Morality and BigLaw Forum

[ohiolawhopeful]

I have been doing a lot of searching lately on biglaw and one of the biggest things I hear from people in the industry is that it is not fulfilling and that it is sometimes difficult for them to feel good about doing. One of the biggest reasons I am looking to become a lawyer is because I want to advocate for people. I do not have a problem advocating for companies, but the idea of helping massive companies evade taxes or defending coal/oil companies in environmental lawsuits is something I could never do. Should I avoid biglaw entirely, or is there a way I can work in biglaw without going against my moral compass? Are there particular firms I should look for/be advised against working for based on this? Law school is expensive, and I cannot justify entering law school, devoting 3 years of my life to more school, and taking out a 6-figure loan only to make $45k as a public interest lawyer. What are my options? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[ghostoftraynor]

Maybe you will be the exception, but think you will find biglaw extremely unfulfilling based on your post.

In my experience, there are two philosophies re work. There are people who view work as mostly something to put food on the table (myself included). And, then there are people who feel like their work should be a part of some greater good or higher purpose. Most people also generally want work that is challenging and that they are good at. But, feel like those aspirations are generally common to the two camps.

People with the second philosophy generally hate biglaw and thinking of getting out as soon as possible. I don't think there is anything immoral about big law. Corporations need lawyers too. Its more amoral than anything. Outside of pro bono perhaps, you aren't going to be doing anything that really makes the world a better place. Sure on the macro level, society is better off with a developed legal system, but you could say that about most jobs.

[QContinuum]

I have been doing a lot of searching lately on biglaw and one of the biggest things I hear from people in the industry is that it is not fulfilling and that it is sometimes difficult for them to feel good about doing. One of the biggest reasons I am looking to become a lawyer is because I want to advocate for people. I do not have a problem advocating for companies, but the idea of helping massive companies evade taxes or defending coal/oil companies in environmental lawsuits is something I could never do. Should I avoid biglaw entirely, or is there a way I can work in biglaw without going against my moral compass? Are there particular firms I should look for/be advised against working for based on this? Law school is expensive, and I cannot justify entering law school, devoting 3 years of my life to more school, and taking out a 6-figure loan only to make $45k as a public interest lawyer. What are my options? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I'm not seeing anything in your post that indicates you want to be a lawyer. There are ways to do public interest as a lawyer without taking out a 6-figure loan - this is where getting a high LSAT score and going to school on a hefty merit scholarship comes into play. But, again, that only makes sense if you want to be a lawyer. If you want to "advocate for people", there are many ways to do it without being a lawyer.

For what it's worth, it's easy to avoid the specific "no go" kinds of work you cite above. Don't be a tax lawyer, and you won't get asked to help companies minimize their tax burden. Don't be a litigator, and you won't get asked to defend any environmental lawsuits. But again, it doesn't sound like you are generally interested in practicing law, so you shouldn't go to law school.

[Anonymous User]

Posting anon because slightly revealing info.

I think some of the reactions in this thread are a bit extreme. Just because you want to make enough money to pay off loans and you want to not defend corporations does not mean you do not want to be lawyer, just means you may not have realistic expectations.

I will say I was in a similar boat and decided to go plaintiff side. I do similar work to securities big law litigators with mostly similar comp and don't have to defend shifty corporate behavior. But I wouldn't go into law school with that path in mind since there aren't a ton of jobs available in that specific field.

[kaiser]

Keep in mind that your tenure in biglaw is likely just going to be a few years long. Its not the kind of environment that most lawyers stick with for their careers. So even if your time in biglaw is unfulfilling from a "purpose" perspective, you will still have many years to transition into a kind of job that provides more purpose and fulfillment. This is especially true if you have a low debt burden, and aren't reliant on the biglaw paycheck.

I myself took that approach after around 6 years in biglaw. While my work was often engaging and interesting, and while I had awesome relationships with my co-workers and clients, the work wasn't necessarily "meaningful" in the sense you are talking about above. I ended up making a move to an in-house role at a company whose mission is really meaningful to me. So maybe just think of biglaw as a temporary stepping stone to pay off debt, gain skills and a resume line that will carry you to something more meaningful afterward. God knows you wouldn't be the first to approach it that way.

[ClubberLang]

Honestly, it doesn't sound like being a lawyer is for you. The profession is about serving your clients and their interests, not about advocating for things you personally believe in. Maybe you could find a public interest organization that aligns with your beliefs, but they pay will suck. Based on the description you provided of your unwavering moral compass, and financial concerns, I don't see any good options in law for you.

[dabigchina]

There are so many other professions for that. For example, go be a doctor if you are smart enough or, if not, a nurse or physician's assistant. They get up every day with one goal, to fix broken people.

I know plenty of doctors who are disillusioned with the practice of medicine because of all the paperwork and the degree to which profit motive in the American healthcare industry has supplanted their professional judgment.

To OP - even people who don't really care about doing "moral good" think biglaw is spiritually unfulfilling because it's just so god damned dull. You would probably hate it.

[Pencilmoustaches]

There are so many other professions for that. For example, go be a doctor if you are smart enough or, if not, a nurse or physician's assistant. They get up every day with one goal, to fix broken people.

I know plenty of doctors who are disillusioned with the practice of medicine because of all the paperwork and the degree to which profit motive in the American healthcare industry has supplanted their professional judgment.

To OP - even people who don't really care about doing "moral good" think biglaw is spiritually unfulfilling because it's just so god damned dull. You would probably hate it.

I knew a doctor like this. They would complain that they couldn't override guidance and standard procedures. They wanted to act like Dr. House from that TV show with each patient, instead of doing their job. They didn't have much Aequinimitas either. They dropped out during residency.

[ohiolawhopeful]

Thanks for all this advice- I appreciate it. There seem to be some general questions about why I want to be a lawyer, so I’ll answer that. I want to be a lawyer as opposed to a doctor or any other profession because I am passionate about policy, how it is informed, why it works the way it works, and how it can be applied to better the lives of other people. I am particularly interested in public health law, so I was thinking something along the lines of the CDC or the FDA. Would this approach be worth considering?

[QContinuum]

Thanks for all this advice- I appreciate it. There seem to be some general questions about why I want to be a lawyer, so I’ll answer that. I want to be a lawyer as opposed to a doctor or any other profession because I am passionate about policy, how it is informed, why it works the way it works, and how it can be applied to better the lives of other people. I am particularly interested in public health law, so I was thinking something along the lines of the CDC or the FDA. Would this approach be worth considering?

Sounds like you should seriously consider doing (one of) an MPH, MPP, MPA, or MBA (in decreasing order of relevance to your interests), each of which would put you in a much better position than a J.D. in securing the types of health/public policy roles you're interested in.

A J.D.'s main purpose is to qualify the holder to take the bar exam and practice law. While it's possible to do advocacy or policy work with a J.D. (just as it's possible to do advocacy or policy work with an M.D. or a STEM Ph.D., which would actually be more relevant to health policy than a J.D.), the much more relevant degree is a public health, public policy, public administration, or business administration degree.

[ghostoftraynor]

Posting anon because slightly revealing info.

I think some of the reactions in this thread are a bit extreme. Just because you want to make enough money to pay off loans and you want to not defend corporations does not mean you do not want to be lawyer, just means you may not have realistic expectations.

I will say I was in a similar boat and decided to go plaintiff side. I do similar work to securities big law litigators with mostly similar comp and don't have to defend shifty corporate behavior. But I wouldn't go into law school with that path in mind since there aren't a ton of jobs available in that specific field.

Plaintiff work isn't any more moral than defense work. A lot of it is borderline frivolous to make corporations play blood money. Let's be real. I guess if you are the type of person that wants to make the world a better place through work, like I described, and are a true-believer that plaintiffs work is that, sure, go for it. but, that's also not generally biglaw, which is what the OP asked.

Sorry guys, accidental anon. Ghostoftraynor.

[ClubberLang]

Thanks for all this advice- I appreciate it. There seem to be some general questions about why I want to be a lawyer, so I’ll answer that. I want to be a lawyer as opposed to a doctor or any other profession because I am passionate about policy, how it is informed, why it works the way it works, and how it can be applied to better the lives of other people. I am particularly interested in public health law, so I was thinking something along the lines of the CDC or the FDA. Would this approach be worth considering?

The things you are passionate about are not things lawyers work on. And you don't need to be a lawyer to work at the CDC or the FDA.

Being a lawyer is about your clients' interests, not your own. If you think being a lawyer will help you pursue your passions, I'm afraid you'll be quite disappointed. There isn't any legal job that I'm aware of that isn't client focused.

Finally, I can't think of a place where someone passionate about policy would get more disillusioned than working in-house for a government health agency.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for all this advice- I appreciate it. There seem to be some general questions about why I want to be a lawyer, so I’ll answer that. I want to be a lawyer as opposed to a doctor or any other profession because I am passionate about policy, how it is informed, why it works the way it works, and how it can be applied to better the lives of other people. I am particularly interested in public health law, so I was thinking something along the lines of the CDC or the FDA. Would this approach be worth considering?

It seems like you want to be a lobbyist or work for a think tank, for issues that are important to you. Those jobs don’t require education or brains; just personal connections - in my experience. While two paragraphs is not enough information to make truly informed conclusions - you seem like the type who will go to law school and realize Very Quickly that this world is not what you thought and will drop out. Debt/reward (or satisfaction) ratio points to you choosing a different career.

[cavalier1138]

OP, I agree with others that you probably don't want to go into law, because the positions you're interested in are more policy-facing.

But also consider what it is about the "morality" of biglaw practice that most concerns you. Are you morally opposed to representing any corporation ever? Or just opposed to representing them in consumer class actions? If it's the latter, I'd strongly encourage you to look at what kind of lawsuits people bring against corporations. The vast majority of them (as suggested earlier) are suits engineered to generate a quick settlement, not Erin Brokovich affairs.

If, as your posts suggest, you're completely against representing a client's interests unless they align perfectly with your moral leanings, don't go to law school.

[leavingfirm]

Yes you should avoid biglaw if those are your reservations. But don't think you're going to be "advocating for people" doing plaintiffs suits or defending some piece of shit felon who's been in and out of prison the last 10 years or helping an upset divorcee tear apart the family.

Law is a business.

[LSATWiz.com]

Some of the attorneys who have the most impact on their client's lives are solely motivated by money. Those famous plaintiffs attorneys you see in the news aren't known for their empathy, but their clients don't care about that. If you're a working class guy disabled after a work injury, you care much less about how your lawyer's moral compass than in making sure you have enough money to care for your family.

Even public interest law will be less rewarding than medicine because doctors have a direct impact on their patient's reality while law operates based on socially accepted legal fiction. If you save someone's life in surgery, you directly save their life. If you get someone off death row, you need a network of people all of whom have a more direct impact on the case such as the judges and/or politicians to come out in your favor. In addition, the potential harm only existed because the accused allegedly violated some law we made up. The patient has a real harm that you're directly addressing. Further, you'll never know with 100% certainty that your client is innocent. You'll have to lie to yourself to provide the best counsel you can. With medicine you can be 100% sure you're doing something good.

Law is generally an unfulfilling choice if you're not comfortable being a cog in a wheel.

[nixy]

Further, you'll never know with 100% certainty that your client is innocent. You'll have to lie to yourself to provide the best counsel you can.

Sort of a tangent, but I’m always surprised by how widely criminal defense is misunderstood. The point of criminal defense isn’t defending the innocent; it’s holding the government to its burden. It doesn’t actually matter whether the client is factually innocent, and I don’t think most defense attorneys are lying to themselves about anything (at least, the good ones aren’t).

[objctnyrhnr]

Further, you'll never know with 100% certainty that your client is innocent. You'll have to lie to yourself to provide the best counsel you can.

Sort of a tangent, but I’m always surprised by how widely criminal defense is misunderstood. The point of criminal defense isn’t defending the innocent; it’s holding the government to its burden. It doesn’t actually matter whether the client is factually innocent, and I don’t think most defense attorneys are lying to themselves about anything (at least, the good ones aren’t).

Relatedly, my view is that criminal defense is only good for society in a macro sense. As nixy said, yes—it’s super important that as a whole, the government must meet an extremely high burden in order for us to perpetuate a just society (even if it means a number of factually guilty people walk).

Conversely, the vast vast vast majority of a criminal defense attorney’s clients will, I hate to say, be factually guilty. And a decent criminal defense attorney will be able to press the government’s burden in a number of cases that go to trial and, in fact, use it to get factually guilty defendants to be found not guilty a great deal of the time.

So in a micro sense, I think it’d be difficult to say that a criminal defense attorney does a service to society in each individual case in which a factually guilty drunk drive/rapist/you-name-it walks free absent consequence (likely to commit the same crime again). That all being said, it’s an inevitable consequence of the system which, on the whole, is ultimately very good for society...and criminal defense attorneys are perhaps the most important cog in that wheel.

[cavalier1138]

Further, you'll never know with 100% certainty that your client is innocent. You'll have to lie to yourself to provide the best counsel you can.

Sort of a tangent, but I’m always surprised by how widely criminal defense is misunderstood. The point of criminal defense isn’t defending the innocent; it’s holding the government to its burden. It doesn’t actually matter whether the client is factually innocent, and I don’t think most defense attorneys are lying to themselves about anything (at least, the good ones aren’t).

I was really disturbed by how many law students (a number of whom had worked in PD offices) I met that didn't understand the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt. A lot of people justified defending [insert heinous criminal here] on the basis that if the government hadn't proved its case, the person wasn't actually guilty of the crime.

I sometimes wonder if they already burned out.

[objctnyrhnr]

Further, you'll never know with 100% certainty that your client is innocent. You'll have to lie to yourself to provide the best counsel you can.

Sort of a tangent, but I’m always surprised by how widely criminal defense is misunderstood. The point of criminal defense isn’t defending the innocent; it’s holding the government to its burden. It doesn’t actually matter whether the client is factually innocent, and I don’t think most defense attorneys are lying to themselves about anything (at least, the good ones aren’t).

I was really disturbed by how many law students (a number of whom had worked in PD offices) I met that didn't understand the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt. A lot of people justified defending [insert heinous criminal here] on the basis that if the government hadn't proved its case, the person wasn't actually guilty of the crime.

I sometimes wonder if they already burned out.

Having spent some time with this population of lawyers myself, this observation doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. The kool-aid can be VERY strong.

In my experience, people who work for the public defense entity are often smarter and naturally better lawyers relative to better call Saul style “duty” public defenders BUT they have a very difficult time sobering up off the kool aid (even for a quick moment) and I’ve seen this issue hurt them and their clients in a number of cases. By contrast, “duty” public defenders are typically pretty weak lawyers but they understand their role in the justice machine and their pragmatism often pays dividends.

[HooDat]

They way I'm starting to view it is your career is analogous to any other relationship. You have needs, some of them external, some internal, that need validation. A satisfying career is "good enough" in all of these boxes. Big Law is "great" in compensation, but for most (though, not all), provides not enough emotional fulfillment. And it gets in the way of pursuing other relationships and hobbies that are fulfilling.

Specifically to moral, that depends entirely on your value system.

[objctnyrhnr]

They way I'm starting to view it is your career is analogous to any other relationship. You have needs, some of them external, some internal, that need validation. A satisfying career is "good enough" in all of these boxes. Big Law is "great" in compensation, but for most (though, not all), provides not enough emotional fulfillment. And it gets in the way of pursuing other relationships and hobbies that are fulfilling.

Specifically to moral, that depends entirely on your value system.

In my view it only works if you get fulfillment from the exercise, itself. Personally, I love litigation. I love creativity in arguments, researching, writing, strategy, arguing orally, talking through issues etc. I have never had to question the morality of my civil clients’ behavior (luckily, though I know others in my firm and peer firms who have) which has made it easier...but even if I did for 10% of cases, I believe that the very act of litigating would continue to get me through.

[gekko]

I'm concerned about your aversion to helping corporations "evade taxes" as a moral issue. Assuming you would not aid in illegal activity, what you mean is tax avoidance but even so, do you actually think it is the "moral" path to intentionally pay more than legally required as an individual or corporation? Where's the best place to take this money from? The dividends of shareholders to whom you have a fiduciary obligation? Your employee salaries? The quality of goods or services provided to consumers? You think corporations should just wing it and pay what "sounds right" if higher than actually letter of the law? What exactly would the moral option for you be if left to your own devices in such a context free of external pressures from a supervising employer?