Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable imperative.” – H. G. Wells
I can mount a persuasive argument that I had a successful career practicing law.
Although it is unlikely that in a hundred years anyone will be writing about my contributions to the Law, some of my clients likely have fond memories about how I provided sound advice, got them out of a jam, or helped them achieve their goals.
One of my best clients was a very large privately owned corporation. I had a great relationship with Steve, the majority shareholder/CEO. Our firm was the ‘go-to’ corporate counsel for the company.
The first time that Steve’s company was looking to handle some acquisitions, the CEO asked me, “What is your snack bracket for this type of work?” What he wanted to know was what size of deal we were comfortable handling. The answer at the time was deals of up to about $100,000,000. Beyond that a larger firm would better serve him.
Let me tell you about annual reviews for Associates in law firms.
Let’s start with the word “annual” which suggests that the review will take place around the same time every year. In most firms, it will not, if a lawyer is conducting it. Doing that would require that billable work be put aside. That is not going to happen.
Rob was one of my favourite clients. He had intellectually challenging work, treated my whole team respectfully, gave me reasonable deadlines, and promptly paid all of his bills without question.
Yet, there were lawyers in my firm who did not like working for Rob, who, being smart and creative, would frequently propose unusual business structures or litigation strategies and then insist that we convince him why they would not work.
At my high school, athletics were valued above academics. I am pretty sure that we had the only ‘Reach for the Top’ team (an academic competition) which had a student who failed a grade one year and returned to the team the next year. Needless to say, our team did not win.
On the other hand, our school had three football teams, all of which won their respective divisions just about every year.
So, here is the situation. I am closing a deal with a senior partner from one of Canada’s largest law firms. Let’s call him “Big Law Guy.”
I am a senior partner myself, but with a medium-sized suburban law firm. By definition, he is supposed to be smarter than I am and his junior is supposed to be fortunate to be working for him instead of working with me.
It is an incontrovertible fact that young lawyers destined for private practice arrive at law firms without much clue as to how to practice law.
A lucky few are welcomed into a structured environment where good quality training, mentoring, and resources are provided to teach them their craft and to maintain quality control and client service while they learn.
When I entered law school, each year the most powerful law firm in Montreal would obtain from McGill Law School the names of the ten students with the highest grades in their first year of law school and write to them to offer them summer jobs. I received such a letter when I completed my first year of law school in 1976.
Had I gone to law school a few years earlier, I would not have received that letter, because the firm extending it had made it a practice to exclude Jews from the program.
I keep reading about mental health issues in the legal profession. Too many lawyers are terminally unhappy. The problem appears to be impossible to fix. Even The Washington Post just ran an article titled, “Want to be happy? Then don’t be a lawyer.”
Warning
This article has three parts. Do not act on the suggestions in the first part until you consider the advice in the second part and the rebuttal in the third part.
Part One: Murray’s Recommendations
Murray strongly recommends that articling students ask these probing questions and many similar ones before accepting a position: