« Get Lean, Talented and Hunt BigClients. | Main | So just what and where, sir, is ClientTown? »
December 01, 2006
ClientTown or LawyerTown? Which do you practice in?
Do you practice law in a (1) "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". Here we meet the lawyer as king, diva and sacred cow. In a lawyers' town, lawyers and their delays, lack of discipline, procrastinations, disorganization, lack of business sense and failure to execute and move matters along--failings which would get them axed in a heartbeat at a well-run American company--must always be indulged. And even the sleaziest and most marginal 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 a lawyers' town, 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, archaic, 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. Current lawyer 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. Just talking about it makes clients think we have our heads up our wazoos.
Face it, folks, most lawyers are not especially virtuous, or even that bright. Or classy. We are not royalty. Or even brave. Many of us are hesitant, non-confrontational and risk-averse to the point of being cowards who hide way too often in the rubric of "let's be prudent". To the surprise and dismay of our own clients--who had thought that lawyers were supposed to be innovators, activists and true heros--too few of us fit those descriptions. We follow. We hem and haw. We wet our finger and put it in the air. We aren't "special". And we are a dime a dozen. Now, in the U.S., anyone with enough money, barely average intelligence, well below-the-norm ethics and character, and the ability to converse without stuttering or 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. Clients risk being relegated to mere equipment. Listen: Unless your General Counsel or client rep is Mr. Rogers, The Church Lady or Liberace with a law degree, most clients don't care in the least if you are "professional" (i.e., courtly, accomodating and nice), or if you spend your spare time socializing with and kissing up to the local law cattle. They do care about planning, execution and results from motivated, honest and aggressive lawyers. See "Professionalism Revisited: What About the Client?", appearing last year in the San Diego Daily Transcript.
Posted by JD Hull at December 1, 2006 12:12 AM
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
I enjoyed your article in the San Diego paper and agree with most of what you say in this post. I am sure you would agree with me, however, that part of the job of a good lawyer is to exercise some degree of control over the client. Many clients have unreasonable expectations and I have always viewed it as my responsibility to have open, honest and direct communications wtih them about achievable goals and the proper path(s) to achieve them. I also see the occasional client who wants to be "aggressive" and the approach, while ethical, would actually hurt their cause.
Stated differently, I agree that our system is too lawyer-focused but I also think that left unchecked some clients will demand that their lawyers do things that are not only "unethical" but will also hurt the client's cause. Good lawyers must have enough self-confidence and backbone to steer clients down a course of action that will achieve the client's goals while not compromising the ethics of the lawyer.
I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: John Day at December 6, 2006 04:08 AM