« Conference: Public Service and the Law | Main | Gifts that Keep On Giving »
Public Interest Law: It's Not About You
In a rough draft of an article about why he's not going to work at a firm, Jeremy Blachman recently wrote:I actually haven't heard that argument before—that public and private interest law are really the same except that one pays better. Is that really an argument people make to justify working at a firm? While Jeremy is right that there are lots of other things to do besides public interest legal jobs or working in a firm, there are also many more (and more important) differences between public and private interest law besides the money. First, I know lots of public interest lawyers and most of them do not work anything like the same brutal hours that firms are notorious for. They get paid less, sure, but their “benefits package” often includes good health care, a casual dress code (so they don't have to waste money they don't have on clothes for work and can wear what they find comfortable rather than what the partners or clients expect or demand), more flexible vacation time, and shorter hours. And, of course, one big benefit of working in the public interest is that you're more likely to be able to go home at night feeling proud of how you spent your day because you did something good for society. And that's just it: The most important difference between public and private interest law has nothing to do with what it does for you, the attorney. No, the real difference between these two career paths is what they do for other people. Simply put, if you work in the private interest, your clients will be mostly people with money trying to keep that money or get more of it, and the purpose of their litigation will often be their own private gain. Another term for private interest law (not all of it, but too much) could be: Greedy Law. On the other hand, if you work in the public interest, your clients will mostly be people without money trying to get justice or protect themselves from people with money, and the purpose of their litigation will often be the maintenance and protection of their own basic civil and human rights. Another term of public interest law could be: Public Protection Law. (I would include the dread “trial lawyer” or “plaintiff's attorney” in this category, as well.) So when someone suggests that private and public interest law are really the same except that one pays more, that's just not true. One attempts to make the world a better place for whoever can pay the most, while the other attempts to make the world a better place for all of us. And a good way to see the difference is to stop asking what a particular job can do for you, and ask instead what a job could allow you to do for other people. That makes the differences more clear for me, anyway. Disclaimer: I know there are thousands of terrific people working in firms and other “private interest” legal jobs who are doing great work that both pays well and also makes things a little better for all of us. Not all private interest jobs are “bad,” nor are all public interest jobs “good.” The above differences are generalizations made for the sole purpose of helping to clarify what appears to be some confusion about the differences between the two career paths.I have heard people defend their decision to work at a law firm by comparing it to public interest work. That you work the same hours doing the same kind of work but you get paid a lot less and don’t get free coffee. I might try and argue that there’s public interest work that’s more rewarding than firm work, because you might feel like you’re doing more good for the world. That might not be a very good argument. Even if it is, I’m not the right one to make it. Other people can make it better than I can. My argument is that even if that’s true, it misses the point. Even if law firms come out on top if you compare them to public interest jobs, it doesn’t matter. Because these aren’t the only jobs out there. There’s a whole world of other things people do. I feel like it’s easy to forget that. And if practicing law is your passion, maybe it’s okay to forget that. Maybe that really is the entirety of the universe of jobs that interest you.
Posted November 23, 2004 11:20 AM | law general
Thanks AI, that was inspiring. :)
Posted by: falconred at November 23, 2004 12:20 PM
I think you should perhaps consider another disclaimer: that the distinctions you make are generally more applicable to the traditional student (young and childless) rather than the nontraditional student.
When you are investigating career options for women with children, things look different. My primary concerns:
1) Flexibility - Can I work from home? Can I leave early, spend time with my family, and then work at night from home?
2) Family leave policy - Is there family leave available above the legally required leave?
3) Hours - are the hours truly reasonable, or are they just sold that way?
4) Other working mothers - are there other working mothers? Women partners with kids?
5) Type of work - is this the kind of work that I would be proud to tell my child that I do?
6) Pay - Can I raise my family on the salary I receive?
I've spent a lot of time talking with other lawyer mothers in an effort to decide where I end up eventually. The consensus seems to be that mothers are best off either at large firms or large government funded public interest offices. Why? Because those both have something in common: they are large, and therefore more willing to absorb the costs associated with providing flexible hours and parental leave when women* have kids.
The problem with many public interest firms and positions (and this is a much broader societal problem) is that they are extremely underfunded. Not only does this lead to low pay, it also leads to less ability to provide working mothers with flexibility.
It's a tricky question. Both the firm I worked for and the judiciary had working mothers, and both had arguments for and against working in those locations.
* Yes, fathers have kids too. But in our society, it's women who are predominantly penalized for having children and attempting to support their families at the same time.
Posted by: transmogriflaw at November 23, 2004 01:09 PM
Nice post. I commented about it at my own blog. Click here to read my post on your post.
Posted by: JR at November 23, 2004 02:14 PM
"I think you should perhaps consider another disclaimer: that the distinctions you make are generally more applicable to the traditional student (young and childless) rather than the nontraditional student."
I don't know that is true... I'm a "non-traditional" student, and those factors are applicable to me. And my wife is an attorney who does not work for a larger firm specifically because the large firms were actually much more *hostile* to our family goals. The same seems to be true of her female friends who are at large firms--yes, they have flexible family leave policies, but the unspoken truth is women who use it are looked down on at most of the larger firms her friends are at. A close friend of hers took a full *week* of maternity leave, and then hired a nanny (which I personally disagree strongly with). Her rationale though was that sure, she could take more--and kiss ever making partner or getting case work that wasn't shite goodbye.
The compromise that's worked well for my wife (and that I'm seriously considering as well) was solo practice. She does a pretty healthy mix of well paying real-estate law and pro-bono/chancery work. It doesn't have to be *all* Biglaw or *all* Public Interest. I think balance is possible.
Posted by: -Dave! at November 23, 2004 06:20 PM
Well said, AI!
Posted by: blonde justice at November 23, 2004 07:13 PM
Excellent post!
Posted by: Ex at November 23, 2004 08:37 PM
Good post! I'm still torn between true public interest (PD's office, ACLU, Legal Aid, etc.) or as you nicely call it, Public Protection law. There's a discernible difference in the money you can make in those two areas, though, depending on how much visibility the PI firm has. I've worked for plaintiff's lawyers for about 9 months now and I really like the work. They also do work for the ACLU and Legal Aid so I could get the best of both worlds there if they keep me around.
What pushes me this direction even more is the attitude I've been hearing from some people (in meatspace and in the blogosphere) that only corporations need and/or are entitled to lawyers. That really pisses me off.
Posted by: Steve at November 23, 2004 10:07 PM
AI,
I think you're on to something, but that your dichotomy between private interest Greedy Law and public interest Public Protection Law needs a bit of development. The attitudes that you criticize follow in part from a sense some lawyers have that the distinction is not as clear as you suggest.
You no doubt have lots of other things to be doing this close to exams, but I would be interested in knowing how you would classify the following -- private interest Greedy Law or public interest Public Protection law:
1) Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the criminal side, who prosecutes civil rights abuses.
2) Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the criminal side, who prosecutes narcotics cases with harsh mandatory minimum sentences.
3) Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the civil side, who defends the government against civil rights lawsuits.
4) Associate at a small law firm that specializes in criminal defense work, mostly with paying clients.
5) Associate at a small law firm that specializes in criminal defense work, mostly indigent clients.
6) Associate at a big national law firm in the white collar criminal defense practice, with all paying clients.
7) Associate at a plaintiff's side class action law firm that sues product manufacturers for allegedly defective products in order to get millions in attorney's fees -- assume most of the products are actually defective in some way.
8) Associate at a plaintiff's side class action law firm that sues product manufacturers for allegedly defective products in order to get millions in attorney's fees-- assume none of the products are actually defective.
9) Associate at a private law firm that defends companies against class action product liability lawsuits -- assume none of the products are actually defective.
10) Solo practitioner who does general civil work, including trusts and estates and real estate transactions.
11) Lawyer at a conservative/libertarian non-profit group, funded largely by billionaires, that is committed to ending affirmative action.
Posted by: Orin Kerr at November 24, 2004 12:27 AM
devils advocate thing: I'm not convinced that public interest law and private practice law are so different. they really consist of attempting to work the system to the advantage of your constituency. the difference is, private interest lawyers have generally met their clients, while the clients of public interest lawyers are more abstract. district attorneys are pursuing an agenda as much as any private-sector law firm. and did it get it wrong somewhere, aren't all lawyers, theoretically at least, working for justice, working to defend the law?
yikes
Posted by: matt at November 24, 2004 12:36 AM
Hmm. Definitely much to ponder here. First, I agree that there's no such thing as a clean and simple binary, as I said in my post. Public interest law is not purely "good," and private interest law is not purely "bad." We all probably have different ideas of what all those things mean, anyway. What's good, bad, or in the public interest? Are DAs or US Attorneys working in the public interest? There's a way to say "yes," which is that if you're working for what you define as the "greater good," then you're working in the public interest. But then, those associates at firms who are litigating class action product defect cases where none of the products are defective (Prof. Kerr's example #8) might think that it's somehow in the public interest to screw corporations out of money whenever possible, and while there's support for such an argument, lots of people would say that these lawsuits are bad for society.
But, and so, perhaps this is why so many lawyers fall back on a sort of moral relativism and simply say something like "everyone deserves representation and justice depends on both sides of any dispute advocating zealously for their client's interests." There's a logic to that, as well, but it's ultimately unsatisfying because it allows the #8 attorney (on list above) to claim to be just as ethically/morally correct as the #7 or anyone else.
But again, even though there will never be one definitive answer to the question, it still seems useful to consider the question for each of the above examples: What does this work do for other people? What does this do for the public interest? We won't agree on the answers, but those questions will probably lead to more interesting and important definitions of "public interest law" than the simple distinction with which this whole discussion began, namely, that the only difference between public and private interest law is that one pays more.
Posted by: ambimb at November 24, 2004 10:37 AM
Transmogriflaw: Good point that everyone has different things to think about when they're thinking about which job will be best for them and their situation. I would only say that lots and lots of public interest organizations will do everything they can to respect your family choices. Part of the point of the best of these organizations is that we should put human values (including health, family, sanity of workers) above other values (like profit). So while these organizations may not pay as well, they might surprise you with their benefits packages. And if it's true that larger orgs have better packages, there are lots of multimillion dollar nonprofits that both pay well and offer great benefits. It's sad that such jobs might be more difficult to find than are firm jobs, but that may be the case...
Anyway, I want to reiterate that I would never claim that working in a firm is some kind of moral transgression. My basic point was just that money is not the only difference between public and private interest law....
Posted by: ambimb at November 24, 2004 10:46 AM
i think the main difference, as you have pointed out, ai, is greed. like in prof. kerr's examples 7, 8, and 9, i don't think it matters whether the products are defective or not -- what really matters is whether the lawyer is in it for the prospect of personal millions.
and that's probably why i would classify #11 as public interest also - it's for the betterment of society, and most likely the lawyer will feel that the work is fulfilling and important, even though they don't end up with millions out of it. the fact that it's funded by billionaires is a red herring - the lawyer isn't a billionaire, and isn't doing it for the money. it's like working on soros-funded impact litigation.
i think goverment lawyers would be more often "public interest" than not, because they're not getting much personal monetary gain compared to lawyers at large firms. this is notwithstanding the fact that i generally find myself on the side of the defendant, the discrimination victim, or the indigent.
Posted by: monica at November 24, 2004 11:19 AM
