|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Law Firm Receptions: The Creed Revealed-- By WookJinChung - 06 Mar 2015Why are we tempted to pawn?What is so tempting about a job at a big law firm? Is it the only the want of money, professional training, social pressure or some degree of job security? Or is also there something else that is obscuring our judgment about our careers after law school?What is the struggle?Eben’s argument against pawning license was alarming and convincing to me. I was also one of many who could only articulate the next step after law school in vague and high level terms. Nevertheless, there is a lingering sense of doubt--not in the idea against pawning license but my willingness to take up on the idea. I weighed and prioritized factors that constitute self-interest without success. When there are many elements to balance, the outcome can be anything. More often than not, we give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, and take the comforting route. We should not stop the inquiry just there--how to better balance factors that constitute self-interest. It does not challenge us to think deeper into why we are willing to pawn so easily. Contrary to this proposition, thinking deeper about the constituent factors of self-interest may not reveal much more. As we now come to see, rational thinking may not dictate our decisions; we may be more bound by subconscious workings of our mind. This is where my idea starts.An idea: we are not asking the right questions.The basic assumption when we chose an object is that we understand the object that we are going after--in our case, the day to day practice of law at a big law firm. Ironically, we barely know about the object, yet so willing to purchase that object. Superficial aspects associated with the object is not a true represented--160K salary, disproportionate work-life balance, types of assigned work, or the image of a fancy corporate lawyer. And yet the questions we are fixated with are only the superficial ones--what type of corporate work would I find passionate about or how does firm X’s culture differ from that of Y. The object, the practice of law at a firm, can be well understood by questioning the rituals and institutional habits. However, we do not dare to ask the meaning of the simple phrases and words the firm lawyers use to describe their practice of law (i.e., dedicated client service, great firm culture, passion for the work, etc). Control of the subconscious mind makes us to uncritically accept the creeds and the institutional habits of a big law firm. Even if we consciously recognize these as rituals and habits that supports the creed, we do not see the harm behind these words and phrases. They seem rhetorical and harmless. But are they really?(1) Client service.What exactly does it mean when lawyers say that their firm is dedicated to client service? Although the words “client” and “service” are plain, the real meaning is intuitively difficult to grasp. When I asked, some firm representatives described it as “putting client’s interest first”, which to me seemed to be just another way of saying the same this, and not explaining it. What is “putting client’s interest first” really mean? I have a take on this meaning from the three years that I observed at a management consulting firm founded by Chicago lawyers. What it really means is that you need to find a way that you do not compromises your values and intellectual integrity, but at the same time do not make clients angry. This is not an easy task; clients usually have clear goals and you are hired to make that goals happen. If a client’s goal and your integrity does not coincide, that is when the phrase “client service” becomes less plain and more threatening than when first heard at firm receptions. Trusted advisors do have certain obligations to dissent, but in reality it is reserved for extreme cases. As a work horse junior associate, you do not understand the full picture, and just by that fact, it is difficult to challenge and to overcome the push backs from the partners or the client. It is really not the long hours that drains a junior associate, but the lack of control and power over one’s integrity. The phrase “client service” is sacred words of lawyers and management consultants precisely because it is what you are left with in return of your great sacrifice.(2) Work is “fun.”I believe that to some law students M&A can be an interesting and potentially fun topic, and working on that matter can be one’s dream job. However, when you hear nearly all lawyers at law school panel sessions or evening receptions say its fun, you either start to believe that it may be actually be fun or get a sense that something is not quite right. Interestingly, this “fun” usually is mentioned right after some comment about the sacrifices you have to make working at a big law firm. It goes something like this: “you have to be really passionate about the work. I mean people are sometimes working around the clock or through weekends. But you know, it is lot of fun too.” It is a misnomer; it is referring to the satisfaction or the feeling of relief that you get after surviving through egregious 90 hours per week push to get the deal through. Working with personable colleagues that or on interesting subject matter may make the process less stressful, but the process itself is far from fun.(3) Cultural fit.A firm’s culture is also another popular theme that plays an important role in solidifying its creed. At a Texas law firm reception, I asked one hiring partner what were the proxies that show a firm’s culture. All the answers I previously received were either vague or generic--emphasis on diversity, client oriented work, collegial atmosphere. While another partner seemed to be interested to probe further, the hiring partner seemed vexed by the question. The gist of his response was that I needed to know my priorities and career goals to make that question relevant. Good lawyerly move, I thought, but what was it that made him so unwilling to take an earnest stab at it? My gut feeling is that if you probe this question further, at the core, lies the issue of how firm’s structure its hierarchy and what politics are played within a firm. It touches upon some thorny issues such as what it takes to make it to the top or why the rate of non-white male making an equity partner is disproportionately low. At the consulting firm that I worked at, the firm’s leadership prided on its flat hierarchy and emphasis on value--which obviously meant different things for different people. It implemented systems such as upward feedback and obligation to dissent so that an analyst like myself could evaluate partners or express opposing opinions without being disadvantaged. Regardless of such well marketed devices, it was clear to everyone within the firm that partner selection critically depended upon client platform--how many projects can you sell--and who can pound the table for you at the promotion meeting. The culture did make difference in terms of quality of life for junior levels, if you were serious about pursuing consulting within the firm, you had to sacrifice whatever to have client platform and play good politics with the old guys in the firm.ConclusionWhat is the value of the attempt of trying to pierce the veil of practicing law at a big firm? What is the take-away? Two things. First, whatever the reason is of pawning license, the decision should not be a naive one. Secondly, it reveals that the our conflicted attitude towards practicing law at a big law firm is not simply the result of internal moral conflicts. It is also the result of not asking the right questions to gain clarity of the object.You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
