out (to the extent discussions break out on the twitters) over whether non-lawyer staff in law firms should be referred to as “non-lawyers” or something else. Bob Ambrogi valiantly defended the honor and feelings of those diminished by the language, while others, lawyers, kicked sand in his face.
The source of the problem was a post by former Orrick chairman, Ralph Baxter.
It is time to stop using the term “non-lawyer” to refer to everyone who works in legal service who has not passed the bar exam. This may seem like a minor issue to some, but it is not. In fact, it reflects an outlook that impedes the ability of our profession to make the changes we need to make.
Why? Baxter never actually explains, but rather launches into a feelz anecdote, followed by more vague feelz rhetoric. And this is the guy who ran a law firm.
Why do we do it in law? I can’t think of a good answer. In part, it is linguistic tradition. But I fear it goes deeper. I suspect it has to do with a deep-seeded belief that only those who hold the title “lawyer,” with the education and licensing that it entails, are worthy to do the meaningful work in legal service. Arrogant and unfounded as that would be, I worry that it is the answer.
This is a disturbing paragraph from any lawyer, no less one who led a large firm, as it’s not really hard to think of a good answer. That Baxter can’t do so isn’t a reflection that it’s “arrogant and unfounded,” but that Baxter has issues.
The distinction is because of clients. Remember them, the people lawyers exist to serve? But for clients, there would be no need for lawyers. And because of clients, there is a need to distinguish who is a lawyer, “with the education and licensing that it entails,” not to mention the ethical obligations that Baxter omits, from the other warm bodies walking around the law firm.
So, what should we call those who work in legal service? I suggest we call everyone who works in law “legal service professionals.” And then refer to each person by his/her specific role: lawyer, legal technician, system engineer, marketing manager, billing coordinator, et al. The key is to stop bifurcating the workforce into two categories and labeling one of them “non.” We are all in this together.
To makes the non-lawyers, like the marketing manager, feel better about themselves, Baxter wants him to be called a “legal service professional,” just like the lawyers. Putting aside that they aren’t professionals, the crux of his point is twofold: make the non-lawyers feel more “valued” and eliminate the discrimination within law between lawyers and non-lawyers.
Damn, there I go again, calling them non-lawyers. Let’s try this one more time: Eliminate the discrimination within law between lawyers and legal service professionals. Wait, that sentence is now meaningless and uninformative. It lacks clarity. It fails to do its job. Most importantly, it’s conflates a critical distinction in law: who is the lawyer and who isn’t.
You wouldn’t want the custodian in a hospital doing a rectal exam on you because they changed his title to medical service professional, right? You wouldn’t want to take legal advice from the marketing manager because they called him legal service professional right? And if you did, would it be cool with you because your sacrifice made the marketing manager feel better about himself?
All of which leads us to a huge and growing chasm in the rhetorical vision of lawyer satisfaction. We keep hearing about how lawyers are unhappy, depressed, miserable with their lot in life. It couldn’t possibly be because law schools cranked out too many lawyers, some of whom should have been custodians or marketing managers instead, as they weren’t suited to the stress and rigor of being responsible for other people’s lives and fortunes.
Forget the virtues of being a pessimistic lawyer, or that anxiety can make us perform better, even while it makes us unhappy. These things benefit the client, but at the lawyers’ expense. These are negatives if it’s all about us, and positives if it’s all about the client. This is at the core of the latest fashion for lawyers, mindfulness, promoted by its salesmen as bottled happiness for lawyers, blissfully mindless of clients.
So what is the “answer”? Colorado District Court Judge John Kane gave a speech to the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association last month.
Of the million or so lawyers in the United States — more than in any other country — over half are said to be unhappy and seriously considering leaving the practice of law or the bench. A burgeoning industry of coaching, counseling and career change assistance has developed to guide the poor, unhappy wretches to new lives and new opportunities.
So we’re screwed? Not exactly. After running through a well-founded litany of the damage we’ve done to the system (and all of which is worth your time reading), Judge Kane notes:
Whether trials continue to exist or, perish the thought, the legal system becomes yet another bureaucracy, the value of being a lawyer and the advocate’s sense of well-being will not change. When you provide order to families living in chaos, when you afford dignity to those who have been degraded, when you eloquently express the highest aspirations of our culture where otherwise there is greed and corruption, when you take upon yourself the awesome task of ending a person’s despair, in sum, when you become another’s champion, you succeed.
If you accept these challenges and burdens as the mantle of our profession, you will have no need of a career counselor, a life coach or a career change service.
Fulfillment comes from being another person’s champion. Not a bottle, or a coach, or the lotus flower. Not from a name or a word. It comes from doing whatever we can to serve our clients, because that’s why lawyers exist.
And if that doesn’t do it for you, the problem isn’t that we need some new snake oil or daily affirmation, but that you’re not cut out to be a lawyer. Not everyone is, and that’s fine.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In that in-between world from law school graduation to bar admission, there is always the question of what folks call themselves.
Only one thing was clear about the terminology for those months that I remember: Make damn sure the words I used were not misleading the recipient of the correspondence.
Given that lawyers live in a world of linguistic precision, so much so that we are overly redundant in our pretentious writing, it is odd to hear someone argue in favor of vagaries.
If you’re “overly redundant in your pretentious writing,” you may not be doing it right. Linguistic precision is something different. Just sayin’.
At my first job at the court of appeals they had an official rule for titles. If you hadn’t passed the bar you were called a Research Clerk and after you passed and got your license you were then a Research Attorney.
I understand not wanting to label people by what they are not rather than what they are. Non lawyer is also not good because it is so vague. There is a big difference between legal secretaties, IT people, and janitors. No reason to call them all the same thing. In our office we call them Support Staff. Simple, descriptive, and no NON needed.
I suspect that Baxter’s “non-lawyer” beef wasn’t exactly as stated, but more like memo’s going out for lawyers and non-lawyers. Support staff would do the same thing. Or as Bob argued in the twitters, can’t we just call paralegals “paralegals”?
The “non” part is something of a red herring. It’s not that you introduce your secretary by saying, “this is Joe, my non-lawyer,” but that you can’t call non-lawyers “legal services professionals” because it malarkey. As long as it’s clear who is a lawyer and who is not, that’s the point. The verbiage discussion is otherwise feel-good nonsense. If Joe is a secretary, he’s a secretary. If he doesn’t like it, he can be unemployed. Problem solved.
I may not know what the definition of “is” is, but I do kkknow what the definition of “non-lawwwyer” is:
It’s the guy who hangs out at the local bar/pub, dispensing free legal advice to any patron willing to listen.
The lines are blurring rapidly as we speak!?!
Lawyers we don’t need: Carpenters, painters, roofers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, landscapers and handymen we need. Enough already with the parsing of words in the legal “context”. Lawyers are the least productive members of society, but take the largest slices of the pie. There is something wrong with this picture.
Can we move onto what the definition of “non-judge” might be? Oh wait, that would be Justice Antonin Scalia. Yea, the walking, talking personification of a non-judge. Nice work, if you can get it.
Finally, every man is entitled to be his own “lawyer”, irregardless of whether he passed the “bar” or merely walked past the bar on the corner of the block, down from the courthouse.
If only. Of course, you don’t have enough pie to begin with. Work on that, Bill.
That “legal” advice is worth precisely what was paid for it.
As a paralegal (from an ABA-approved program no less, unlike those dirty hippies from Midstate) I am more than a little confused as to why people who are not lawyers would have a problem with being called a non-lawyer.
I mean, have the non-lawyers forgotten that they aren’t, in fact, lawyers?
As Andy Warhol once said, “in the future, everyone will be a lawyer for 15 minutes.”
Today it’s transgender rights, tomorrow it will translawyer rights.
I didn’t expect tomorrow to get here so soon.
Ahh….there is nothing like the smell of a post with lots-o-links in the background.
This is good. It’s about time you law professionals updated your official title schematics to maximize the upper limits of billing perception and acceptance.
Your ability to overcome inflationary rent pressures is going to pail in comparison to your future staff demanding more paid leave and flex scheduling. Let’s face it, if you are going to accommodate your clients needs you are gonna need about 1.7 new “law professionals” to replace every retiring staff member so you are gonna have to squeeze some more cash from somewhere.
You think it is about the feelzs? You silly man. You sure this ain’t about money esteemed one?
You can bill more for services provided by “law professionals” you know. Heck staff is always going to do a lot of the lifting, but very soon you will need more staff to get the same shit done, so even you just might be forced to get creative and juice the titles so the itemized bills can carry more decimals for getting the same work done with more people.
Contract Lawyers have a lot more to gain here that you lowly CDLs but there may be some crumbs in here somewhere for you too.
You are a deeply cynical man. Why no video?
Don’t worry. I’m here for you.
Client: Is my attorney, charlie, available?
Receptionist: No but William is here, he’s a great legal professional.
Client: I need an answer about my MSJ affidavit, line 7…
William: I can help.
Client: are you familiar with the case?
William: sure, I’m a legal professional. Ergo the law is my occupation.
Client: how was law school and the bar?
William: a waste of time; I worked at the firm instead of going to law school
Client: you’re not a lawyer?
William: wow what a superficial charlatan! Please pick up your file ASAP and bring the retainer unpaid balance in cash. Non lawyers are the backbone of good lawyering, discriminator!!
Hmm… I don’t think I’d garner a title say other than ‘Schmuk’, or that schmuk that asks all the dumb questions’, or ‘that guy who makes the food runs @ lunch time..’.. just don’t let me catch you calling me something behind my back while I’m in possession of your Chinese food.. but schmuk is ok, it’s better than what my wife calls me…
I work in the IT department of a large health care company. I have never been called a health care professional; but simply a System Administrator. If I were to work at a law firm, I would expect to have a similar title.
Note; this is the second time I have posted this video in your comments section. I can’t remember the other article, but you allowed it because it was Friday and appropriate for the article that day.
How could I not let you post that video, considering the title of this post?
I thought there was one state (Washington?) where paralegals could perform some client functions. Maybe I’m mixing that up with nurse practitioners in medicine.
If the legal equivalent of a nurse practitioner (paralegal practitioner, I guess) existed, I would have no problem calling that person a legal services professional.
You’re correct. Washington State has something called Limited License Legal Technician, which I call 3LTs. They aren’t a direct analogue to nurse practitioner, but conceptually similar.