I'm going to break my own convention and post twice in one day. I wanted to write about why a Big Firm might be a good place for me, despite their possible requirement of cog-like performance.
I came to law school because I wanted to do important things. There are firms who also do important things, who are on the vanguard of technology law, for instance. Blog-debate aside, I don't think all big firms are the place for me but some might be great and empowering. I imagine there are big firms who might appreciate a demonstration of intellectual independence, just as there are some who would also appreciate that I've had professional experience prior to school. Not all do, certainly, but I have no reason to believe that the population of Big Firms is so homogenous that there might not be one out there that could be a fit.
In doing my research I've taken a look at some of the cases the firms have taken, or case studies they've written. The firms that brag about having written the DMCA (bad law with bad consequences) I've resisted applying to, but there are some out there who tout how they've defended people under it. It's those kinds of firms that I'd like to pursue.
The blog is a red herring anyway. This is a very strange job application process. In no other circumstance have I essentially needed to tell a potential employer, "I have no idea how to do the job you are hiring me for. Could you hire me anyway and pay me $125,000 while I learn?" I don't want to be just a cog - to continue to overuse an oversimplified shorthand of the stereotypical summer/new associate experience - because I don't want to deprive my employer of the actual value I can deliver. I guess that's partly why I'm finding the blog controvery so surprising. I suppose I thought that the blog would help advertise the fact that I'm willing to be something more, and I thought that someone would see that as desireable.
The other source of my distemper is that if the blog really needed to have been removed, BEFORE I bid for umpteen job interviews might have been a good time to have had this suggested.
But really, attitudes on this don't seem to be unanimous. There is an increasingly loud chorus of removal advocates piping up lately, but there are others, including another counselor, who said that as long as I didn't mind having it read, I could leave it on. That logic resonated with me, so here we are.
By the way, readers are invited to share their thoughts in the comments section if they would like. You don't need to give your true email address or identity if you prefer - the comment spammers I keep having to delete certainly don't - but if you could post in a way that I would know who you are that would be good. Particularly if I DO know who you are, in real life. Otherwise anonymity is fine, no problem...
Edit: I emailed this guy for his opinion. His initial response is on his blog.
Comments (1)
Cathy...
Big firms, indeed essentially all law firms, are in the business of protecting their client's interests. This means that if they are representing a client that owns a lot of intellectual property rights, the law firm is in the business of defending those rights and asserting their broadness. Conversely, when representing a client who doesn't own a lot of rights, they are in the business of either obtaining rights (to give their client the edge) or minimizing the rights of others (so their client has the maximum freedom of action).
While individual lawyers may have their personal opinions of how the intellection property system should work-- those opinions don't really enter into the equation. If the client is willing to pay, and has the slightest shred of an argument, just about any firm would be equally willing to take on Disney's defense of its ancient Micky Mouse Copyrights as much as they would a defense of a company trying to implement a "shopping cart" function. The main goal (and essentially the only goal)is to make the legal system work for the client. Ideology really only gets in the way-- especially to the extent a lawyer feels so strongly about their idology that they can't set it aside when a case (or a client) requires it.
This is especially true for young associates. The ratio of intellectual work to scut work in a litigation firm is incredibly tilted towards scut work. Thus, the senior lawyers, with the experience, do almost all of the work that requires judgement or expertise. Junior lawyers take care principally of discovery work and basic research. Ideology and creativeity aren't especially useful in either of these tasks-- whats useful is dedication, good judgement, a willingness to do vaste amounts of work, and a degree from a good school so that the firm can justify their high hourly rates.
What a firm needs from a young lawyer is the ability and willingness to obsess over these mundain tasks for years while eventually picking up the skills to do more important work. That's why having strong opinions on the subject matter of IP (and possibly appearing as though unable to set them aside) is such a red flag.
My guess would be that the primary difference between the firms harping their work on DMA and the firms stressing their defense of actions under the DMA is that some of the firms happened to get hired by old big businesses, and some happened to get hired by scappier ones-- but I don't think that this reflects a real difference between the firms and their ideology.
Mark
Posted by Mark | September 10, 2004 3:46 PM
Posted on September 10, 2004 15:46