Unhappy Catholic Lawyers

[Ridgerunner]

That’s a fact. Its frustrating in the extreme.

Here, lots of cattle, but almost no stockyards.

One of the things that’s really frustrating for me is that I know that I made a career error in becoming a lawyer. That’s nobody’s fault but my own, but my basic thinking was that I wouldn’t be able, or probably wouldn’t be able, to find employment in an outdoor career and there was no way that I would be able to enter agriculture. Law seemed like a good bet as I didn’t know anything about it, and from what little I knew it seemed like a professional job a guy could work 9 to 5, Monday through Friday, and then go out and enjoy the outdoors. Man, was I wrong. Those hours were far below those which I actually work, and I work six days out of seven normally.

But beyond that, I didn’t appreciate that my strong desire to be and work outdoors couldn’t be sublimated to anything else.

From time to time I’ve wondered why Divine Provenance would cause me to have such a strong desire to just work in agriculture and not give me a way to do it, but in reality, I probably just didn’t see the way to do it when I was young. Now I’m so far out in the swamp that getting back in is almost impossible. A cautionary tale, to say the very least.

I think there is a natural inclination on the part of many, perhaps even most, men to be attracted to agriculture. After all, look at little boys and how they play “cowboy”, love toy tractors and so on. How many, even at very early ages, do NOT want do dig around in the dirt.

I think there’s something instinctive about it.

Of course, the reality of agriculture is often not understood by people who have never been involved in it. It’s very demanding, and full of unforeseens that can turn a good year into a loss year.

but if one can get past that, it isn’t really as if there are no opportunities in agriculture.

The area in which I live is mostly rural. Here, the lawyers really do tend to work 8-5, five days/week. Sometimes groups of them go out to “smell the roses” on Friday afternoons; perhaps more accurately to “smell Four Roses” (whiskey) But now and then I’m sure they put in more hours than that. I’m told that at one time in the past, they got together and set rules against working past 5 and on the weekends except in dire emergencies. And I’m told the judges went along with it and sort of enforced it by suasion. They set hourly fees, too. Of course, that was before all such things were considered “conspiracies in restraint of trade” or something. And, too, most of them just make a middle class living, nothing spectacular.

But I am well aware that’s not the way it is everywhere. My own son is a lawyer. He worked for a really commercially competitive firm for a time, but then moved into a rural area. Likes it a lot better. Almost never works on weekends, except at ranching with me, but probably most of the time works until about 6:00 in the evening. He doesn’t make as much as he did before, but he has four little kids, and he and his wife jointly decided on the move. Sometimes finances are a bit tight, but he’s also “building equity” as he raises cattle of his own.

I really do believe a lot of this is a matter of where one is and what kind of firm one is working with. But I also think that “country practice” is not too common, and one really has to want to be a country lawyer in order to do it. None of them I know are what I would think of as truly wealthy. Some are just mildly better off than most people, to the extent they have lived fairly frugally and accumulated assets over a long period of time.

 

[Yeoman]

I don’t much doubt there are places where it is important to have attended a Tier 1 school. There are also lots of places where it doesn’t matter at all, and might even be a negative.

Indeed, I fully agree.

 

[mommyof4]

Indeed, I fully agree.

Where I live it would be regarded as being “snooty.”. It would be better to go to a local State college.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t much doubt there are places where it is important to have attended a Tier 1 school. There are also lots of places where it doesn’t matter at all, and might even be a negative.

Indeed, I would say, that is is generally more important to go to law school in the jurisdiction you want to practice in. (Unless your goal is to work a big firm in NYC, or DC). Then your school can actually help you get a job with their career services and connections.

 

[trevorhall]

Yes. I started my career in a large commercial firm in a major city. Hated it. Went to a medium firm. Hated it. Been solo for almost 9 years. Not a fan.

Of course, I have been discerning religious life for a couple years. Maybe I am meant for something else.

 

[Yeoman]

I think there is a natural inclination on the part of many, perhaps even most, men to be attracted to agriculture. After all, look at little boys and how they play “cowboy”, love toy tractors and so on. How many, even at very early ages, do NOT want do dig around in the dirt.

I think that’s right. It’s wired into our DNAs, I suspect.

The area in which I live is mostly rural. Here, the lawyers really do tend to work 8-5, five days/week. Sometimes groups of them go out to “smell the roses” on Friday afternoons; perhaps more accurately to “smell Four Roses” (whiskey) But now and then I’m sure they put in more hours than that. I’m told that at one time in the past, they got together and set rules against working past 5 and on the weekends except in dire emergencies. And I’m told the judges went along with it and sort of enforced it by suasion. They set hourly fees, too. Of course, that was before all such things were considered “conspiracies in restraint of trade” or something. And, too, most of them just make a middle class living, nothing spectacular.

But I am well aware that’s not the way it is everywhere. My own son is a lawyer. He worked for a really commercially competitive firm for a time, but then moved into a rural area. Likes it a lot better. Almost never works on weekends, except at ranching with me, but probably most of the time works until about 6:00 in the evening. He doesn’t make as much as he did before, but he has four little kids, and he and his wife jointly decided on the move. Sometimes finances are a bit tight, but he’s also “building equity” as he raises cattle of his own.

I really do believe a lot of this is a matter of where one is and what kind of firm one is working with. But I also think that “country practice” is not too common, and one really has to want to be a country lawyer in order to do it. None of them I know are what I would think of as truly wealthy. Some are just mildly better off than most people, to the extent they have lived fairly frugally and accumulated assets over a long period of time.

I take it that it was once that way in many places, but it seems to have largely died. It’s an interesting trend, but somehow the Counter Culture of the 60s, which gave us the most educated youth the nation had ever seen up until that time, rapidly evolved into the generation of greed in the 70s, and the profession was impacted. Or so that’s my theory. That’s the legal culture we have in most places now, I fear, so the trend is towards longer hours of work, more days of work, and less pleasant, more economically driven, work. Even when a person doesn’t buy into the concept that a lawyer must be wealthy, they have to live in that environment and that tends to dominate the background atmosphere to the profession.

Your story on hours by agreement reminds me that when I was a boy here the local car dealers were closed on Saturdays and holidays. They’d all agreed to that. Then a new one came in and refused, and it all went downhill. Only takes one, I guess.

I should note that this phenomenon has spread well beyond the law and into every profession, it seems. I can well recall doctors and dentists being simply middle class here, and often very rural in their outlook. Some still are, but that’s rapidly evolved in the past decade into a profession where it seems wealth is a concern. It’s not a good trend, more members of those professions seem displeased with them, and of course they received a big push back from the general population, which the law hasn’t yet.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that’s right. It’s wired into our DNAs, I suspect.

I take it that it was once that way in many places, but it seems to have largely died. It’s an interesting trend, but somehow the Counter Culture of the 60s, which gave us the most educated youth the nation had ever seen up until that time, rapidly evolved into the generation of greed in the 70s, and the profession was impacted. Or so that’s my theory. That’s the legal culture we have in most places now, I fear, so the trend is towards longer hours of work, more days of work, and less pleasant, more economically driven, work. Even when a person doesn’t buy into the concept that a lawyer must be wealthy, they have to live in that environment and that tends to dominate the background atmosphere to the profession.

Your story on hours by agreement reminds me that when I was a boy here the local car dealers were closed on Saturdays and holidays. They’d all agreed to that. Then a new one came in and refused, and it all went downhill. Only takes one, I guess.

I should note that this phenomenon has spread well beyond the law and into every profession, it seems. I can well recall doctors and dentists being simply middle class here, and often very rural in their outlook. Some still are, but that’s rapidly evolved in the past decade into a profession where it seems wealth is a concern. It’s not a good trend, more members of those professions seem displeased with them, and of course they received a big push back from the general population, which the law hasn’t yet.

This reminds me of something. For several decades there was a manufacturing plant near here. When I was a kid, it was quite a concern. People who worked on the line could buy a new house on those earnings, and nobody hesitated to loan them the money to do it.

Over the years, as more and more of that manufacturing moved overseas, it slowly declined. Fortunately, other industries were able to take up the workers. But the people who had worked there for decades could tell you exactly each time when the company speeded up the line…a sign that the economics had become more and more straitened.

Eventually, the company went bankrupt. Another company bought up all its trademarks and puts them on product produced entirely in East Asia. The acquiring company still makes the product, but in a very, very narrow specialty. The more generic product is all produced overseas.

I think that’s a story that applies to many in this economy. “They” have “speeded up the line”, so it takes more and more production to just stay even. Who is “they”? Well, I think “they” is a system that has undergone shifts, a big part of which is concentration.

But it’s also reflective of where the cost of living has gone. When I was a little kid, a 1,000 square foot house was about the standard for a new house. 1200 square feet was a very comfortable house. Now, that’s nothing. At the time, families had one car, and that car was very simple. Almost anybody could work on one of those. People made their food from basic ingredients, bought cheaply. Most married women did not work outside the home. Many women actually made clothing for their children, and even purchased clothing was pretty sparse and simple. Every school year, I received two pairs of jeans and a pair of new shoes, and they were to last the whole school year.

Just about every family had a radio. Many had simple record players that could be fixed if they broke down. There were repair shops everywhere for all kinds of things. Remember getting “half soles” to give shoes a bit longer life? Remember “taps” on heels? At my age, I can.

Now, of course, the whole product range and expectations are entirely different. To some extent, the “speeding up of the line” has been necessitated by the need to purchase all of that stuff and the impossibility of repairing any of it.

You’re right about doctors. Some make a tremendous amount of money. Most don’t. most had a middle-middle class living when I was a kid, and most of them do now. Of course, now they have “production quotas” that cause them to be harried and patients to be rushed along. The life of most doctors has not improved in a long time, and for many it has declined in quality.

With lawyers, it has been similar. A lot of city lawyers now are on “quotas” of so many billable hourse/year, and it’s a lot. There is a lot of wandering around from firm to firm for small improvements. There is little access to “the top” in most law firms.

 

[choose_to_love]

count me in, too. I was not commenting on social media during Lent. I’m going to try and review the whole thread again before commenting further.

 

[mommyof4]

I was reviewing this thread the other day with my husband (the former attorney-turned-teacher) and he told me to tell all of the unhappy Catholic lawyers to "run, jump, hop, skip, fly out of the profession as soon as you can! Life if too short to be unhappy at what you do for 40-50 hours a week!

 

[kanrok]

I’m a Catholic trial lawyer, in the business for nearly 30 years, and have loved nearly every thing about it.

Worked as a prosecutor for the first 8 years, and have done nothing but catastrophic personal injury cases since then.

I am blessed with the ability to pick and choose what cases I take, and I keep my case load manageable.

I also love trying cases, I’ve tried over 100 to various juries over the years, but now find that it is harder and harder to get cases to trial. Good cases have a way of settling.

Having said all that, I realize that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in my profession.

I feel that I am lucky to be doing something I truly love.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m a Catholic trial lawyer, in the business for nearly 30 years, and have loved nearly every thing about it.

Worked as a prosecutor for the first 8 years, and have done nothing but catastrophic personal injury cases since then.

I am blessed with the ability to pick and choose what cases I take, and I keep my case load manageable.

I also love trying cases, I’ve tried over 100 to various juries over the years, but now find that it is harder and harder to get cases to trial. Good cases have a way of settling.

Having said all that, I realize that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in my profession.

I feel that I am lucky to be doing something I truly love.

Sounds to me like you have enjoyed a combination of skill, good luck, and good reportage. Around here, one would also have to advertise very heavily and expensively to have the same result. It could be different in other places.

Lots of lawyers like to try cases, but for most, the big P.I.s are few and far between.

But it’s my understanding it’s getting more difficult all the time to try any kind of case, presumably because of overcrowded dockets. Around here, the judges will order the parties to mediate, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll order it again and sometimes more than once. If a party insists, the judge will set the case maybe the third setting a year and a half away.

 

[seakelp]

I’m about to graduate from a great law school, good grades, good work in internships, and I’m (currently) unemployed.

I’d kill to have a job as an attorney right now. In between taking the bar and receiving results, I think I’m going to try to get in with a local legal aid group or something, just to at least have something to do.

I’m just so incredibly nervous about not finding a job.

 

[kanrok]

Sounds to me like you have enjoyed a combination of skill, good luck, and good reportage. Around here, one would also have to advertise very heavily and expensively to have the same result. It could be different in other places.

Lots of lawyers like to try cases, but for most, the big P.I.s are few and far between.

But it’s my understanding it’s getting more difficult all the time to try any kind of case, presumably because of overcrowded dockets. Around here, the judges will order the parties to mediate, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll order it again and sometimes more than once. If a party insists, the judge will set the case maybe the third setting a year and a half away.

Back when I was a prosecutor we tried as many cases as we liked. I liked to try cases a lot. Once I left the government I worked for a PI firm that had a strong regional presence in a large city. We were encouraged to try as many cases as we wanted. I left that firm over ten years ago, and have greatly reduced my case load. Interestingly, it’s not so much about the court’s dockets that have slowed our ability to get cases to trial. It is more the strength of the cases, coupled with my ability to focus on each one more. I’m not scattered amongst cases, and I can plot and plan my strategies now. As a consequence, we settle the vast majority of our cases on the strips of the courthouse.

 

[Yeoman]

Sounds to me like you have enjoyed a combination of skill, good luck, and good reportage. Around here, one would also have to advertise very heavily and expensively to have the same result. It could be different in other places.

Lots of lawyers like to try cases, but for most, the big P.I.s are few and far between.

But it’s my understanding it’s getting more difficult all the time to try any kind of case, presumably because of overcrowded dockets. Around here, the judges will order the parties to mediate, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll order it again and sometimes more than once. If a party insists, the judge will set the case maybe the third setting a year and a half away.

Where I am advertising wouldn’t be an issue, but the dockets are overcrowded. Judges very rarely compel a mediation, however.

I’ll dispute that “Lots of lawyers like to try cases” however, our new friend on this thread aside. I’ve tried a bunch of them (although not 100) and I’m not afraid to try them by any means, but generally I find that the large majority of lawyers prefer not to try a case. Some are downright afraid to try a case.

Some do love trying cases, but even there I’ve found by long observation that many who claim that are trying to convince themselves or an opponent. The lawyers I’ve found who are most likely to try a case, myself included (I try a lot) are very quiet, if not wholly silent, about that. In the end, they acquire a reputation for trying them, which is my situation. But even there, I haven’t found all really long term trial lawyers to be happy in their work.

Indeed, while I don’t mean to cast aspersions, the nature of what we do with a trial is such that if a person truly loves, it, it worries me. At trial, the lawyer is doing damage to somebody and that’s a heavy burden. Ideally that’s necessary, and perhaps that’s also part of the burden. But like being a soldier in combat, most don’t love it, and to really love it is a bit worrisome as if we think heavily on it, perhaps we should not.

 

[Yeoman]

Back when I was a prosecutor we tried as many cases as we liked. I liked to try cases a lot. Once I left the government I worked for a PI firm that had a strong regional presence in a large city. We were encouraged to try as many cases as we wanted. I left that firm over ten years ago, and have greatly reduced my case load. Interestingly, it’s not so much about the court’s dockets that have slowed our ability to get cases to trial. It is more the strength of the cases, coupled with my ability to focus on each one more. I’m not scattered amongst cases, and I can plot and plan my strategies now. As a consequence, we settle the vast majority of our cases on the strips of the courthouse.

All that is no doubt the case. Another factor may be that its incresingly the case, over time, that lawyers don’t really like to try cases all that much, in spite of what they claim (and I don’t mean you). Indeed, when an opponent tells me he loves trials, I usually know the bottom is about to fall out of his position as its a bluff. Anyhow, more cases settle as more and more people just want to avoid the pain of trials. Judges also don’t really like trials, which is something I don’t grasp, and maybe a person would have to be a judge in order to grasp.

You should consider yourself blessed, and probably do, as you are one of the rare lawyers who seems heavily suited by temperament to be exactly where you are. If the profession was totally populated by people like you, it’d be a much smaller profession, but few know what you know about what we do, and even fewer are so well suited for it.

 

[Yeoman]

I’m about to graduate from a great law school, good grades, good work in internships, and I’m (currently) unemployed.

I’d kill to have a job as an attorney right now. In between taking the bar and receiving results, I think I’m going to try to get in with a local legal aid group or something, just to at least have something to do.

I’m just so incredibly nervous about not finding a job.

When I was young (a million years ago) I met a wonderful young woman, and fell deeply in love with her. She met someone else, and ultimately married him. I still know her, and while she’s still a great person, I know that I was saved from a bad fate by the hand of God. Indeed, in this category, I’ve been so saved twice.

When I determined to go to law school, I over road an instinct not to, and loved law school. When I first graduated, worried about getting a job, I took a “good” one that was offered to me. A couple of years later, I was offered an exit into another area after working to get that offer, but declined by overriding an instinct in favor of rational logic.

My point? I understand your pain, and envy your position. This may be a trial you must endure, but be open to the possibility that you might be getting saved from something. I know that sounds like no comfort at all, but of the several experienced lawyers, some very experienced, posting in this thread, and another one in another section on the LSAT, you’re hearing from just one single one so far who is really happy with his career, and a bunch who are not.

 

[LionsDen66]

All that is no doubt the case. Another factor may be that its incresingly the case, over time, that lawyers don’t really like to try cases all that much, in spite of what they claim (and I don’t mean you). Indeed, when an opponent tells me he loves trials, I usually know the bottom is about to fall out of his position as its a bluff. Anyhow, more cases settle as more and more people just want to avoid the pain of trials. Judges also don’t really like trials, which is something I don’t grasp, and maybe a person would have to be a judge in order to grasp.

You should consider yourself blessed, and probably do, as you are one of the rare lawyers who seems heavily suited by temperament to be exactly where you are. If the profession was totally populated by people like you, it’d be a much smaller profession, but few know what you know about what we do, and even fewer are so well suited for it.

Judges don’t like to try cases because it is more work and longer days for them. Period. And I agree that trying cases is mental combat, and to enjoy it is to enjoy being combative. I have experienced a certain ‘rush’ in the heat of trial and a certain pleasure being in control of a courtroom. As a young lawyer, it felt like the ultimate achievement was to win a jury trial. And I’ve won my share. But as I age, I enjoy the battle so much less and have grown weary of the fight. Yeoman and I appear to be on the same trajectory.

 

[Yeoman]

This reminds me of something. For several decades there was a manufacturing plant near here. When I was a kid, it was quite a concern. People who worked on the line could buy a new house on those earnings, and nobody hesitated to loan them the money to do it.

Over the years, as more and more of that manufacturing moved overseas, it slowly declined. Fortunately, other industries were able to take up the workers. But the people who had worked there for decades could tell you exactly each time when the company speeded up the line…a sign that the economics had become more and more straitened.

Eventually, the company went bankrupt. Another company bought up all its trademarks and puts them on product produced entirely in East Asia. The acquiring company still makes the product, but in a very, very narrow specialty. The more generic product is all produced overseas.

I think that’s a story that applies to many in this economy. “They” have “speeded up the line”, so it takes more and more production to just stay even. Who is “they”? Well, I think “they” is a system that has undergone shifts, a big part of which is concentration.

But it’s also reflective of where the cost of living has gone. When I was a little kid, a 1,000 square foot house was about the standard for a new house. 1200 square feet was a very comfortable house. Now, that’s nothing. At the time, families had one car, and that car was very simple. Almost anybody could work on one of those. People made their food from basic ingredients, bought cheaply. Most married women did not work outside the home. Many women actually made clothing for their children, and even purchased clothing was pretty sparse and simple. Every school year, I received two pairs of jeans and a pair of new shoes, and they were to last the whole school year.

Just about every family had a radio. Many had simple record players that could be fixed if they broke down. There were repair shops everywhere for all kinds of things. Remember getting “half soles” to give shoes a bit longer life? Remember “taps” on heels? At my age, I can.

Now, of course, the whole product range and expectations are entirely different. To some extent, the “speeding up of the line” has been necessitated by the need to purchase all of that stuff and the impossibility of repairing any of it.

You’re right about doctors. Some make a tremendous amount of money. Most don’t. most had a middle-middle class living when I was a kid, and most of them do now. Of course, now they have “production quotas” that cause them to be harried and patients to be rushed along. The life of most doctors has not improved in a long time, and for many it has declined in quality.

With lawyers, it has been similar. A lot of city lawyers now are on “quotas” of so many billable hourse/year, and it’s a lot. There is a lot of wandering around from firm to firm for small improvements. There is little access to “the top” in most law firms.

I can remember half soles and taps! Now, of course, it’s hard to find a place to even repair shoes.

All excellent points in this posts. Indeed, it says a lot about the broken nature of our modern economy. We believe so strongly in it, in this society, but it’s doing so much damage to so much of it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All that is no doubt the case. Another factor may be that its incresingly the case, over time, that lawyers don’t really like to try cases all that much, in spite of what they claim (and I don’t mean you). Indeed, when an opponent tells me he loves trials, I usually know the bottom is about to fall out of his position as its a bluff. Anyhow, more cases settle as more and more people just want to avoid the pain of trials. Judges also don’t really like trials, which is something I don’t grasp, and maybe a person would have to be a judge in order to grasp.

You should consider yourself blessed, and probably do, as you are one of the rare lawyers who seems heavily suited by temperament to be exactly where you are. If the profession was totally populated by people like you, it’d be a much smaller profession, but few know what you know about what we do, and even fewer are so well suited for it.

I have heard lawyers say trying a case is a money-losing proposition unless, of course, one’s opponent is being ridiculous in his demand or offer. In that latter kind of case, one has nothing to lose for one’s client. Otherwise, it’s not cost-effective most of the time.

But I have also heard at least one lawyer say there’s nothing he likes more than a case he calls a “rock and fire” case; one in which, for whatever reason, there’s little or no tedious discovery or endless motions, and the client’s budget won’t allow for much more than a minimum of preparation and just shooting it out in the trial.

 

[Yeoman]

I have heard lawyers say trying a case is a money-losing proposition unless, of course, one’s opponent is being ridiculous in his demand or offer. In that latter kind of case, one has nothing to lose for one’s client. Otherwise, it’s not cost-effective most of the time.

Nearly any plaintiff’s case is a money loser, if it goes to trial. Some pay off big, of course. Some huge. But on balance (which people forget, even lawyers) a lot do not pay off very well. Successful plaintiff’s lawyers really make their money settling cases, not trying them.

For defense lawyers in the civil law the equation is actually considerably different. As they are paid hourly, they do make money trying cases. Indeed, they make money even if they lose them, as their definition of a loss varies enormously from the perception of what is a win, and what is a loss. That doesn’t mean they enjoy “losing”, but what they consider an acceptable margin of loss isn’t something a football coach would, for example.

IBut I have also heard at least one lawyer say there’s nothing he likes more than a case he calls a “rock and fire” case; one in which, for whatever reason, there’s little or no tedious discovery or endless motions, and the client’s budget won’t allow for much more than a minimum of preparation and just shooting it out in the trial.

Cases of that type were actually the norm once. An old partner told me that early in his career he tried a civil case nearly every month, with nearly no discovery going into them.

That’s really a lost world now, for the most part. Even when there’s a very poorly funded plaintiff there’s discovery, and a defense lawyer has no choice but to engage in it, even if the plaintiff does. And in a world in which there are lawyers whose business is suing lawyers, we’re now like the doctors where a “let’s take a risk and not do much” approach isn’t realistic for the most part.