How Practicing Abroad Taught Me To Adapt

What one litigator learned from practicing on the other side of the pond.

Thomas Foley

Thomas Foley

Ed. note: Thomas Foley, an attorney at Balestriere Fariello, is filling in for John Balestriere this week.

The saying “jack of all trades” — in a professional sense, at least for litigators — often means handling cases across a wide spectrum of disciplines or areas of the law. This phrase resembles a badge of accomplishment for someone who can do a little bit of everything. Indeed, it wasn’t too long ago in our profession where such an approach to practice was considered the mark of a great lawyer. However, during a decade of practicing law in London, I learned that this oft-used phrase carries a very different meaning. In England, barristers and solicitors alike use that phrase, but in its entirety, and in a precautionary context. The phrase “jack of all trades, master of none” resonated with me as I moved from my clerkship into the next several years practicing law.

During my early career in London, I moved between different opportunities, which led me to a range of exposure from appellate work to litigation to investigations and back again. I was exposed to a variety of areas of law in both domestic and international law. Each time I was presented with a matter in a new area of the law, I did not profess to be an expert or pretended that I could become one after a self-conducted crash course. Rather, I learned to subject each new legal matter or issue to sort of basic triage process, asking, “Have I done this before, and if not, do I have the skills from what I have already done to competently do it now?”

To answer that question, I, like any lawyer, had to know what skill set I had to have if it could be adapted to a new matter in an area of law new to me. For example, the skills I learned on large-scale investigations following lines of inquiry through paper trials and building a rapport with a witness to take a statement addressing the areas of investigation was adaptable to business litigations examining bank records and taking depositions proving elements of claims. However, no amount of investigative work would prepare me to do project finance, a real estate closing, or a custody dispute. Indeed, specialization across the legal profession is now the norm (and unlikely to change in the lifetime of anyone reading this). However, what I never wanted to do, and what no lawyer should, is just wing it and be a master of no trade.

Adapting, as opposed to trying to be a jack of all trades, was a principle I adhered to when I was relocating from London to New York two years ago. When considering opportunities on this side of “the pond,” I asked myself, “What have I done, what have I not done, what did I do well, what do I not do well, and because of what skills have I received referrals and work in the past?” This is advice I would give to any fellow lawyer as part of considering whether to take a new case, or a new client, or even a new role. This approach allowed me to honestly assess my strengths and weaknesses to identify those areas of the law, new or otherwise, in which I could valuably and competently contribute when a case arises in that area of the law. All lawyers have an obligation to provide at least that to our clients, and I owe as much to my colleagues.

Ultimately, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades, I learned to adapt my skills to the trades I competently can, to be a master of as many as I can.

Sponsored


Thomas Foley was an attorney at Balestriere Fariello, a trial and investigations law firm which represents clients in all aspects of complex commercial litigation and arbitration from pre-filing investigations to trial and appeals. You can reach firm partner John Balestriere at john.g.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com.

Sponsored