Is practicing law (aka drafting contracts, memos, briefs) less miserable than writing a legal "academic" article? Forum

[Anonymous User]

My article for submission sounds sorta like a memo/brief I guess. Summarizes A, argues for B, concludes C. I'm trying to clear 10k words in 7 days and this is pure misery, even though it's a topic I find somewhat interesting.

Is "practicing law" something to look forward to then? Just churning out MTDs, MSJs, etc. Or "structuring" a deal so as to comply with 9 conflicting caselaw rules and 47 regulations, all designed to protect Joe in the investor.

I'm honestly curious because I can't imagine it being worse than this.

[zot1]

The thing is that "practicing law" means a whole bunch of different things depending on what the person is actually doing. For example, my practice is diverse and it involves both transactional and litigation work. For example, today I looked at some discovery requests in the morning, then had a meeting regarding some employee issues (I do some labor work), then I did some research to prepare for a later meeting, then drafted a letter for an employee matter, then I read a recent environmental decision that was a little long but relevant to my practice, then I had a big meeting right before my day was over. It was a pretty chill Friday. But you know, I also had a day the other day where all I did was work on a motion to dismiss. I'm also in government, so my day looks different than someone in big law or at a DAs office. Sorry for the rambling but I hope that makes sense. For the record, I loved law school (even 1L), and I think practice is 1000 times better, FWIW.

[TTTooKewl]

My article for submission sounds sorta like a memo/brief I guess. Summarizes A, argues for B, concludes C. I'm trying to clear 10k words in 7 days and this is pure misery, even though it's a topic I find somewhat interesting.

Is "practicing law" something to look forward to then? Just churning out MTDs, MSJs, etc. Or "structuring" a deal so as to comply with 9 conflicting caselaw rules and 47 regulations, all designed to protect Joe in the investor.

I'm honestly curious because I can't imagine it being worse than this.

In my opinion, academic writing is the worst, despite that I find the topics of academia stimulating to discuss and think about. Although I've only summered at a firm, doing M&A work was enjoyable. It's part of a totally different ballpark, though, than academia. I wanted at least to correct one assumption, and generally to share my experience. At the associate level, M&A (in my limited experience) seems to have very little to do with complying with case law or regulations--that occurs at higher levels. Associates don't decide how to structure a deal, and spend little time looking into regulations or case law. It's more about diligence (looking for conflicts in a client's or target's contracts / bylaws and other org docs); overall deal organization (there are a ton of documents and parties involves, and everything has to be perfectly recorded); and precision in language (in drafting provisions--which at the junior level with be ancillary documents like NDAs and at the midlevel could be the actual merger agreement). It's more real-world, at least in that you are exposed and are sensitive to your client's business activities and business goals. Theoretically, it seems to me that M&A work is less interesting--the issues aren't as complex, and you aren't considering how best to change society for the better. But, for whatever reason, I thoroughly enjoyed it (for whatever reason, my brain just enjoys the work). Others, of course, hate it. And I suspect I wont' like it when I'm forced to do it 70 hours a week. Anyway, OP, just wanted to share my experience.

[hdunlop]

Tag bc I care about the answers to this

[DrGuano]

In your typical M&A deal, caselaw and regulations play very little role in "structuring" a deal.

Business points are driving 99% of what you're "structuring", about 75% of which is usually tax driven. It's nothing like academic work whatsoever.

[baal hadad]

Im a litigator and nothing I write even comes close to the idiocy that is law review articles

[jarofsoup]

If you are a litigator you may have the pleasure of writing an academic article if you hit a slow time at work or if you make friends with a partner who likes to publish. So you do not escape this.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There are lots of litigators who never write academic articles. And litigation writing is different from academic writing (it's more like LRW, although having your own set of real facts makes it much more interesting).

Of course, I think most people don't write 10k words in 7 days. No judge wants to read 10k words.

[fats provolone]

as a patent litigator you get to write hundreds of pages of expert reports that will get cited a lot but never actually be read. that strikes me as a lot like academic writing.

[Johann]

Most of what I do is write memos. I basically show up and crank out ten pages a day of writing. Lots of jobs are different but I can't imagine being in my spot and not liking to write.

[Anonymous User]

Most of what I do is write memos. I basically show up and crank out ten pages a day of writing. Lots of jobs are different but I can't imagine being in my spot and not liking to write.

I can like writing short story fiction for example. But how can you enjoy writing about Section 745(2)(g)(iii) every day?