The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

A continuation of the previous post because I was unable to post it all at once. In the last one I surmised that I'd end up living where the best opportunity ended up being. More on what that right opportunity might be:

Trying to find that right opportunity though is no easy task. First of all, it's extremely time-consuming to figure out who these firms are, what they do, and whether they have practice areas that sound plausibly interesting to me, as if I really have any good way to assess all that at this juncture. What I've been doing as I do my research is ranking each firm on a scale of 1 to 5. A 1 is a firm whose core practice is something I'm not interested in doing. In theory there are lots of firms that are like this, but I only bother to rank the ones that I've actually heard of so that it's easier to keep track. A 5 is a firm that for some reason exudes a certain something that makes me particularly excited about wanting to get an interview. Maybe it's the practice area, or something else about it's attitude towards its practice or the law. On the flipside of that impression, there are the 2's that might at first SEEM to be up my alley but for some reason turn me off to them and negate any incentive to even try. The IP firms that are clearly – some even say this almost exactly – all about maximizing companies' intellectual property assets, these seem like a depressing place to devote my skills. I'm really concerned, actually, that my idealism on the subject may make it very hard to find a position. First of all, I might appear too opinionated. This might particularly be a problem when the firm has litigated for a client on the "wrong" side of an issue. If I've been rabblerousing that the argument or the client was wrong, I don't think I'd be very attractive to the firm. I'm also concerned that, if hired, I might have to advocate on the "wrong" side for a client. I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile this dilemma and still find a good position where I can develop as a litigator and this is what keeps me up at nights.

But I notice that some firms are so large that they end up having multiple practice areas where I might be able to find work I like. This is particularly true if they work with international law. Although transactions aren't so interesting to me, conflict resolutions are. Some firms even have international IP focuses, so those usually end up ranked a "5". Also, some firms seem to clearly understand that there are two sides to IP: suing everybody, and defending against suits. The tighter and tighter IP laws get, the more of the latter is going to occur. This is why I pass over the firms who only get the former but if the firm acknowledges that defense is also part of the equation, they end up on my list as a 4 or 5. Also tending to be ranked at 5 are firms that do a lot of First Amendment law. Free expression is the most important freedom to me, and why I got into IP in the first place, so that's a kind of work where my passion and the client's interests can perfectly converge.

Then there are other annoyances mucking up the process. For some firms my grades are an obstacle. Some will only interview people with a certain GPA or ranking. For some the cutoff is ridiculously high, but I wouldn't want to work in such a snobby environment anyway. For others for whom I appear to be below the cutoff, it's very hard to take, especially if I've otherwise ranked the firm a 5. For the job fairs there seems to no limit to the amount of firms I can try to get an interview with, so if the firm was a 5, or sometimes a 4, I've applied anyway. To the best I can figure out, if they wouldn't interview me anyway because of my grades then I don't think there's a negative consequence to applying anyway, because even if they were to refuse to interview me because I didn't follow instructions, well, I still wouldn't have had the interview. Anyway, lawyers are supposed to be pushy so maybe it will work in my favor... For the on-campus interviews though there is a bid limit, but since there doesn't seem to be more than 5 firms I'd be interested in for each session, and there are only about 8 sessions, with the bid limit is 75, I'm not sure it hurts to apply then either, especially if I otherwise seem like a good match for the firm's work or am in the ballpark of the cutoff. At least I hope not.

Maybe the hardest thing is to figure out a good attitude to have and to be able to maintain it. Some moments it seems like there are no good firms, or at least none who will interview me, so I despair and start casting a wider net. There end up being more 4's when perhaps they should be 3's. Or I feel more compelled to apply to 3's (I don't apply to 2's though). Other moments I think some firms are perfect and I'm a match, but then maybe something causes me to despair, like the GPA cutoff. Meanwhile, I've never worked in a firm before, it's a bit hard to know what I want in terms of size, location, practice... I have to make my best guess and it tends to vary from moment to moment. I'm still figuring this law thing out and I'm still figuring myself out. I guess the right firm for me is the one who thinks that's ok. All it takes is one.

Written 7/24/04, not posted until 8/9/04 due to travel, then dated for 7/25 to keep the entries spread out.

Edit 8/11/04: There was an interesting article in the NY Times today, about ethics in lawyering. It considered the debate, at times taking place within law firms themselves, about the conflict between zealous advocacy of clients and perhaps promoting a greater social good. It's nice to know I'm not the only one facing this problem. Maybe the firm for me is one who has at least recognized it themselves.

Comments turned off on this post since it seems to be a favorite target of comment spammers.