Tag: lawyers

Posted on

Transitions

Let me give you an image of me as a starting-out lawyer.  I’m on the phone with a client – a terrifying proposition in itself.  Client is talking about something incomprehensible (some Wall Street acronym or something) and assuming I not only know what it is but have an informed and expert opinion about the thing as it relates to the client.  I am googling this thing while on the phone, hoping the client can’t hear me typing.

Transitioning to law school to practice was like that.

One of the reasons L21C exists is that I wanted to try to fill what I think is a gap in legal education in preparing students for this transition, from law student to professional.  Law school does not provide students with much understanding of or information about the practicalities of practice, or about what the ecosystem of the legal services world is like.  It’s a big chasm indeed from pondering the significance of peppercorns to billing, spreadsheets, attempting to tame clients, navigating the internal politics and ego-bruises of working in multiple teams, and googling financial jargon as quietly as possible.

I often hear that it’s not an appropriate goal for law school to prepare students to be “practice-ready,” that there is no substitute for real-world experience and hands-on training.   As far as it goes, I think this is true, even just obvious.  It doesn’t follow, though, that law school can’t do more to prepare students for the transition to practice.  We can, and we should.

That’s the aspiration of L21C: to make students, if not “practice-ready,” at least a bit more ready for the challenges, surprises and mysteries of the coming transition to practice.  To demystify the mysteries, make at least some of the surprises less surprising, and, I hope, stir up some excitement about the challenges.

L21C is also transitioning this year.  Last year it was a completely brand-new course, still a prototype really, and I really was not sure what to expect.  This year is … well, honestly not that different, but it’s no longer completely brand new and I have a little bit more idea what to expect.  Last year’s class was a fantastic group who did some truly inspirational work.  Therefore, my expectations are very high.  I’m looking forward to equally great things from this year’s group, possibly even greater.  Go on, challenge yourselves!

The design of the course is substantially the same as it was last year, but there are some modifications.  The first few weeks are more structured, with fewer guest speakers and more lectures and activities that I planned.  In the later weeks we have many really amazing guest speakers, a panel, a field trip to Kamloops Innovation Centre, and plenty of time built in for teams to work on their LawHacks projects.  The idea is that in the first part of the semester students will get a solid understanding, from the lectures, readings and class activities, of the themes we are covering, and in the later part of the semester the group will be very well equipped to engage with the wonderful leaders and thinkers who are joining us as guests.

Of course I can’t end a post about transitions without mentioning the central focus of this course, the Big Transition: what’s happening to the profession itself.

Richard and Daniel Susskind, the authors of one of our course books (The Future of the Professions), say that the legal world “will change more radically over the next two decades than over the last two centuries” and the legal profession is “on the brink of unprecedented upheaval” (pp. 66-67, internal citations omitted).

Jordan Furlong, writing in the Canadian Bar Association Legal Futures Initiative publication Do Law Differently: Futures for Young Lawyers – another of our course texts – says “[a]lmost everything about career choices and employment options for new lawyers is in flux,” and that the generation of lawyers entering practice now “has both an obligation and an opportunity that its predecessors never experienced.”

David Scott, the co-chair of Borden Ladner Gervais, has said that the lack of access to justice for ordinary people is the legal profession’s equivalent of global warming.

These are the big, systemic transitions that we are going to learn, think and share ideas about in the course.  I hope that the discussion will carry on outside class – and will engage the wider community.  That’s what the blog is for, and I’m really excited to read posts and comments by our new class of L21C partners, as well as everyone else who wants to join the conversation.

This time of year people often say that September, not January is the real new year.  It’s a time of transitions.  Here we go!

Posted on

Money Can’t Buy Me Happiness… But It Can Buy Me a Boat

If you were to play a game of phrase association with a group of lawyers (and law students for that matter) and give them the phrase “mental health”, I would posit that many of the answers would deal with clients. You would be likely to hear many things: not criminally responsible, fitness to stand trial, and other job related answers.

The troubling part of this thought experiment is that lawyers (and law students) have a strikingly high occurrence of mental health issues but would be very likely to point to the mental issues of others. As is pointed out in the New York Times article by Douglas Quenqua, lawyers are over three-and-a-half times more likely to suffer from depression. The reasons and causes for this are unknown but oft hypothesized. The fact that getting into law school (I would argue it starts even when trying to get into law school) results in an immediate spike in the likelihood of developing depression is a scary proposition. I’m sure that many students understand that they are getting into a difficult profession and one that involves a great deal of stress.

There is something to be said for the fact that lawyers are among the highest paid professions. There is an allure, a draw, and something to be said for the idea that lawyers get into the profession to make more money than they might in another field. This is possibly done at the expense of some personal relationships and free time. Most lawyers go into the job with open eyes and decide to do it despite the downsides.

Lawyers are often of a certain personality type, and I would argue that this personality type is also the reason why lawyers have a higher risk of depression. They are less likely to admit there may be a problem, less likely to seek treatment because of it, and more likely to continue trigger behaviours that exacerbate depression symptoms (read: stress out and drink). Too often depression is seen as a weakness instead of the chemical imbalance that it truly is. The chemical receptors in the brain that allow you to feel happiness do not connect as frequently in a person that suffers from depression.

Quenqua’s main thesis of his article was that lower paid lawyers reported being happier than the more well paid legal professionals. He states that lawyers in the public sector (public defenders and legal aid lawyers) were more likely to report being happy. The most likely rationale for this disparity between public and private is that private sector lawyers are far more likely to be working longer stressful hours. One aspect of public sector and in-house counsel legal work that is often touted as a recruitment tool is that of work-life balance. While not conclusive I believe this is because the expectations of both hours and “billable” work is reduced. As a corollary, the public service lawyers drank less than their higher income counterparts; as noted earlier, alcohol is a depressant. The alcohol may be a “chicken or the egg” argument; the higher-paid lawyers drink more, thus resulting in more unhappiness, or the unhappiness triggers more drinking.

I also take issue with the program at George Washington university, when attending law school many students are unsure of what sort of practice they will be in when they graduate. This is true of most students and speaks to the variety of legal work out there; however, the other major factor at work is the uncertainty of the job market. Many lawyers report finding a firm that they liked following graduation and the firm having an opening or a need in one field or another and “ended up doing x”. I would suggest that while giving students a taste for all the different opportunities is noble, it may also result in a student getting their heart set on one potential stream (abandoning a more broad course load), come out of school seeking only one type of opportunity, only exacerbating the problem of finding a job after law school.

Posted on

The Future Of The Legal Education: Specialization Or Degradation Of The J.D.

As the legal field continues to expand, general practitioners are expected to know more in their respective fields to better assist their clients. A lawyer is expected to enhance their knowledge by keeping up with the evolution of the legal sector. Harry Arthurs recognizes the dangers that future lawyers may face in The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.

He suggests a possible option where “The bar may one day recognize not just one class of members, but many. Members of each class would have different educational credentials…that general practitioners will one day be licensed to appear as advocates in certain tribunals and the lower courts, and to do routine real estate transactions, simple incorporations and uncontested divorces—but not undertake appellate litigation, patent applications or tax planning”.

He further elaborates “They might offer a skills-based one-year degree for paralegals, a stripped-down tow-year ‘basic’ degree for general practitioners, an enhanced four year degree for specialist practitioners, and conversion courses for those who want to upgrade their credentials”.

On the one hand, I can see this as a form of specialization in a specific area for law students. Those that know what area of law they want to practice can choose to study that, right from the beginning while avoiding all the unnecessary courses that they will never use for their chosen area of practice.

However, on the other hand I see this as undermining the value of legal education and hence a J.D. By creating this separation in the legal education, many of the basic competencies will be omitted from one’s legal education. On a basic level many of the different fields of law interact with each other, and competencies in all these areas are crucial for a practitioner to come up with the best solution for their clients.

There is obviously a wealth of knowledge available in studying law. In my opinion, due to the enhanced level of education required to sufficiently practice in each specific area of law, I think in the future, a LLM in the chosen area of practice will be mandatory after a JD, in order to obtain an articling position in the desired field.

With each area of law expanding everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to cut down on the legal education. The only way to keep up with the evolving nature of the legal sector is to increase the education required, and thus satisfying the necessary requirements of becoming a competent practitioner. Of course, this is just my view.  What do you think are some ways our legal education will evolve to better accommodate us in being competent in our areas of practice for the future?

 

 

Posted on

The Practice-Ready Lawyer

Harry W. Arthurs, renowned Canadian labour lawyer and law professor, spoke to the University of Alberta Faculty of Law about the future of law schools and legal education in Canada in his address titled “The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.”

Arthurs begins by outlining differing views of the core function of law school, namely the production of “practice-ready lawyers”, of “tomorrow’s lawyers”, and of being a leader in the “creation and transformation of legal knowledge, legal practice, and the legal system.”

From this address there are several points I would like to comment on. First, Arthurs strongly critiques the view that law schools should be producing “practice-ready” lawyers, assuming that “practice-ready” equates to omni-competent. As the legal field is highly specialized and stratified, Arthurs suggests that no law student will ever be “practice-ready” upon graduation from law school. While I agree with the assessment that no law student (or lawyer for that matter) will ever possess all of the substantive knowledge to be competent in every legal field, I disagree that is what is necessary to be ready for practice. While an understanding of general legal principles and substantive law are required competencies  in one’s practice, they are attainable when one possesses the appropriate skills listed in Chapter 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for BC (i.e. legal research, analysis, application of the law to the relevant facts, writing and drafting, problem solving, etc.). It is my opinion that the possession of these skills and competencies is what makes one “ready” for practice. In addition, I believe that law school is exactly the place where we should be taught these skills.

Arthurs goes on to argue that skills-based training is not enough to prepare students for legal practice, and a “preparation for practice” based curriculum is far inferior to one that emphasizes “thinking skills, theory and inter-disciplinarity”. While intellectual ability is certainly a coveted attribute, it must be applied practically to accomplish anything. Even Arthurs agrees that lawyers must “think like human beings” to avoid harming “themselves, their clients, the reputation of the bar and the effectiveness of the legal system.” Lawyers need to be relevant, relatable, and able to apply their intellectual training practically. It is my opinion that including some form of skills-based training in law schools helps accomplish that.

Finally, I would like to address Arthurs’ proposals regarding changes to the structure of law school. He proposes a model in which general practitioners can obtain a “stripped-down two-year ‘basic’ degree”, and “higher level lawyers” would take a four year enhanced degree. Arthurs’ argues that this would save time and money for general practitioners while fitting the diverse needs of students wishing to practice in more specialized fields. While this restructuring surely has its benefits, I suggest that it might have adverse affects on “access to justice”, an increasing problem. Creating a hierarchy of lawyers may decrease costs to individuals with basic legal problems, but may simultaneously increase the divide between litigants who can afford high-level lawyers. In other words, this hierarchy has potential to further the gap between those who can afford specialized legal services and those that cannot.

In addition, I wonder as to how these changes might impact the servicing of small, rural communities. These communities are already underserved, and those that do set up practice in these areas are typically general practitioners. Why would we make it harder on them to serve their communities by limiting their scope of practice? Canadians are already abandoning legal problems that they cannot afford to address; wouldn’t these changes only exacerbate this problem for rural individuals that would typically only engage with general practitioners?

Arthurs is certainly correct to say there are many changes in store for Canada’s legal paradigm. Subsequent changes to the way we educate future lawyers will certainly be more necessary than ever if lawyers are to remain relevant in society. More than anything, I believe Arthurs is correct to suggest law schools must prepare their students “to think like lawyers, to contextualize and critically evaluate their legal experiences, to adapt to change and, especially, to learn how to learn”. A law student with that education must certainly be “practice-ready”.

Posted on

Lawly’s survey: lawyers on lawyers

Lawrence Alexander invites partners in the firm to share their insider views on the practice of law by taking this three-minute anonymous survey.

Also, if you feel like sharing the survey with your network of lawyers, law students and law types, it would be much appreciated.

It will all contribute to a better understanding of lawyer-client relationships, improving the practice of law, and (I’m sure) good karma.

Posted on

tradition

 

In Chapter 6 of Richard Susskind’s book “Tomorrow’s Lawyers”, he discusses the status quo of how law firms have operated historically, and just how risky these traditions may be in the current global economic and social markets.

In working for a medium sized full service law firm this past summer, I absolutely agree with the concerns surrounding the sustainability of the traditional model of law firm operations. Considering costs associated with the practice in addition to the “extras” which the large firms consider to be a part of the basic “necessities”, it is clear that the amount of money being generated and spent goes beyond what can reasonably be sustained in the current economy. These include corporate lunches, dinners and parties. Although my firm is a medium sized firm, the partnership was always keen on ensuring that the lawyers felt appreciated by hosting lunches, dinners, marketing and networking events in addition to an annual retreat.

It would be a lie to say that I was not happy to receive such generosity and appreciation by my superiors and colleagues, however, I have to be honest in admitting that these “extras” are not as “necessary”7427c23ab949b2e020dae43a6a58a053 as we’d like to think they are.

When I think about where the money comes from to provide such gifts to the lawyers at the firm, I always end up with one source; the clients. It seems problematic to use funds allocated and paid for legal services towards personal expenses in house. However, this has always been “the way”.

Susskind notes that “lawyers have for many years performed routine work for which they have been overqualified and for which, in turn, they have been overcharging”.

Does the above statement explain why the traditional model has become entrenched in firm culture? I would argue that the compensation received from clients for legal services must cover the special knowledge, understanding and reassurance that a lawyer provides their client. Namely, clients pay to have a lawyer deal with their matter in order for them to feel as relaxed as possible with their predicament. The specialized and privileged access to information granted to lawyers is also a chargeable service in my view. Considering the average law school education amounts to sixty or so thousand dollars excluding undergraduate or postgraduate studies, it seems understandable why young lawyers are eager to join a firm where they will have the potential to grow into a gainful practice that follows the traditional model.

Susskind is correct however in stating that “to survive and thrive I suspect most will need to [make] changes to enable the changes from their current approach to a new, sustainable, longer-term business model.”

Personally, I think the primary issue is that clients are able to access plenty of information online through a variety of platforms, including digital lawyer substitutes. These substitutes offer users an online, self-serve options in drafting routine documents such as leases, powers of attorney, etc. Other sites offer legal advice, etc.

If law firms perceived these substitute services as legitimate threats to their business then change would likely arise. However, law firms, specifically the large global firms, do not recognize the threat and therefor are not motivated to change. Maybe this is the root of the problem?

History tells us however, that giants can be defeated by the “little guy”.

Proudly powered by WordPress