In the opening scenes of “Jerry Maguire,” the main character, a self-described “shark in a suit” sports agent, has an epiphany and types out a “mission statement” that he then distributes to all the other agents in his firm. He titles it “The Things We Think But Do Not Say” and writes his agency should re-focus on client service and relationships with the players it represents and ultimately become an agency that represents fewer clients and makes less money.

When he walks through the room for the first time after his mission statement has been distributed, his colleagues all start clapping. While Jerry basks in his colleagues’ applause, one leans to another and says that Jerry will probably last only another week at the agency. If you’ve seen the movie, then you know that Jerry is fired shortly after distributing his mission statement and that his own words (“Fewer clients. Less money.”) are used against him by the man who fires him — the wonderfully named Bob Sugar.

I mention Jerry Maguire as a way into what has happened at mega-firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP in recent weeks and what is means for everyone who practices law. As you have probably read, Dewey & LeBoeuf will almost certainly be forced to close its doors in a matter of days. Most of the partners have jumped ship to other mega firms. For a time, all employees were rumored to have lost their health benefits due to the firm’s inability to pay its carrier. Its former managing partner is being investigated by the New York District Attorney.

As I understand it, the firm’s downfall was caused in no small part by guaranteed payouts to partners based upon their past ability to generate work. The New York Times has called Dewey & LeBoeuf a cautionary tale and has suggested — much like Jerry Maguire — that it is “time for lawyers to reshape corporate practice so they make less money, have time to serve other legal needs and approach their work with the independence that would make them true professionals.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I recently won my first motion for judgment during a modification for visitation hearing. It wasn’t the win that had me on cloud nine — it was my client’s level of gratitude. Her appreciation is why I work for Legal Aid.

She has been dealing with her custody case for nearly a decade. I can’t imagine the emotional and physical stress she has been through over the years. I made several attempts to reach out to opposing counsel in attempts to settle the matter, but he refused. As time passed, it became clear that I had a strong argument to support a motion for judgment.

I had a slight setback at the beginning of the trial when the judge decided that he wasn’t going to hear from the child, now a teenager. But things started looking brighter after my oral motion to limit the scope of the testimony and evidence to a specific time period was granted over the other side’s objection. The plaintiff’s lawyer finished his direct in about 30 minutes and offered no evidence.

My cross was even shorter. I made my motion shortly after and all I had to say was “under Wagner v. Wagner, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that there has been a material change in circumstances…” The judge abruptly cut me off and asked the plaintiff to respond — and that is when I started feeling good. After a brief dialogue between the plaintiff and the judge and my quick rebuttal, the judge granted my motion.

I immediately leaned over to my client and said, “It’s over.” I wanted her to finally have peace of mind. I didn’t realize how emotional she had become until we were outside of the courtroom. She was still processing the fact that this issue was finally over and she was overwhelmed. She was so grateful for the services of Legal Aid and showed her gratitude by giving my supervisor, two of my colleagues and me tight hugs.

Knowing that I’ve impacted someone’s life in a positive way is extremely rewarding. I wouldn’t trade that feeling for anything. That is why I decided to become a lawyer. I might not make a lot of money, but I do have the satisfaction that I provide a much-needed service to an underserved population in my community. I provided my client with thousands of dollars worth of legal services for free. I can honestly say that I believe I zealously advocated on her behalf.

I know that I won’t have favorable outcomes all the time. But this win validates that Legal Aid is the right place for me. Although it has its challenging moments — and sometimes I could use a larger paycheck — those moments are outweighed by the smiles on my clients’ faces at the conclusion of their cases.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

On the heels of my last post, I had to take advantage of some of that solo flexibility I was talking about. Our youngest daughter, 17 months old, came home early from daycare two weeks ago with a fever and then spent a Thursday and Friday home with Daddy. She’s a late bloomer as far as teeth are concerned — we are just now seeing an onslaught of incisors — and we initially thought the fever was related to teething. But then we noticed the blisters and spots, so we made an appointment with our pediatrician.

Apparently, the ominous-sounding hand, foot and mouth disease had struck our little girl. The doctor told us that she would likely be fine by Monday and, as long as the blisters were gone, she wouldn’t be infectious and could return to daycare (meaning also that Daddy could return to his daily routine).

Some new law grads sometimes ask me what I think about working from home. I thought about that option before I went solo, but with two kids who get home at 4 p.m. every day, the reality is that it is just impossible to get work done. (I mean, how can you not be distracted by the cutest kids in the world?) Work on the weekends is means nap times and a post-8 p.m. bedtime.

If you don’t have kids and you can set up a nice little home office away from all distractions, I’m sure it could work. Otherwise, the temptation to help out is just too great. Of course, if you can’t afford an office, the decision is made for you.

While the baby was sick, she napped for long-stretches during which I was able to be productive (all you need is a phone, a laptop and Internet access). But when she was awake, my time was spent soothing her, cleaning and watching DVR’d “Star Trek” movies. As far as productivity goes, the day was a net loss. But with a few extra days (and nights) of work, I was able to catch up.

Once again, the flexibility of a solo practice saves the day.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Since January 1, I have been a partner at Bowie & Jensen LLC. As I previously posted, this is the promotion that I have worked for since starting at the firm in 2004. When asked to join the partnership, there was no doubt in my mind that I would accept. I realized that there would be some additional work, but knew that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Fast forward four months. Partnership is not simply a couple of additional meetings a month or a new title. Partnership is ownership.

In addition to handling all the duties of a full-time litigation attorney, I am now dealing with managing others and managing the firm. Part of my job is to make sure that the firm is running efficiently and effectively. I spend more time thinking about the future of the firm, looking to increase our client base and making sure the lights stay on. The difficulty that I have faced is the balance between real legal work (i.e. billable time) and firm management. In an attempt to resolve the balance, I have been simply working longer hours. This, however, takes away from hours with family or friends or much needed personal time.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being a partner and part of the decision making process. I have a larger role in choosing the direction of the firm. I enjoy being a part of management.

But for those that are up for partnership this year, here are a couple of things that I believe will help the transition:

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

In just a few short months I’ll be getting married, and that means I’m in full-on planning mode. Turns out that planning a wedding is basically a full-time job, so when I’m not at the courthouse, I’m emailing my caterer, buying out Michael’s, and of course, re-pinning every genius idea I find on Pinterest.

While the majority of wedding planning is really fun – cake tastings, anyone? – there is one formidable task: the guest list. Of all the decisions we’ve made so far, cutting people from the guest list has been our least favorite. A particularly hairy issue brides and grooms encounter is whether to invite co-workers.

Most young lawyers spend more time with their co-workers than with their own family. Provided you actually like your co-workers, it seems natural to invite them. The problem arises when deciding where to draw the line: if you invite another associate, do you need to invite all of the associates? If you invite one partner in your practice group, should you invite all of them? The whole firm?

The obvious answer is that you should only invite co-workers who will give you really great gifts. Just kidding (sort of). While there are no etiquette rules directly on point, it seems to me that the most important factors to consider are the size of your venue and budget, whether there is the potential for hurt feelings, and whether you are comfortable with a colleague listening to the best man’s speech about your raucous college adventures.

For me, it was an easy decision: I consider my chambers co-workers to be friends, and there are only 2 of them. My boss is officiating, so that was a no-brainer, too. It seems, however, that if I were still at the firm or in a different work setting, who to invite would be a difficult choice.

So I pose some questions to you, blissfully married Generation J.D.ers – when you got married, whom did you invite from work, if anyone? Did anyone have hurt feelings? What would you do differently?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

To law school that is. I saw a short article this morning about the value of a law degree in a divorce case. A judge held that a wife’s J.D. added $126,000 to her earning power. (I’m not sure about the wife’s age or experience or what kind of law she practices, but it seems the court valued her degree less than what she paid for it.)

I know I’ve written about this before, but I’m thinking about it again as I continue my job search/ hiatus. What value does my law degree have now, and what value will it have 20 years from now? I feel like it’ll all be worth it, but I must say the dream of a life without loans is a sweet one.

Most entry-level attorney jobs (besides big-firm jobs) don’t pay that much more than the starting salary at a non-lawyer job. The earning potential is more with a law degree, but if you’re smart enough, put your time into working your way up and don’t act like a jerk then you can have similar earning potential.

But it wouldn’t be the same. People are still going to law school in droves and I believe having a J.D. increases your earning capacity, even as society’s view of what it means to be a lawyer changes and even though the payoff can seem impossible now.

Most law graduates are still finding employment even if it is in a “non-lawyer” type positions, like working for their law school in some capacity. And while some may bash these positions, they sound pretty good to me; decent hours and salary while gaining legal experience. The J.D. may not be “required,” but let’s face it — it would be a hard feat to get these jobs without a law degree.

What do you think? Is law school still a good investment or is it a road to nowhere, tempting people who want to feel a sense of accomplishment but who are unprepared for the real world come graduation?

Powered by Bookmarkify™