Law: First Person

Today I had lunch with a current law student. She started the English program with me, but left for law school last year after she got her M.A. We were never close, but we were always friendly with each other. She was going into English renaissance stuff, so we were never on very similar paths. She did, however, use an old powerbook, and as Martha Stewart was wont to say, "That's a good thing."

All that helps put some perspective on what she told me, which was basically: Law school is like the Borg: If you go to law school, you will be assimilated.

She said the first year is about learning a new language, steep learning curve, adjusting to being one of the oldest in your class, having to put up with the go-go-go aggressive attitudes of the early-20-somethings who think they know everything, etc. She likes the class time (as I think I would—the whole Socratic method thing), but reading case law is a drag (no surprise). In short, the first year sucks, but she's hoping and nearly certain it will get better.

The important thing is this: She said she entered law school with the idea that she wanted to do public interest law, but after just one year she's now headed toward corporate BigLaw. Why the switch? She said she's tired of never getting paid well (she taught H.S. before coming to grad school), and it's awful to see all your peers making five times more than you (which is what will happen if you go into public interest law while all your schoolmates go to big firms). She tried fighting the system when she started, becoming indignant at all the hoops they made her jump through, resisting the awful writing they make you do (run-on sentences and other poor writing styles are mandatory, apparently), being appalled by the basic greed that motivated her fellow students. But then she realized that she'd just fail and/or be miserable if she kept fighting these things, and she asked herself, "What's best for me?" and she came up with the fact that she doesn't want to be in debt her whole life and she'd like to be able to help out her poor parents and it's not so bad to do 3-5 years of BigLaw in order to make enough money to do something she might prefer more. Oh, and it's ok with her to have to work 60-80 hour weeks in order to do all this.

*sigh*

Another story: She's heard stories about people interviewing for internships and law jobs. The interviewer asks: "Why do you want this job?" If you respond with some high-minded, idealistic answer about how you'd like to help people and/or make the world a better place, they'll look at you funny and say, "What else?" On the other hand, they'll nod approvingly and move on if you respond simply and directly, "I wanted to make money and this was the best and fastest way I found to do that." In other words, law sounds like it rewards a culture of greed and self-interest, which really explains a lot about how our world works. (Lawyers affect just about every facet of society in some way, and if they're all trained that greed and self-interest are good, then that's inevitably going to play a role in society as a whole.) And, if you stop to think about it, of course law rewards those who are willing to put their own interests ahead of all others: this is basically what you have to do when you work for a client. If your client wins, that's good for you, so whatever your client's argument is, you need to be able to make it your own and not get caught up in your own value hangups. But it seems that law would work best when your client's interests coincide with yours. What if lawyers refused to work on cases they disagreed with? Would the world be a better or worse place? (In light of the above fact that lawyers have learned that greedy self-interest is good, I imagine the world might be a much worse place. Sobering thought.)

According to my friend, only about 2% of law graduates go into public interest law. This is not surprising, but it seems to suggest that it would be easier to get a job in that field. On that note, however, she said the law career services office is basically designed to get people big-firm jobs in Chicago and if you want a public interest job you're really on your own. Great. And this is at a school that supposedly has a great, "top-10" public interest program. (She didn't seem to be aware of her own school's high ranking in this regard.)

One semi-bright spot: She said there are some law schools that will pay off your student loans if you go into public interest law. Apparently it works like this: If you take a public interest job that pays less than $30-35k/year, you'll get your loans reduced by 25% in your first year on that job, a little more in your second year, and so on until the loans are completely forgiven which could take 5-7 years. Sounds great. Sign me up! The problem: Those programs aren't exactly common.

What's funny about all of this (in a not funny at all way) is that none if it is the least bit surprising, and yet it makes me very depressed and sad. I mean, my friend only confirmed what I've read elsewhere and heard from others. So why did it bum me out so much? Why am I so determined to find some tiny flicker of good in law to hold onto? Is this some martyr thing where I want to go into a field where I will be constantly surrounded by people who disagree with me and who exert continuous pressure for me to become like them, to be assimilated? Why? I tried that with English—I heard all the bad stuff and I knew I wouldn't "fit in" with all that I'd heard, but I believed I could make a place for myself, I could hold my own and be the one who did it his way. That didn't work. I just became miserable. What would keep that from happening if I went into law? (Scary thought: The difference might be that in law I might actually be able to get a job and make a living. What would I think of English right now if I knew that I'd probably get a pretty good-paying job by "giving in" and becoming like everyone else and jumping through all the hoops? Would I want to do it? At bottom, is my frustration with English simply that there's no money in it? Ugh.)

Perhaps the question I need to answer is this: Is it possible to be an idealistic lawyer? Or is "idealistic" the wrong term? Why must it be "practical" to accept greed and self-interest above all other values? In fact, greed and self-interest are ideals in that it would be great if—in an ideal world—we could all be as greedy and self-interested as we want and not cause or suffer serious negative consequences. However, that's not the world we live in. Our greed and self-interest always comes at the expense of someone else, so we must, as a practical matter, consider others when making our choices in life. I know this is true. I know it. And if becoming a lawyer would force me to ignore this truth, then I would certainly be the most miserable lawyer ever.

So a question for you if you are a lawyer or law student: Is it possible for someone on the political left to become a lawyer without sacrificing his/her values? Can you be a lawyer with leftist principals (supporting the interests of workers over capitalists/managers, supporting environmental protections, civil liberties over "national security," in favor of universal health care, etc.)?

Posted August 12, 2002 08:44 PM | law general