Career Alternatives for Attorneys: A Panel Discussion
The other night, a commenter with insomnia wrote:
Is there someone living in Flint, Michigan who will exchange their $18,000 house for my worthless JD? I will even take over the payments from your inflated mortgage. My piece of paper does not even provide shelter for my skinny ass. In exchange you could be a practicing attorney doing work that a trained chimpanzee could perform.
As Biglaw continues its painful unwinding, and as even contract attorney work becomes hard to obtain, holders of J.D. degrees have been asking: What else can I do with my legal education? Hence our occasional series on career alternatives for attorneys.
This was the subject of a panel discussion entitled Exploring the Range of Options With Your JD. It was the third panel at Tuesday’s conference, co-sponsored by the New York City Bar and Vault, on Getting Back in the Game: How to Restart Your Career in a Down Economy.
Read about the panelists and their perspectives, after the jump.
The panelists:
MAUREEN REID (moderator), founder, Maureen M. Reid, LLC;CAROLINE CENIZA-LEVINE, Career Advice Columnist for Vault.com and Partner of SixFigureStart.com;
TANYA GILL, Litigation Management, DLA Piper;
HILLARY MANTIS, Author, Alternative Careers for Lawyers and Jobs For Lawyers: Effective Techniques for Getting Hired in Today’s Legal Marketplace; and
LISA SOLOMON, Founder, Legal Research & Writing Pro and Lisa Solomon, Esq. Legal Research & Writing.
Hillary Mantis kicked off the discussion with this observation: “The good news is, you can do anything with a law degree. The bad news is, you can do anything with a law degree.” A legal education is broadly applicable to many fields. Lawyers have gone on to become successful entrepreneurs, award-winning journalists, and television celebrities (or the talent agents who represent them). But this sheer breadth of choice also makes the process of settling upon an alternate career path that much harder.
According to Mantis, the process of figuring out an alternative career can take months, maybe even half a year. Before deciding to move on from law, think about whether there is something else you might want to do within the legal profession. It could be that one legal job that isn’t a good fit is tainting your view of the entire field. Don’t jump too quickly; take the time to think through all your options.
This is exactly what Tanya Gill did when searching for a new career. She knew she liked working in a law firm environment, but she wanted to find a position that would provide her with greater satisfaction on a day-to-day, process-oriented level. She engaged in a careful self-assessment and due diligence process, during which she spoke to approximately 200 people and took various personality tests. All indicators pointed in the same direction: a career in management, where she’d be able to work more with people and less with abstractions. Gill now works in the field of law firm management, for DLA Piper in New York.
Like Gill, Lisa Solomon also still works in the legal field. In fact, her “alternative” career may be the least alternative of the group: she runs a legal research and writing practice, assisting other attorneys with their research and writing needs.
Solomon’s path to career satisfaction could serve as a comforting tale for today’s young lawyers. She came out of law school during the last major recession, without an offer from a large law firm. She worked as a litigator for a small firm for a few years. When she and her husband, also a lawyer, decided to start a family, they concluded that it didn’t make sense for both of them to work as lawyers for others.
Solomon left her firm. She worked as a trainer for Lexis-Nexis for a time, before deciding it wasn’t a good fit for her. But she was open to opportunity, which soon came knocking. A law firm she had previously worked at as a paralegal wanted someone to write coverage opinions for them, which could be done remotely. She started doing this work, just as the technology facilitating outsourcing and telecommuting was starting to come into its own. Eventually she picked up other clients and made the transition to running her own business.
According to Solomon, the most important skill for someone in her situation is business development and marketing. Fortunately, this is all about persuasion — which lawyers are trained to do. If you’re going to work as a freelancer or small business owner, you need to learn how to market yourself. When marketing yourself, speak in terms of the benefits that your prospective employer would gain from bringing you on board; the focus shouldn’t be on you, but on how you can help your employer or client.
If you’re a freelance lawyer who is looking for clients, you should focus not on large or even medium-sized firms, but on small firms or solo practitioners. These are the lawyers who need extra research and writing help — but not all of the time. The Biglaw shops aren’t going to be your clients; they already have armies of associates. Because you can work all over the country, you can develop business through online networking. Incorporation is not necessary, but you should have malpractice insurance.
During the question-and-answer session, the panelists offered concrete tips to lawyers exploring alternative careers:
Earlier: Breaking Back into Biglaw
Casting a Wider Net: Small to Mid-Sized Law Firms
(79) 
Comments
First!
First!
I think Lat has insomnia.
eh 3, i do too
I know this isn't the right thread to be posting this question, but whatever.... f you are a summer associate who got the flu and missed 3 of work will a law firm deduct pay from your paycheck?
5 - 3 what of work? Days or weeks?
sorry 3-4 work days....
Unlikely they'd dock you for that.
ok thanks
If so many lawyers end up going into "alternative" careers, this is just another argument in favor of reducing the number of law schools in the U.S.
You could have gone into these other careers without spending three years and over $100K in debt.
Looked at you back posts on alternative career opportunities for lawyers and didn't see Foreign Service Officer. This job has long been a refuge for folks that decided they didn't like working in law firms. The Department is gearing up for another of its occasional hiring sprees. Taking the foreign service exam is takes only a day -- so nothing to lose.
i realized that this fathers day will be the first time that i spent it entirely at home with my wife and kids in about 5 years. i was recently laid off (7th year, LA biglaw) and have setup my own shop just to try to make ends meet. My wife and I are scared shitless, but this has also been the most fullfilling time of my life. in the past three months, i have seen more soccer games, attended more ballet performances, and attended more school functions than i did the entire time before. my wife and i go on cheap dates, but we have reconnected. she said something that scared me. she admitted that she had thoughts of leaving me. my love for my kids has grown to the point that it hurts because i realize that did not show them the love and attention they deserved as young humans.
i dont know what life has in store for me. i am worried every day that i will not be able to provide. i thankfully paid off my student loans and have some savings in the bank, but there is nothing like a huge salary.
i do know what thing, though. i am not cut out for big law. either i wasnt before, but i am certainly not now. i know that i will not be able to concentrate past 8 or 9 pm at work, knowing how wonderful it was to read a story to my kids before they go to bed and just sit there and listen to their crazy made up stories about what they learned in school. i know that i love my wife, and that on the weekends i will be thinking of going to the park with her and the little ones because we really cannot afford anything else but also because it is nice just to walk with my family.
being laid off has created terror and unbound joy in my life. i hope that everyone that gets laid off that may be thinking of other careers that they take this time and just breathe. look around. people never envied our big law life...they pitied us. take the chance now to reevaluate your priorities. if big law is the way for you, then all the power to you. you have to do what is right. but if it is not, or you are confused, take a breath and explore.
good luck. happy father's day to all the fathers out there. my wife said my kids are going to cook for me this sunday, so i should be in the hospital with food poisoning shortly thereafter...but happy as a clam!!
Like the Boss said, "these jobs are going, son. And they ain't coming back."
12,
I know you mean well by your post, but it's obvious that the story is a fabrication. Better execution next time, or maybe you could just make the point without the fake story.
I wanted to leave Biglaw for so long, but when I got laid off, I realized it was better in the hellhole. I've got to get back to my hellhole. You know where you stand in a hellhole. Folks lend a hand in a hellhole.
After getting totally humiliated in his jury trial, Kiwi Camara needs a career alternative.
Who would hire him after he lost 2 million for a woman who downloaded 24 songs? Ouch.
Doogie, time to find a new profession!
Fantasy in a world filled with unvoluntarily retired young lawyers!
There is nothing out there. No government agency has responded beyond the most cursory acknowledgment of an application.
Hey Obama--get some government jobs out there for lawyers fast.
18,
Great to finally see you on here. Was always curious if you ever had any legal issues result from the death of Stubby Pete? Great drummer he was...spontaneous combustion..who would have thunk it?
-Denny Crane
Didn't the City Bar Association (the same group hosting the 'alternative pathways' meeting) issue an Ethics Opinion in August 2006 saying it was OK to outsource legal jobs to other countries' workers?
18 - Are you talking to yourself again?
ATL commenters, stop saying, "over 100k in debt." It makes me feel bad about myself - almost 200k in debt. I would kill my saint-like Grandmother to be 100k in debt.
If you have a Suffolk JD- can you sell cars? Domestice or foreign?
Is Suffolk accredited?
It was an interesting panel generally, but I thought it bordered on offensive the number of times the panelists said to keep your law job till you have another job, since practically everyone in the room was at the program because they're on the breadline.
Also, Tanya's presentation was fairly disheartening since she made it sound like it's easier to win the lottery than to break into a law firm management position like hers.
12, that was beautiful. What's your practice area?
24--
Thanks for the information. I did not know that the panel was providing such sage-like advice as "keep your job until you have another one."
I mean, really? Is that how it works?
Associated Scared Shitless:
"So, I should keep my job until I have another one. If that's all there is to it, then that's such a relief!"
Panel: "Yes."
Advice that is as true as it is worthless. I share your frustration 24.
Question for anyone out there not related to this discussion. I am a soon to be 2L at a top 90 school in a medium sized market. Top 5% and will grade on to law review next year. I have applied as a transfer to various schools in the top 30-top14. With the severe downturn in the larger markets, would it be better for me to stay at my current school (in the midwest), or transfer and most likely be in the middle of my class, and without law review experience, at a better school in a larger market?
Given that I have $250,000 in debt and no job, I would much rather go to Salusa Secundus and contend with Imperial politics with Count Hasimir Fenring over a cup of chaumurky instead of listening to the whinings of those who have "only" $100,000 in debt. Fuck you.
12 - That was great. Thanks for sharing. Hopefully all of those selfish young lawyers out there take note that there is more to life (like being with the ones you love and who love you) than biglaw.
Alternatives: FBI, local or state police, any state or government position, foreign service, CIA, Walmart Greeter, grocery store clerk, prostitute (or yeah, that's what an attorney is anyway), yard worker, any corporate position imaginable, just about anything you can think of. What the hell. A law degree qualifies you for just about anything in the world you might like to do, other than be a professional sports person. Quit all the crying. Obama will save you in the end. After all, he's the new god of all.
I've been wondering. How could anyone be so stupid as to get into debt to the tune of $100K or $250K in order to complete school? Stupid is as stupid does, so sayith Mr. Gump. Only an idiot would go into to this much debt to put themselves in a position to get a job that might not last for any particular length of time. You guys are fools, just plain fools.
15 - keep up the good work
31
Not everyone is in the middle class or are trustafarians. Some people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and that is usually by borrowing money to leverage themselves into the upper middle class.
I would much rather hire someone who shows ambition and gut in going for a dream instead of someone who just went for the default because he or she couldn't figure out what to do with that English/History/Journalism degree from college.
This is the lamest and BS post yet on ATL. In almost all cases, Nobody...no employers or companies give a shit about a JD for non-legal jobs. HR and recruiters, for non-legal jobs, are not going to go "OMG, this person has a JD!, we have to interview them"
It is more like, "this person has a JD, why the fuck do they want to work [in sales], [analyst], [consultant], [enter non-legal job here]"
Hilary Mantis, what an idiot. Really? Entrepreneur? Journalist? TV Celebrity? come on, having a JD has no relevance to whether on is an Entrepreneur and as for the other examples, please, how about some actual realistic choices.
I hate it when former lawyers, deep into their "alternate" non-legal career after having a successful legal career....give out advice on jobs for JDs. They have no comprehension of the job market, especially the non-legal job market, and certainly have no understanding of what it is like out there for recent law grads without jobs.
Unemployment. That's a career that many JDs now have.
This is the lamest and BS post yet on ATL. In almost all cases, Nobody...no employers or companies give a shit about a JD for non-legal jobs. HR and recruiters,
==========
You don't know what you're talking about, but that's par for the course around here.
27,
The Top 90 just isn't as good as it used to be... I'd take out as much in loans as possible and go to the most expensive school that will take you. Good ol American debt.
Tenderly,
0L at a Top 98 law school
27: Stay where you are. You are more likely to get a job if you are in the top 5% at a T100 w/ LR. You're not going to get Biglaw either way, so stick to the small pond and shine.
27,
Stay. 38 is right.
Leaving your current school for a Top 30-14 is a VERY poor investment right now, considering Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. grads are being laid off and having trouble finding firm work.
Stay, stay, stay.
HLS 2008
Great advice. I think I'll become a sports agent or movie agent. I'm sure those are easy fields to crack into.
The best option is to invent a career by telling other jobless JDs what they could be doing.
After that, consider that Waffle House pays 6 figures plus a car allowance and generous stock options after only a few years. And all the hashbrowns you can eat.
27,
Agree with the others - stay put. Much easier to get into a smaller market (small to mid firms that are a little more stable) from where you are. Not worth the debt, hassle, and having to explain the jump to everyone.
to the person who thinks that 12 made up his story - you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and almost certainly don't have kids (and probably aren't married). Because I'm living a life similar to 12's to some extent now - underemployed but so much more relaxed, able to cook and see my kid and rethink everything. it's scary financially but it's also exciting.
as for the panel, I was there and agree that it was somewhat patronizing and insulting and obvious - as was the biglaw panel in the morning - yes, we know big law firms aren't really hiring right now, yes we know that it's better to have a new job before quitting the old job - but I agree with prior posters that that totally begs the question in this economy. but what could they say - what bothers me is the presupposition that people WANT the tried and true and WANT the obvious solutions instead of the newfangled, more creative ones. The legal industry is a dinosaur and the ones who will be standing pretty down the line are the lawyers who see that. To her credit, Lisa Solomon (who specializes in outsourcng and contract lawyering and has a useful blog) recommended Richard Susskind's book The End of Lawyers? about how the legal industry is going to have to change in the age of information and access - so the panel did have some good ideas and feedback, and the panelists clearly were trying to help. The biglaw panel was a bit more patronizing than the alt-law one.
I was born in Flint...so sad.
12,
Get a rice cooker -- $53 bucks at target, if you don't have one. If nothing else, you will save a fortune going to rice and beans AND even you and I, much less a kid, can cook rice with a rice cooker.
happy father's day!!
Alas. 17,35 and 39 have it right.
27 - what the others said. DO NOT leave your current school if you're going to be top 5%. You can forget about getting a job at any of the top firms, but with your record you'll get your foot in the door a ta lot of places and right now that's all anyone can hope for.
The absolute worst possible place to be is in the middle of the pack at a middle of the pack law school, which is what it sounds like you're thinking of becoming. Don't do it.
Oh, and back to the original entry, I love the comment that it might take "months, maybe even half a year" to figure out alternate career tracks. Try 5 years.
I'm funemployed and 12 sounds pretty believable to me.
12's wife was going to leave him because he was never around when he was working. Now, she will leave him in a few months because he's broke. Welcome to Biglaw.
19 - you're right: in Formal Opinion 2006-3, the NYC Bar did say that it's ok to outsource legal work to other countries. Here's the digest of the opinion (which is available on the NYC Bar website):
A New York lawyer may ethically outsource legal support services overseas to a non-lawyer, if the New York lawyer (a) rigorously supervises the non-lawyer, so as to avoid aiding the non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and to ensure that the non-lawyer’s work contributes to the lawyer’s competent representation of the client; (b) preserves the client’s confidences and secrets when outsourcing; (c) avoids conflicts of interest when outsourcing; (d) bills for outsourcing appropriately; and (e) when necessary, obtains advance client consent to outsourcing.
More recently, in Formal Op. 08-451, the ABA gave its stamp of approval to sending legal work overseas.
What those who complain about these opinions (and other opinions like them) fail to realize is that the same principles that allow firms to send legal work overseas also allow law students - including (gasp!) summer associates at AmLaw 100 firms - and law grads awaiting admission to do actual legal work when they're working at firms, rather than making copies and getting coffee for the partners. These principles also allow lawyers to work as contract attorneys in jurisdictions in which they are not admitted.
So, actually, these ethics opinions are good news for US lawyers, if you understand all their implications (check out my post on this, entitled "ABA Formal Op. 08-451 Good News for US-based Independent Contract Lawyers and Hiring Attorneys").
Lest anyone think that I (and others like me) have been able to create successful and fulfilling legal careers outside of BigLaw because we're not crushed with debt, the only reason my law school debt from NYU wasn't over $100k when I graduated is because it cost only about $30k a year to attend when I was in school from 90-93. I'm still paying off my loans.
And for those complaining about doing doc review for $35-$40/hr: when I worked for Lexis as a law school trainer, I was making $17/hr, and during school vacations that year I temped as a secretary. I sucked it up and did what I had to do to get by.
If the solo guy has any sense, he'll bring his wife in as his secretary/office manager/paralegal/girl friday. This way he can keep all the money in his family. If he has kids, then he can keep them in the back room where his wife can still tend to them. It's doable.
Retired parents are even better.
27 - I agree that it looks better to be top 5% at any law school (other than some of the very top schools like Harvard, Yale, NYU, Chicago etc.) than mid-class at other than a top school. It's marketing, you have a tag line - top in my class... that should help you in a year or 3. I do think this market is a blip - possibly a long blip but I believe that the headhunters with nothing to do in 2009 will be cleaning up in 2011 or 2012 when the firms that all jettisoned the talent (who then wised up and found less torturous ways to make a living) need to hire again and FAST. Should be a seller's market again if you can make it through the next x years. And by then, who knows - you might have thought of other ways to make a living.
(I'm not necessarily anti-biglaw, but it has very distinct pro's and con's and is profitable but not for everyone - and the more senior you get, if you're not a partner, sometimes the less you make proportionate to your experience level as firms cap out on what they pay run of the mill "associates" - even ones with decades of experience who are good and enjoy law and just want to practice law without being partners)
BS - The only thing you can do with a JD is practice law. Try to get a job out of law school with your JD. You'll be told over and over again that you should be practicing law, not working in another field. If you try, you'll be told "you should have gotten a MBA" or "you are over qualified" or some other crap.
This whole "you can do anything with a JD" is more crap spewed by law schools to con people into enrolling - then when you goto the career service office, they tell you that the only job you should be looking for is a job as an attorney.
Amen, 54
- unemployed attorney from solid Tier 2 and Top 15 lib arts school who is still getting passed over for entry-level finance/banking jobs to retards from Northeastern, Temple, and Hofstra.
Hey 12 - good luck to you and yours...and consider fed govt openings...the work/life balance is very good.
27 ==> DO NOT TRANSFER!
To 50 (Lisa S.): To the extent you support the recent Ethics Opinions that have authorized the outsourcing of legal work to other countries when such work could be performed here in America by lawyers with families to feed (not law students), you're a dunce and a traitor to our profession.
58 - You can't have it both ways: the same principles that allow outsourcing to foreign countries also allow "outsourcing" within the United States. US contract attorneys have to distinguish themselves on other grounds than cost - just like other successful US companies that have cheaper foreign competition must distinguish themselves in order to survive and profit.
There are plenty of agencies that place contract/temporary lawyers. Some unemployed US lawyers think that kind of work is beneath them.
I encourage any lawyer in the US who wants to start an independent practice as a contract lawyer to do so. In fact, as I say right on my website, I think there is amazing pent-up demand for high-quality outsourced legal research and writing services (and, to add to that, any high-quality outsourced legal services).
I suggest you read my post entitled "What Susskind’s ABA Techshow Keynote Means for Independent US-Based Contract Lawyers" (http://tinyurl.com/koohx5). As I explain in that post, in an April speech at ABA TechShow, Richard Susskind, author of The End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, discussed his central thesis, which is that, in the next ten years or so, advances in technology will change, in fundamental ways, how legal services are delivered.
First, Susskind explained that the provision of legal services will increasingly be decomposed into component tasks that can be “multi-sourced”: in other words, each component task can be delivered, by different providers, in a manner lying somewhere on the following continuum:
bespoke (customized)>standardized>systematized>packaged>commoditized
A few of the types of multi-sourcing he listed fall squarely within the experience of today’s contract lawyers. Of the twelve types of sourcing models Susskind touched upon, “outsourcing,” is one of the broadest (and is the term that is probably most familiar to contract lawyers). As Wikipedia defines it, “outsourcing” is “subcontracting a process . . . to a third-party company.” In this sense, all work performed by a contract lawyer has been outsourced by the hiring attorney. Susskind also separately mentioned subcontracting as a sourcing model; I would be interested to learn more about the distinction he draws between outsourcing and subcontracting. Most contract lawyers are also a prime example of homeshoring, which, although commonly defined as “the transfer of service industry employment from offices to home-based employees with appropriate telephone and Internet facilities,” can also include the provision of professional services from a worker’s home.
Second, although Susskind predicts that, under pressure from clients who seek lower cost and greater predictability, an increasing percentage of legal work will be provided in a manner that falls farther and farther towards the right side of the continuum illustrated above, Susskind specifically noted in both his speech and his book that litigation practices would be affected the least by technological changes because litigation matters are very fact specific, and because litigators must necessarily appear in court. The fact-specific nature of litigation means that there will always be a demand for contract lawyers who can provide high-quality legal research and writing services. The “face time” required in many litigation matters means that busy solos will continue to seek the assistance of contract lawyers who can handle “outside” work such as depositions and court appearances.
In my view, independent US-based contract lawyers are well-positioned to ride the wave of technological innovation into the legal landscape of the future. Are you ready?
______________
Want to grab a piece of the outsourcing pie? Great: that's exactly what I teach other lawyers to do. There's also a book called The Complete Guide to Contract Lawyering, which you can find on Amazon, BN.com, etc. There are also plenty of books that provide guidance about how to start a solo practice, including the excellent Solo By Choice by Carolyn Elefant.
Finally, if I'm such a dunce, why am I in the post, while you're hiding behind an anonymous comment?
59--
Well, I find your position to be counterproductive.
Supporting the outsourcing of legal work to foreign countries will surely be horrible for lawyers in the U.S. because there is no way lawyers here would be able to compete with the low prices that foreign country lawyers would charge. This would make it really hard for U.S. lawyers to make a living (this would have a horrid chain reaction on lawyers who have high debt).
Arguably, outsourcing would be the preferred method of legal work in the future because of advances in technology and that outsourcing would be convenient. After all, it seems like the natural progression of the legal marketplace.
On the other hand, outsourcing is quite unethical because it takes away a lawyer's basic right to practice law and make a living. Moreover, lawyers who contract to do legal research and writing work is not likely to be "excellent" work because it is not them who will have to sign off on the papers and be subject to the state bar's ethics committee.
Finally, what are you covering with your hand in that picture?
ALTERNATIVE CAREERS for lawyers is just a nice way to say that the lawyer couldn't make it--he had to settle.
The examples illustrated in the article proves this. These are just people who couldn't practice law, so they had to do something else. It's that plain and simple.
The whole, "I found my new alternative job rewarding," is just a cover up. It's a "PR" move/spin to not make it look like they wasted 3-4 years in law school.
Here's a good alternative career for those people who went to law school and couldn't practice: Become a counselor to undergrads who want to become lawyers. Talk them OUT of law school!
60 - Angry, aren't we?
As I said, US lawyers won't compete on price: there are other dimensions, and there will always be hiring attorneys willing to pay for quality work. Just ask any of my clients (including - but certainly not limited to - the clients who've provided testimonials on my website at http://QuestionOfLaw.net).
No lawyer has a "basic right to practice law and make a living." People who can hack it, do well. People who can't . . . .well, I'm sure you'll find out.
And about the picture: I have nothing to hide. See videos at http://tinyurl.com/lhcahd.
61 - My malpractice carrier would be surprised to learn that I'm not practicing law, as would the National Law Journal, the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics and GP|Solo magazine, all of which have published substantive work of mine (granted, I was only a co-author of the GJLE article - with a judge). Too bad I had to settle.
Law is a total waste of a major if you cannot be top 10% from a top tier school. I think more people should major in accounting, jobs are plentiful, almost guaranteed 60 to 75k within 5 years of graduating if you have the CPA license.
30 - I am trying not to hate you. I am trying, instead, to think of why you would suggest that everyone should be applying for a bunch of jobs which
1) Do not, at this present time, exist for inexperienced applicants - and make no mistake, law school doesn't give you any sort of bump.
2) Pay less than $50k, which in most urban areas, means you will get to choose between paying your rent or paying your student loans.
And 3) By taking these completely hypothetical jobs, for less money than you need to live on, you are effectively cutting yourself off from ever practicing in law.
So yeah. What is wrong with people that they haven't all rushed to do this when it's SO EASY that a random internet commenter could solve all their problem with, clearly, no thought whatsoever.
Maybe do some research before you start offering generic advice, please. It's not only a matter of applying everywhere to find whatever. There's just a little more to it than you think.
30 - I am trying not to hate you. I am trying, instead, to think of why you would suggest that everyone should be applying for a bunch of jobs which
1) Do not, at this present time, exist for inexperienced applicants - and make no mistake, law school doesn't give you any sort of bump.
2) Pay less than $50k, which in most urban areas, means you will get to choose between paying your rent or paying your student loans.
And 3) By taking these completely hypothetical jobs, for less money than you need to live on, you are effectively cutting yourself off from ever practicing in law.
So yeah. What is wrong with people that they haven't all rushed to do this when it's SO EASY that a random internet commenter could solve all their problems with, clearly, no thought whatsoever.
Maybe do some research before you start offering generic advice, please. It's not only a matter of applying everywhere to find whatever. There's just a little more to it than you think.
Lisa Solomon, what you are suggesting is logically impossible.
With competition from overseas, either the firms will pay these go-getter independent contractors less per piece, in which case the independent will have to make more pieces, or less per hour, in which case the independent contractor will have to work more hours.
The problem is, both output and hours available for work are finite for any one person. The foreign companies can compete because they have MORE PEOPLE, all working together to create an acceptable product, and each member of the team making next to nothing. The team will always be able to do more, faster, and cheaper, than the solo. One person can create, maybe 15 research or document review widgets, working alone, that will be of decent quality. One team, in the same amount of time, can make nearly 15000.
Contract attorney work is not craft carpentry, or art, or some other specialty product for which people are willing to pay for workmanship over efficiency and predictability.
I think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that the solo should just work harder and go get 'em. Either you are seeking to profit yourself by encouraging people to do something ridiculous (you don't happen to sell Mary Kay franchises, too, do you?) or you really don't realize how ridiculous this sounds to anyone who has done contract work.
It's mindless, repetitive, volume work - ideal for factory setups, and completely unsuited to a small business. It will be profitable for many people to perform it in India, but these people are not solos.
60- "a lawyer's right to make a living practicing law"?!
Welcome to globalization-an environment created by lawyers in legislatures taking money from corporations. What about the right of American welders to make a living without having to compete with every Malaysian welder? Welcome to karma. lawyers of America.
--Union organizer
This was a surprisingly substantive comment thread. Good stuff here.
66 - If you read my posts on this thread closely and look at my website (http://LegalResearchandWritingPro.com ), you'll see that I'm not suggesting that US lawyers set up one-man document review shops and try to sell their wares to large firms or corporations. That's precisely the kind of "mindless, repetitive, volume work" that's going to India, and/or being performed by increasingly sophisticated software.
Take off your BigLaw blinders for a moment - of the more than 1 million practicing US lawyers, 48% are solo practitioners and another 15% work in firms with 2-5 lawyers (Source: 2000 statistical survey by the American Bar Foundation). These are the potential clients for solo contract attorneys. As I explained in my previous comment (#59):
Second, although Susskind predicts that, under pressure from clients who seek lower cost and greater predictability, an increasing percentage of legal work will be provided in a manner that falls farther and farther towards the right side of the continuum illustrated above [see comment 59], Susskind specifically noted in both his speech and his book that litigation practices would be affected the least by technological changes because litigation matters are very fact specific, and because litigators must necessarily appear in court. The fact-specific nature of litigation means that there will always be a demand for contract lawyers who can provide high-quality legal research and writing services. The “face time” required in many litigation matters means that busy solos will continue to seek the assistance of contract lawyers who can handle “outside” work such as depositions and court appearances.
___________________
Finally, I've been perfectly upfront about the fact that I teach other lawyers - ones with drive and an entrepreneurial spirit - to start and run successful practices as independent contract lawyers. I started my coaching and consulting practice because the demand was there: over the years, many lawyers have asked for my advice in this area. And for those who don't want to buy what I sell, I also suggested two other books (low-cost) and a highly-regarded blog (free).
Of course, not everyone wants (or is cut out) to take a solo path. But that doesn't mean that it's unethical to allow outsourcing to foreign countries (I assume you posted #60 as well).
58, 60 and 65 are all very, very correct. And the idea that the ABA and local bar associations have authorized the outsourcing of legal work abroad is unconscionable. And Lisa Solomon, please stop mixing apples and oranges: The problem facing U.S. attorneys is not over the outsourcing of legal work within the U.S. but rather outsourcing it abroad to cheap labor markets! You seem not to understand the gravity of the problem and I can't imagine why. I wonder if you -- and even the authors of the Ethics Opinions -- have a beneficial interest in the LPOs. Someone ought to take a good hard look into that possibility. And that begs the question: Who is the watchdog over local bar associations and the ABA?
70 - I have no beneficial interest in any LPO (although a number of them have approached me due to my familiarity with legal outsourcing and the substantive skills required of contract attorneys). Instead, I am, and have always been, a strong supporter of independent, US-based contract lawyers. To continue your fruit metaphor, your post seems to be sour grapes.
I also never suggested that outsourcing legal work within the U.S. was a problem - in fact, it's one solution to the loss of BigLaw jobs. Have you read Susskind's The End of Lawyers? (You can also listen to the keynote speech he gave in April at ABA Techshow at http://www.abanet.org/techshow/ ).
As 67 notes, why should the legal profession be immune from the market forces that affect just about every industry to a greater or lesser extent?
As I pointed out in my blog post analyzing the ABA's most recent ethics opinion on outsourcing:
The opinion [ABA Formal Op 08-451] . . . identifies some areas of concern that outsourcing lawyers should address, including data security and, of course, the credentials of the individuals providing contract legal services. It raises additional issues relating to foreign lawyers, including whether the system of legal education under which the lawyers were trained is comparable to that in the United States; whether the foreign lawyers are subject to a professional regulatory system that inculcates core values similar to those in the United States; the “legal landscape” of the nation to which the services are being outsourced (and, specifically, whether personal property, including documents, may be susceptible to seizure in judicial or administrative proceedings notwithstanding claims of client confidentiality); and whether the judicial system of the target country will provide prompt and effective remedies to avert prejudice to the client in the event of a dispute between the service provider and the outsourcing lawyer.
The ABA’s flagging of these concerns is good news for independent US-based contract lawyers. Outsourcing lawyers who hire contract lawyers directly don’t have to worry about the quality of a staffing agency’s due diligence, since they have done their own due diligence. And hiring lawyers who are US-trained and based avoids the issues that arise when hiring foreign lawyers.
____________________
Any more than than is unprincipled protectionism.
Lisa, I think you're dead on and couragious to post non-anonymously and respond substantively to unprovoked attacks. I agree that people can't have it both ways - outsourcing includes both outsourcing abroad and outsourcing domestically and it's a GOOD thing - but for "outsourcing" a solo or small practice (or even a biglaw practice) couldn't hire contract attorneys, and without contract attorneys all hires would need to be permanent - which is SO outdated and dinosaurish and boy does the legal proession need to CATCH UP to the rest of the world in terms of progressiveness.
What I'm hearing from your attackers is utter frustration with some of the economics of lawyering in this economy- ok fair enough - but they aren't seeing the upside of contract lawyering and outsourcing amidst some of the downsides. In the end, contract lawyering - freelancing - is the way our entire society is going - so these are people who are wanting the legal profession to stay behind the times, it seems to me. So complaining about freelancing in the legal profession is kind of missing the bigger point about the way jobs are going in our country, and why (for example) health insurance is so frustrating - so many people are uninsured because the entire healthcare system is set up on the premise that employers offer their permenant employees insurance - but there are far fewer permanent employees now than there used to be. But that's for another discussion
12 here
wasnt sure if anyone was following. to the neysayers, yes, my story is real, and yes, i had a fantastic day with my kids yesterday. i actually have some work coming in this week, which will be nice. i have some bills that need to get paid. i dont want to dip too far into savings.
we are making it. yes, frightening, but i cannot remember when i have been happier. i am actually helping out people in court and with some family disputes. they really appreciate what i do for them, and i appreciate them as clients.
i think that every day i work, i move further away from wanting to return to a large firm. i just dont know.
71 and 61,
The 60th comment made an argument about basic rights to practicing law and you guys didn't really adequately refute that position.
When lawyers like you guys have your jobs outsourced and no longer can make a real living, you will regret that you were ever pro-outsourcing because when you can no longer pay your bills, take care of your family and pay off your debts, you are as good as nothing in the U.S.
A man can only reap what he sows. If a lawyer cannot do "lawyerly work" his tool for making a living is basically gone.
Going for outsourcing is absurd because rather than have production, money and taxes within the country, you would rather have it circulated in other countries. That is such a detriment to the U.S., especially when India, China, and Brazil is outcompeting us in gross domestic production. Why give any other country an advantage?
Even if the ABA is "okay" with outsourcing, it would be funny to see the irony when they will one day have to drop the first "A" in their name.
This LISA SOLOMON person (if that is even a real person) is funny. Her writing is FUNNY If you guys don't understand, try this:
Read Solomon's posts (above) with the voice of a fat lady with a nasally, nagging voice. Next, read it out loud really fast with your mouth full, like your chomping down Thanksgiving dinner. Also, as you're reading her post, shake your head around 'til your hair moves like a conductor conducting an orchestra.
The posts sound really funny if you do it that way!!!
71,
All the people who are pro-outsourcing takes a really pro-capitalism stance. You guys think that the "hands off" approach to law work is preferable.
Nothing is wrong with capitalism, but there is something wrong with allowing outsourcing with law work and that is because you are all assuming that the players are rational (never really true). That assumption is wrong and will lead to some problems down the road.
Secondly, I don't see the social utility in such policies for attorneys in the U.S. other than putting them out of business. How can putting a whole segment of society (a profession) out of work be any good?
Also, I don't know if you understood the other poster's comment on what you are hiding with your hand, but I think he was trying to make a fat joke (i.e., that you were hiding your chins).
76 and other really classless people, stop hiding behind your anonymity - If you want to attack someone on the merits, that's fine but making tasteless and utterly uncalled for comments about someone personally says more about your lack of character than you probably realize. Lisa Solomon is a real person (if you actually read the original post you would see that she was one of the PANELISTS at the event that you're snarking about) and an asset to the profession.
(and I'm not Lisa Solomon posting anonymously - but I was one of the many people who spoke with her after the event, and she was down to earth, informative and informed, and helpful)
77,
I kind of disagree with you. There are some people in here making fun of that one poster, but 76 actually attacked the merits of the argument.
Also, a few jokes here and there does not qualify for "classless-ness." Stop being so sensitive. The Solomon commenter can protect him/herself (whoever it is).
78, I was referring to the last paragraph of 76's post, and to 75's post (which was admittedly amusing), among others