In my early years of practice, I received a phone call from a friend who practiced union side labour law. He had a question about Civil Law and having recently graduated from McGill with a Civil Law degree in addition to my Common Law Degree, I was able to answer his question. He appreciated my help. Or so he said.
In the summer of 1976, I worked for the largest law firm in Montreal, which was Ogilvy, Cope, Porteous, Montgomery, Renault, Clark & Kirkpatrick, as a student doing research. You likely do not know that name, but you may recognize the name of its successors Ogilvy, Renault and Norton Rose.
Since I retired, I have been writing articles about the legal profession “from the safety of retirement”. It occurred to me recently that many of them may have been a bit negative in tone. Someone carefully studying my growing body of work (and I do realize that absolutely nobody is doing that) might conclude that I have a negative view of the profession in which I worked for 40 years.
There is a well-known quote which has been attributed to various people to the effect that “if you are not a socialist at age 20, you have no heart, but if you are still a socialist at age 30, you have no brain.”
I first met Lauren when he was a partner in a large Buffalo law firm which had a significant cross-border practice with an office in Toronto. Lauren practiced business law, although by the time that I met him he was spending a great deal of time on business development. His job involved significant travel between Buffalo and Toronto. Lauren was also quite active in an international legal association and travelled internationally as well.
Back in the day, the practice of law was considered to be a profession first, and a business second. Over the years, there was a great deal of talk about how lawyers had to recognize that the practice of law was also a business, and to become more business-like in their approach. I expect that this had a lot to do with some combination of law firms becoming less profitable and law partners, like many in the corporate sector, becoming greedier.
I once had a partner who I will call Marvin. Marvin was a capable lawyer who had a specialty in a particular area of litigation. Marvin was personable. He could bring in lots of work in his specialty and hold onto clients. Marvin was also smart. He could look at a complex problem, boil it down to its essentials and identify the most practical solution. Marvin was particularly good at developing litigation strategies and he was also very good at negotiating with other counsel and at persuading judges to rule in his favour on all sorts of issues.
It is a poorly kept secret in the legal profession that some lawyers are much better than other lawyers. Marketing would have you believe that the lawyers at large firms are better than lawyers at smaller firms, which is sometimes true and sometimes not true, and belies the fact that incompetence can hide in a crowd. Pity the poor clients who have to try to figure out how to choose the best lawyer to represent them based on who has the biggest marketing budget and the best marketing consultant.
When I started practicing business law immediately after being called to the Bar, I had just been rejected for hire-back with the firm where I had done my articles. I was told that the reason that I was not hired back was that I had not shown sufficient self-confidence. Compounding my insecurity was the fact that I was younger than most first year lawyers, having entered law school after just one year of university. Worse still, I had no prior business experience.
In my first four years of practicing law, I learned how to be a lawyer through the “sink or swim” approach. I did this by working 12 hours a day and 6 ½ days a week, without supervision, mentoring or training. I was also worrying 24 days a day, 7 days a week, and waking up screaming at night. I do not recommend this approach to learning the practice of law.