Looking back, why did you decide to become a lawyer? Given all the time, cost and stress, if you think back, what factors prompted the career choice? Was it intellectual stimulation? The idea of helping people with their problems? The potential for high earnings? The prestige of being a professional? Parental pressure and influence?
Lots of things have changed over my 50-year career. What used to be one of the most prized was prestige, graduating from a top-tier law school or being attached to a Biglaw firm. For many years, even decades, the nose to the grindstone was soothed by high salaries, which many peeps did not get to enjoy because they were working 24/7 or close to it. Time poverty.
What Even Is AI ‘Competence’? It Depends.
Takeaways from a Legalweek panel on evolving malpractice risks.
One major change today is the desire, the need, for work-life balance, a term rarely used until recently. Now lawyers willingly trade the prestige of being in Biglaw for some work-life balance. Even at many non-Biglaw firms, lawyers were in the office on Saturday, whether for a few hours or all day. It was important to be seen and bill some hours, even on the weekend. Bill, baby, bill.
Today, many lawyers no longer choose to work all hours at the bidding of some senior associates or partners; it’s been a hazing ritual for more decades than one can count. It’s the “I had to do it so you do too” mentality that doesn’t sit well with many of the newer lawyers, who seek more from life than just billable hours. More power to them.
What matters most? Control over time. No longer are many lawyers willing to ask “how high?” when a senior lawyer commands “jump.” Flexibility in managing time, a nonreplenishable asset, now takes precedence. It has taken way too long for the pushback that firms are now seeing, for example, in requiring return-to-office schedules. Decades ago, we had no choice but to be in the office for the full day or face potential consequences, even though we were exempt employees.
We all like to be in control. We learned in practice that sometimes the best way to handle a bully opposing counsel is to not respond, which frustrates bullies to no end. Silence can be very discomforting. Intimidation rarely works.
Opus 2 Steps Up Its AI Game With Acquisition Of A Legal Tech Startup
With the addition of Uncover’s technology, the litigation software is delivering rapid innovation.
While the client is the ultimate decision-make, we need to steer the client in the right direction, enumerating the pros and cons of a particular course of action. Sometimes the client agrees, sometimes not; it’s the client’s call to make. Often, we try to save the client from indulging in the worst impulses. We succeed … sometimes.
And if you’re keeping score, last week’s judicial rulings were not winners for the administration. Acting AG Todd Blanche must have been the messenger of the bad news. A thankless job if ever there was one.
Also pending: the D.C. Circuit will hear the DOJ’s appeal of the lower court’s finding in favor of the four Biglaw firms who did not bend a knee to 47. Many general counsel signed on to an amicus brief urging the D.C. Circuit to affirm the rulings.
Apparently those who signed the brief did so anonymously, as did a brief filed by “Law Partners United” without identification of those partners. Standing up for the rule of law and the independence of lawyers is hollow without the willingness to be identified.
Contrast that approach with the more than 800 self-identified solo and small firm lawyers who signed a separate amicus brief.
It’s now “women overboard” (note the plural) as the first two women tossed out from 47’s cabinet just happen to be women. Tulsi Gabbard remains as director of national intelligence as does Susie Wiles, chief of staff.
So, the beauty contest is on as to whether 47 will choose any of the following to replace the ousted Bondi. How about the U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeanine Pirro? Alina Habba, the former short-term U.S. attorney for New Jersey? Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the DOJ civil rights division? Probably none of them, given the administration’s hostility to DEI. Trying to appease 47’s thirst for revenge and retribution, only to come up against judges who apply the rule of law, is a fool’s game. But there seems to be no shortage of fools.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].