« Kid From Brooklyn opines on honesty, client expectations. | Main
November 29, 2006
A Clients' Town or Lawyers' Town? Which do you practice in?
Do you practice law in a (1) a "clients' town" or (2) a "lawyers' town"?
The latter, very common, is a local culture where lawyer clubbiness, lawyer schedules and lawyer convenience always trump client needs behind the smokescreen of "professionalism". The lawyer as king, diva and sacred cow. Lawyers and their delays, lack of discipline at work, procrastinations, lack of business sense and failure to execute and move matters along must always be indulged. Even the sleaziest and most minimal lawyers must be treated by each other and speak to each other in a certain way. Client interests are secondary. Well, if you practice in one of those places, are you going to do anything about it? Can we show some leadership? Can we retire lawyer "professionalism" and "civility" issues once and for all and replace them with something better: a new client-focused set of folkways?
Sorry, but in its current form, lawyer professionalism is a morally pretentious, hypocritical and silly movement which "lawyers' towns" tend to invest in heavily to protect and coddle apathetic, mediocre and lazy lawyering. It keeps standards low, and the tone lawyer-centric. Our current professionalism is: "pro-lawyer", prissy, routinely and dishonestly misused by incompetent and uncaring lawyers in defense of their delays and screw ups, a waste of time and money, and anti-client. It makes clients think we have our heads up our wazoos. Face it, folks, lawyers are not especially virtuous. We are not royalty. And we are a dime a dozen. Many of us are hesitant and risk-averse to the point of being cowards. Too few of us are leaders. And we aren't "special". In the U.S., anyone with enough money, barely average intelligence, well below-the-norm ethics and character, and the ability to converse without drooling excessively can become a lawyer. So let's not put on goofy airs.
Real professionalism, with the client as the touchstone, might have been a good thing. But ironically lawyer "civility" issues have helped breed in modern U.S. lawyering an even lower regard for the client--even for great corporate clients, too. Unless your GC is Mr. Rogers, The Church Lady or Liberace with a law degree, most clients don't care if you are "professional" (i.e., nice)--they care about fast results from honest, creative and aggressive lawyers. See "Professionalism Revisited: What About the Client?", appearing last year in the San Diego Daily Transcript.
Posted by JD Hull at November 29, 2006 11:12 PM
Comments
I love this blog and read it at least once a week. Currently I'm a 1L at a small politically incorrect Catholic law school. After law school I will start my own boutique dealing in derivatives transactional work, starting with small end users and eventually stealing a big bank or two. All of this outsourced from Arizona with punctual, impeccable service. Wall Street firms won't know what hit 'em.
Posted by: Casey Khan at November 29, 2006 10:02 AM
JD and Casey:
I once read a railroad trust indenture---actually not exactly. I attended a CLE course where we talked about the problems a railroad trust indenture causes when it must be offered as an exhibit in a trial in a state that requires each writing to be read to the jury---"published" was the jargon.
I say this because I am puzzled about what is legal work described as "derivatives transactional work, starting with small end users . . ."
I assume that it means one informs the client that they must sign, without changes, the 300 page contract from Goldman Sachs or there will be no deal and no hedge of your wheat futures or coppoer futures, or what ever.
Absent some extensive work experience in another life, I cannot imagine any law school grad having any idea about the true legal implications of such a document. I know a lot of good business trial lawyers and it would take them some thought and study to know exactly how such a document might work in application.
However, I am not surprised that a 1L at at small politically incorrect Catholic law school already has the answers.
Posted by: Moe Levine at November 29, 2006 12:36 PM