Best Ways to Learn about the Profession Forum

[Karateka]

Hey,

I'm wondering what are some things that I can do to learn more about being a lawyer. I'd like to discover the actual tasks that different types of lawyers do. I spent a few hours reading the most popular ("most replies") threads in the Legal Employment section. I'm also lucky that through my college alumni network, I was able to talk to a couple lawyers (NYC V5 bankruptcy partner) and a PD that handles felonies. I also have quite a few friends in LS that spent summers SA-ing or as in-house legal interns. All these people were nice enough to sit and talk to me (and feed me) for about an hour each, and they shared a lot about interviewing, outlining, getting LR, stuff like that. But I'm still not entirely sure I can picture what lawyers actually do day-to-day. The PD let me briefly glance at a case and explained to me how they would go about handling it. I also sat in a class at CLS and regularly read SCOTUS Blog and one or two articles of HLR whenever a new issue comes out. Now, I would love nothing more than actually stalk an associate for a week and actually see what they do. Obviously this can't happen, so I'm asking for advice about how to get to know the job better besides what I have already done. I heard a good read for that is "Introduction to the Study and Practice of Law in a Nutshell"? Are there any other books I can read?

I think this craving to find out the truth about being a lawyer comes from the fact that I've heard so many horror stories about big corporate firms (especially in NYC) and mean partners. But all these people I talked to where genuinely nice and seemed genuinely happy with themselves and their jobs. I need to hear more about miserable aspects of the job (in BigLaw and outside) but I'm not sure how to do this. I applied to intern/volunteer at a few non-profit legal services organizations, but they want two full days of work a week, which I can't give. What are some other things I can do? Thanks

[banjo]

There's a Legal Employment thread about the day-to-day life of practicing lawyers. Have you already read it? http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=228583

Then there is the thread on the "fundamental problem with 0Ls": http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=227866. It has a ton of good links too, including this blog post: http://thepeoplestherapist.com/2012/10/ ... -bartleby/. Excerpt:

My second or third assignment at S&C had me reporting to a senior associate in the real estate group. I’ll never forget this guy (he haunts my dreams, and appears in several of these columns) – an obese, greasy-haired ogre with yellowed fingernails perpetually clutching a smoldering Marlboro.

On our first evening together, it became apparent we were the only attorneys assigned to this deal… and we were in for a late night. We ordered food – I remember an aluminum foil take-out container of eggplant parmesan – and were sitting in a conference room together, with said victuals, at around ten p.m. At which juncture I chose to deliver the following oration:

“It looks like we’ll be spending a lot of time together on this deal – so we might as well get to know one another. I never thought I’d end up on a real estate deal, but I guess why not? Anyway, I’m originally from New Jersey, grew up in the suburbs. You might hear a lot of jazz and classical music coming out of my office – those are my big passions. What are your hobbies in the outside world?”

The real estate ogre cut me off with a riposte as ingenious in its precision as it was elegant in its profanity.

“Do you think I give a fucking shit who you are or any of your bullcrap? Shut the fuck up.”

And so I did. I shut the fuck up.

Oh, and you can also work as a paralegal for a year or two after graduation.

[Karateka]

Thanks a lot! I read these. It was very informative and I enjoyed them a lot. Still, I feel a little bit like these discuss the conditions rather than the actual substance of the job. Even the most detailed posts (like the M&A post in the "Typical Day" topic) I feel did not truly explain what lawyers are actually doing. After hours and hours of reading about law school and the legal industry, and talking to a lot of people, I do feel like I still stumble trying to encompass what lawyers actively do.

To give an example, one of the part-time jobs that I held in college was library assistant. Three interesting things to say about this position would be that:
(1) shifts were distributed to students in two-hour increments, so that each work-study would work approximately 3 shifts a week
(2) main duties would include checking items to patrons and re-shelving returned books
(3) food, drinks, computer and excessive cell phone use were prohibited.

But the type of information I would actually like to know would be something like:
(1) 50% of a two hour shift is spent shelving books, and 40% of these books belong to shelves not easily reachable from a regular standing position.
(2) during a two hour shift, approximately 50 books are checked out through the use of X software and bar codes, and about 15% of the patron's IDs will have defective bar codes; their accounts will have to be accessed manually.
(3) while working at the circulation desk, 10% of the questions patrons ask will require fetching any of the 5 an actual staff members for an accurate reply.
etc...

So something more detailed, more quantitative, and less anecdotal, but I'm really not sure where to find this type of information. I don't think that I could in anyway qualify to be a paralegal. I also want to say I really did appreciate all that I could read here, I just would like to have more precise knowledge of the field before deciding whether or not I should quit my current industry and apply. I feel like even having read through thousands of posts here, and frequently reading ATL, I still lack fundamental understanding of the legal profession, and it feels irresponsible to apply to law school under such conditions, since I'm not sure that I will like any of the long-term job opportunities available to me; but at the same time impossible to know where to find such information. I realize this makes me look like a bit of a control freak. I just want information. Thanks

[BigZuck]

In my experience, when you ask a lawyer what a typical day is like for them, they either say "it depends" or "it varies" or "there is no typical day." And that's about it. Even if that's true, it's kind of annoying. But what are you gonna do?

[2transferornot]

all these people I talked to where genuinely nice and seemed genuinely happy with themselves and their jobs. I need to hear more about miserable aspects of the job (in BigLaw and outside) but I'm not sure how to do this.

Welcome to TLS.

[Karateka]

Would someone mind talking about their legal job in terms of tasks please? Or is there a book or article or something that compiles the different tasks that different types of lawyers are to perform, and some indication of their recurrence within a somewhat 'typical' week of work?

[anyriotgirl]

just popping in for my standard PSA that you need basically no qualifications to be a paralegal. I'm assuming that you have a college degree of some sort (or will have one). Your school probably has listings in its career services, and there are loads out there on the internet at large. Firms hire recent grads, train them for their purposes, they work for 1-3 years (usually 2), and then they send you on your way to law school.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Would someone mind talking about their legal job in terms of tasks please? Or is there a book or article or something that compiles the different tasks that different types of lawyers are to perform, and some indication of their recurrence within a somewhat 'typical' week of work?

I mean, I think the "day in the life" posts describe quite a lot of tasks - reading stuff, writing stuff, talking to people on the phone, talking to people in person. For some jobs, going to court to talk about what you've read and/or written, other jobs don't do this so much. Can you maybe be more specific about what you mean by tasks?

[Coprolalia]

Would someone mind talking about their legal job in terms of tasks please? Or is there a book or article or something that compiles the different tasks that different types of lawyers are to perform, and some indication of their recurrence within a somewhat 'typical' week of work?

Try reading 'The Partners' by James B. Stewart. I had questions similar to yours and I think this book gave me a good idea of what to expect; both good and bad.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Partners-Insi ... 0671420232

[Karateka]

Thanks a lot for these suggestions guys. Sure, here is what I mean by tasks.

For example, the M&A post from describes some of the challenges of drafting a fair merger agreement in these terms:

Lawyers draft the merger agreement to make sure there's an adequate allocation of risk between both parties. Buyer wants as stringent representations and warranties as possible, seller wants looser ones. In the litigation rep example above, suppose buyer wins the negotiation and gets the rep that company is not subject to any litigation. Then, seller might be in breach of the representation when the agreement is signed if the oral threat above was made, and therefore buyer would not be obliged to close the deal (which is huge) or, in cases where there is indemnification, may be able to seek money from seller to cover whatever liability results from ensuing litigation.

What I would like to comprehend is things such as what are the steps involved in creating a merger agreement from a blank page, how would a lawyer go about adequately allocating risk if they are not familiar with the functionality and/or products that the companies handle, how they would research the necessary information, and what time frame would all this occupy. And then things such as what are lawyers actually doing when they say they are writing memos, doing doc review or research, filing motions, etc...

[A. Nony Mouse]

Writing a memo means you're given some kind of discrete issue to address. It might be as broad as, "given these facts, what claims can the client bring?" or as narrow as "how has court x construed the 3rd clause of this statute." You usually get some kind of information about the client or the facts at issue. You go into online databases to read cases or legal treatises or law review articles (mostly cases or reference works that point you to cases) and you read them until you come up with an answer to what was asked. Then you write up that answer in a form that makes the answer clear to the reader.

You'll learn how to use the legal databases and how to format a memo in law school (or at your firm, if what they want is different from how your law school teaches it).

It can take very little time or a lot of time, depending on how big an issue you're researching.

A motion is basically asking the court to do something with respect to your case (you "move" that the court grant your request to admit evidence/exclude evidence/dismiss the case/etc.). So you file a motion with the court when you want to do something, not to have to do something, make your opposing party do something, or prevent them from doing something. There are lots of different kinds of motions, some stock and very short, some very long and individualized to the case. So they involve more research and writing, but often more marshaling of the facts in your case.

I don't know if that gets at what you want to know any better (I can't tell you anything about M&A because I don't know anything). Part of the problem with law school is that it's not going to teach you how to do most lawyerly tasks - you will have to learn them on the job.

[JoeLopez]

It can be really frustrating to get a serious answer about what a day in the life of a lawyer is like, but sadly it's the truth. You never know what you're going to get. A good way to get to know attorneys is to follow their blogs. Lots of attorneys have comprehensive blogs that will give you a bit of an inside scoop. A good example is this blog where each post has a little inside scoop regarding each case: http://www.floreslopez.com/blog/

[JusticeHarlan]

creating a merger agreement from a blank page

lol

[anyriotgirl]

creating a merger agreement from a blank page

lol

ctrl c

ctrl v

hth op

[JusticeHarlan]

Thanks a lot for these suggestions guys. Sure, here is what I mean by tasks.

For example, the M&A post from describes some of the challenges of drafting a fair merger agreement in these terms:

Lawyers draft the merger agreement to make sure there's an adequate allocation of risk between both parties. Buyer wants as stringent representations and warranties as possible, seller wants looser ones. In the litigation rep example above, suppose buyer wins the negotiation and gets the rep that company is not subject to any litigation. Then, seller might be in breach of the representation when the agreement is signed if the oral threat above was made, and therefore buyer would not be obliged to close the deal (which is huge) or, in cases where there is indemnification, may be able to seek money from seller to cover whatever liability results from ensuing litigation.

What I would like to comprehend is things such as what are the steps involved in creating a merger agreement from a blank page, how would a lawyer go about adequately allocating risk if they are not familiar with the functionality and/or products that the companies handle, how they would research the necessary information, and what time frame would all this occupy. And then things such as what are lawyers actually doing when they say they are writing memos, doing doc review or research, filing motions, etc...

Ok, to be moderately helpful, here's an anecdote:

I'm staffed on a new merger, where our client is being bought by a public company. The beauty of being opposite a public company is that they have to disclose their material agreements, which includes their larger merger agreements, to the public. I'm tasked with looking for recent(ish) merger agreements they've entered into. So I spend some time going though their past public filings (we subscribe to some good research services to let you search pretty efficiently through this), finding agreements they've entered into and distributing them to the rest of the team so they can take a look.

What are they taking a look at? And why am I doing this? Because the other side sent us the first draft of the merger agreement, and it's very favorable to them - that is, the risk is all on us. For example, there's a section of the merger agreement, called the "representations and warranties" or just the "reps", where our client is promising that some fact is or isn't true. Let's say there's a rep that says "Client is in compliance with all local, state, and federal labor laws." If we're not - say, they have a factory of employees who should have been paid overtime, but weren't - the other side can come after our client for the amount they'd pay to rectify this. The risk is all on us. So, we want to mark up that rep to make it a little less risky. Maybe I'll change it to, "To Client's knowledge, Client is in material compliance with state and federal labor laws." Now we've shifted some risk - violations we don't know about, violations of local laws, and non-material violations are now not our problem. Some risk is on the other side. And our position in marking up the rep like that is stronger if they know they've agreed to it before. Sometimes its really easy to mark up a rep to make it more favorable: add in those knowledge and material qualifiers (or delete them if you're on the other side). But sometimes it's more complex, like accounting reps, tax reps, IP reps, etc.

So, what's the "task"? I sit down with the merger agreement, and three or four similar merger agreements the other side has been part of in the past, and I go through each of 25 or so reps and see what language they agreed to there. What did they agree to for who gets what risk regarding defects in inventory? For violations of environmental law? Or for other sections of the merger agreement beyond the reps, such as conditions to closing (do they have to get all required third party consents, or just those for agreements above a certain dollar value? What dollar value?). My "task" is to propose edits to the merger agreements to those sections based on my reading of the other merger agreements.

But what makes this so hard of a question to answer is that maybe this will be my task on one merger, but on the next one I'm stuck doing diligence, where the "task" is reading all the documents the other side provides, just looking for "red flags" - anything that would make us less included to merge with that other company (maybe they have a huge liability under an old contract, or their key supplier can opt out if the merge with us and renegotiate the deal at a steeper price). Or on another merger I'll be drafting board consents, where I go through the list of every document or securities issuance our client needs to make to effect the deal and draft the resolutions the board has to approve in order for those documents and issuance to be valid corporate actions. And that's just one lawyer, doing one kind of practice. You're question is very hard to answer because there are a billion different "tasks" that folks in "the profession" do on a daily basis, and there's no one good source that can give you a good sense of all, or even a large percent, of it.

[minnbills]

Chances are you will stare at a computer screen all day.

[Karateka]

Many thanks for your helpful and detailed replies! I remember from ATL that working as a paralegal might not be one of the best ways to learn about the work of a lawyer, for many reasons (article is here: http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/law ... aw-school/). However, would you say that an internship at the DA or volunteering at a legal aid would be fruitful in the regard?

[BigZuck]

Many thanks for your helpful and detailed replies! I remember from ATL that working as a paralegal might not be one of the best ways to learn about the work of a lawyer, for many reasons (article is here: http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/law ... aw-school/). However, would you say that an internship at the DA or volunteering at a legal aid would be fruitful in the regard?

Might give you decent insight into being a lawyer if your goal is to become a DA or a legal aider.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Many thanks for your helpful and detailed replies! I remember from ATL that working as a paralegal might not be one of the best ways to learn about the work of a lawyer, for many reasons (article is here: http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/law ... aw-school/). However, would you say that an internship at the DA or volunteering at a legal aid would be fruitful in the regard?

I mean, the article argues that working as a paralegal won't help you *get into* law school, but it also flat out says that working as a paralegal *will* give you great perspective on what life is like as a lawyer. So that sounds like exactly what you were looking for.

[Karateka]

From the article:

The key advantage associated with being a paralegal is that you get an up front look at what being a lawyer is like. A preview of the life of a lawyer can be particularly helpful if you are a Biglaw paralegal because it may give you insight into whether or not you want to commit to the Biglaw life (long hours, unpredictability, etc.) However, you could get equally good insight by speaking to lawyers or perhaps doing an internship during law school. Moreover, as a paralegal you may only be exposed to one narrow area of law (say, immigration) that may turn you off to law altogether. Lawyers often end up in numerous fields and this one glimpse may not be enough to make an informed decision regarding your career.

But prior to this, they also say this:

One college student in the audience wondered whether a paralegal job would provide him with valuable “legal” experience. Generally, the consensus was that it would not. This is especially the case if you are a paralegal in a large firm where the administrative tasks will far outweigh any substantive experience. Some panel members did note though that they had jobs in the not-for-profit sector where paralegals gained valuable experience and performed tasks similar to tasks that lawyers perform. I have also seen this in smaller firms/companies where the paralegal was able to perform substantive tasks. But I would not generally describe this as the norm.

So I understood that they meant that it would offer insight as far what "being a lawyer is like" in appearance (firm environment, hours, type of clients, pace of the work, etc...) but once again nothing substantial as far as what the actual legal work entails. Honestly, I also like my current job too much to quit and go be a paralegal.

When I talked to the V5 bankrupcy partner about different V20 firms, they mentioned that even though "lifestyle" can be uniform across these (big picture), the legal tasks that a mid-level M&A associate deals with at let's say Sullivan and a mid-level M&A associate at Skadden are extremely different. Would you say that it's true?

Similar question between BigLaw, let's say something like litigation Boies and PD/Prosecution. Regardless of lifestyle considerations, what would you say are substantial differences between the actual work that people do?

[JusticeHarlan]

When I talked to the V5 bankrupcy partner about different V20 firms, they mentioned that even though "lifestyle" can be uniform across these (big picture), the legal tasks that a mid-level M&A associate deals with at let's say Sullivan and a mid-level M&A associate at Skadden are extremely different. Would you say that it's true?

No.

[A. Nony Mouse]

re: the difference btw the "appearance" of what lawyers do and the substantive work they do, some of the substantive stuff just isn't going to make sense without having studied law. But the surface "appearance" is stuff that's really important to whether you'd enjoy a given kind of job. It's true being a paralegal isn't the only way to find this stuff out, and it's not going to be a comprehensive overview of all law. But it's better than a lot of ways to learn about the law.

(I understand not picking up and leaving a good job, though.)

Civil and criminal litigation are COMPLETELY different. But a lot of the differences would be completely obvious in shadowing a PD for a day and shadowing a civil litigator for a day. (PDs spend a LOT of time in court, Boies/Schiller types don't. Civil litigation requires writing lengthy motions. PDs don't spend a lot of time writing. B/S people don't go to trial until there have been years of motions, attempts at settlement, and intensive trial prep. PDs can go to trial on one day's notice after talking to their client for about 1/2 an hour - not always, but when you're starting out, at least. New B/S associates work for midlevels who work for partners, and don't run their own cases. PDs run their own cases from beginning to end. The rules for civil litigation are very different from the rules for criminal litigation. Etc.)

I guess I don't understand how the "substantive" stuff is meaningfully different from the "appearance" stuff.

[LRGhost]

Honestly dude, you're not going to learn about the substantive parts of lawyering from asking people how they lawyer. Working in a firm as a para may help, it may not. You can shadow someone for a month but you won't feel their stress or really know their thought processes or the personal politics at play in their various, facially insignificant decisions.

If this is to get a better feel for the work you hope to do -- go work in a place where you think you'd like to end up. Even if you're not doing substantial work, you'll get a feel for how that specific office runs and how some of the work looks.

Also, it's rare that someone will volunteer to tell you that their firm and job sucks. People will exaggerate on the internet but it's also a safer space where you don't have to worry about something coming back to a superior. And the more you talk to people, the more you see that it's not the stereotypical yellers that come up. At most firms, those aren't really prevalent. The more common "horrors" are the people and personalities that are on the surface normal but in actuality are not. Remember, law school and parts of the legal profession are populated with super accomplished people. Say you did something cool with your weekend like ran a 5K or played ball in the park -- you'd be surprised how many people will talk about how they used to run 5K's or how they play in a very competitive rec league, etc. Or you get assignments on Thursday or Friday that are due early Monday but you see on the email chain that the work was known about far in advance. People won't talk about that over coffee because it's probably not something in the forefront of their mind about work. But if you're friends with them and hang out often, stuff like this comes up again and again and again and again and again.