- I think boutique firms might be the way to go. I spoke with an associate at a boutique firm the other day who much preferred his current situation to his previous employment at a big firm. He said that there was a palpable culture of fear in his previous office; the lawyers lived at the mercy of their clients and everyone was sort of afraid to move for fear of angering them. In contrast, he his current firm was one which encouraged him to take responsibility for his cases, and he said he was doing things now that he would have been made to feel was beyond him at the big firm because the firm didn't want the clients getting mad at them for giving work to an associate.

- M&A doesn't seem particularly stimulating. I recently spoke with a former associate in M&A who said that it was just drudge work. She said that any enjoyment to be derived from it came purely from the mystique of being part of a big deal, which didn't do it for her and I don't think would do it for me. My suspicions grew when I went to a talk by the head of Cravath's Environmental practice last week. I really liked the guy because he was very animated and obviously cared about his work, but when he described the actual work that he does it didn't sound like much more than giving the green light (no pun intended) to clients' big deals.

- If I was going to work for a big firm right now, I'd probably want it to be Simpson Thacher. In ThoughtsOnCommunity, Gavin suggested that big firms can be their own community. If this is the case, I think it probably looks like this. What a creative program! Also, they are helping to pay for my spring break trip to do legal work down in New Orleans, so I'm grateful for that. What do you guys think about this, though—is sponsoring a service trip for law students just a ruse, or the sign of a legitimate commitment to pro bono?

-- MichaelDreibelbis - 24 Feb 2009

I think pro bono is just a safety valve for biglaw so the associated don't feel that their whole law school studying is a total waste.

-- XinpingZhu - 24 Feb 2009

If a corporation (or LLP) is a person, and people are rational actors, and rational actors won't do a "deal" unless they believe they are getting a "bargain", then Simpson Thatcher must believe that enough law students will believe that they have a legitimate commitment to pro bono to enhance their recruiting ability and pay for itself in the long run.

Of course, if you don't believe that an LLP is a person, I still think this holds true.

-- WalkerNewell - 24 Feb 2009

Thanks for organizing this thread, Michael. I think it is useful in allowing us to formulate concrete ideas concerning what we can all do with our degrees upon graduation.

The Simpson Thacher approach seems like a genuine commitment to community development and pro bono work, but I guess what's troubling we can never really know for sure. While it may just be a recruiting tool that survived a cost-benefit analysis, I would suggest that it is a good one at that. The firm, just as easily, could have spent its money on another reception with free food and drink.

I'm wondering what you all think about the firms that designate associates to do pro bono work or that, alternatively speaking, bill the pro bono work of a general associate in the same way it would be billed for a paying client? I went to a panel the other day where a woman from a top New York firm (designated a 'Pro Bono' Associate) mentioned that the economic downturn and subsequent lack of work has caused a lot of firms to push their associates to keep busy by doing pro bono work. I'm sure we would all prefer that the firms were pushed to this level on their own, but in the case where they treat the work of the needy in the same energized and precise manner as they treat the work of the corporate client, are they doing enough?

-- UchechiAmadi - 25 Feb 2009

I agree with Walker. Law firms support programs like the spring break service trip because it makes their firm more visible. Similar to the reasoning behind the numerous invites we receive to fancy firm luncheons, dinners, and cocktail events, the firms’ incentive is simply to persuade us to select their firm over their competitors. Whether they genuinely have a commitment to public service is possible, however the underlying motive is to attract us to their firm.

-- UchennaIbekwe - 25 Feb 2009

Michael, I think providing practical opportunities is a great idea for a thread. However, our examples are predicated on a definition of good lawyering that may not be agreed upon. For instance, the boutique firm surely promotes less fear than at a big firm. But is a good atmosphere necessary to being a good lawyer? If the big firm's clients are parties with justice consistently on their side, does the culture of fear make that work any less "good"?

I do think that working without a fear of clients correlates with having (or being able to choose) worthy clients. Still, I believe being a "good lawyer" is slightly different. A proper atmosphere certainly facilitates a happier lifestyle. But this might be a different goal. (This thread discusses the distinction between a "meaningful" and "happy" life, analogous to my distinction of being a "good lawyer" and working in a "positive atmosphere.")

-- KeithEdelman - 25 Feb 2009

I would say that a culture of fear makes the work less good. Because what are the lawyers afraid of? Lack of promotion? Lack of job security? Being yelled at by the boss, or the client? If you have a lawyer who's primarily focused on avoiding that, I think s/he'd do a bad job. I would want a lawyer who isn't too scared to exercise independent judgment, if I needed a lawyer. I appreciate the distinction between "good lawyer" and "positive atmosphere," but I would guess there's a correlation.

Something else we might want to consider is the ability to choose your clients, which people are discussing in the "Is Being a Corporate Lawyer Immoral?" thread. Robinson prides himself on choosing his clients. How important is that? Is there any organization you can really trust to choose your clients for you, and be willing to surrender your autonomy to? Is a boutique law firm more trustworthy than a big one? (Maybe. I don't know.)

-- AnjaliBhat - 26 Feb 2009

Also, who else went to that "Life After Law School" talk a few weeks back? The one where the professor from UVA presented a longitudinal study on the satisfaction of lawyers 20 years after graduating. The study had all the standard problems of getting people to self-report on their own happiness, but otherwise I thought it was well done and well explained. One of the more interesting results was the government lawyers were the most satisfied. Public interest was second and small law firms a close third (with large firms a distant last).

Anyone know any government lawyers who have good things to say about their jobs?

-- AnjaliBhat - 26 Feb 2009

I know a number of 'happy' government lawyers, most of whom work for the City of New York, some of whom work for the federal government. However, I again think we have to distinguish between 'most satisfied' and 'good things to say about their jobs.' Government work can be very frustrating, because results come slowly, and you have very little control over your own work (I have close friend who has a high-ranking city government lawyer job and is nevertheless planning a move back to his small New England hometown to hang a shingle). Most of them are 'happy' not because of the work that they do, but because the geometrically smaller burden government work puts on them -- they can still see their spouses, their children, and their friends from time to time.

-- AndrewCase - 27 Feb 2009