Everything In Law School Matters

David Feeder, Esquire

Dave is a former Biglaw attorney and colleague who will periodically be a guest blogger on "Law School: Success & Careers

 . . .Let’s start with the Admiral Stockdale questions: “Who am I? Why am I here?” [And if you aren’t familiar with that reference, it’s ok… I’ll wait a few minutes while you google it.] As to question 1, you should know this from the outset: I am not a blogger, and this is my first ever blog post, guest or otherwise. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

So who am I? Here is how my Twitter bio answers the question: “Colorado Attorney. Litigator. Trusted Advisor. Husband. Dad. Australian Shepherd Owner. Broncos/Rockies Fan. Not necessarily in that order.” A tip of the cap to Twitter is particularly apropos because it is also the answer to question 2.

To be entirely accurate, I am writing this piece because Phil Guzman asked me to, and I am always happy to help a friend. And the only reason I am fortunate enough to count Phil as a friend is because of Twitter. Shortly after I signed on to Twitter about two years ago I started following Phil. His tweets were interesting and engaging, and he writes as much about baseball as he does legal issues. Surprisingly, Phil did not block me, and he even followed me back. Shortly after we connected in cyberspace, we talked on the phone – yes, people still do that – and got to know each other a little better. Phil quickly became and has remained one of my favorite people on Twitter, despite the fact that he is a diehard Yankees fan.

So when Phil started his blog and sent an email asking whether I would consider writing a piece for it, I responded immediately and happily agreed. I then realized what I had just done, and called Phil and asked, “What exactly do you want me to write about?” Phil described his vision of creating and facilitating a dialogue regarding law school and the legal profession, and how he wanted to include post-law school perspectives in the discussion. Having attended and graduated from law school (the University of Minnesota) and practiced law for several years (at both national and local law firms), I appear to satisfy Phil’s baseline criteria (which I note did not include “interesting”).

So here I am. And here it goes:

EVERYTHING IN LAW SCHOOL MATTERS

After considering the assignment, I jotted down some initial thoughts that might be relevant to those in law school and preparing to enter the legal profession. The following topic/conclusion resulted: Everything in law school matters. More specifically, everything that you do during law school potentially impacts your ability to become an attorney (obtain a job in the legal profession).

And before going any further I will fully acknowledge that the current dynamics of the job market for entry level attorneys are very difficult, and different than when I was in law school (although it was tough then too). My opinions may be completely irrelevant. I am also not in any way suggesting that I have any secret knowledge or magic bullets that will allow aspiring attorneys to land legal jobs in this market.

THE BIG PICTURE: HIRING DETERMINATIONS & HARSH REALITIES

But regardless of market dynamics and global economics, the basic objective of most law students has remained and will remain constant: they want to earn a living practicing law. Except for those who become self-employed, achieving this objective will require convincing someone to hire them to work as an attorney. 

My experience is in the law firm context, but I believe that my observations apply fairly broadly. While there are myriad approaches, criteria and preferences utilized by personnel evaluators, the bottom line determination regarding hiring decisions for new attorneys typically focuses on the following questions:

1)      Does this person have the potential to become an effective attorney (in general and in the specific context of the employer’s practice/business), and

2)      Are they worth investing the time and resources required to get them to that point?

A necessary element in this determination is the risk that the new attorney may not develop the desired skills, or may not stay long enough to provide the employer the desired return on its investment.

A couple of side notes. First, the issues I have identified are essentially “business” considerations. They are not unique to attorneys, and attorneys are not immune from them and should be mindful of them (and I am not going to delve any further into the passionate issue of whether the practice of law is a “profession” or a “business” at this time).

Second, these issues acknowledge the sometimes harsh reality that the vast majority of law school graduates are nowhere near ready to practice law effectively and/or efficiently (see, e.g., “’Entry’ Fee: Surprise – Inexperienced Associates Cost More”: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/entry_fee_surprise—inexperienced_associates_cost_more/), and require significant additional training, mentoring and practical experience to reach that point. This leads to the related harsh reality that not all new attorneys will “get there.” Indeed, all new law school graduates necessarily carry the disclaimer applied to all investments: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Practicing law is not easy, and many who obtain a license to do so will not be good at it (and many more will not enjoy it, but that is a topic for another day).

THE BIGGER PICTURE: WHAT INTERVIEWERS SHOULD LOOK FOR IN CANDIDATES

Accordingly, hiring decisions for new attorneys should, in my opinion, involve much more than simply interviewing candidates with good grades from good schools. While academic success and the quality of education are certainly relevant, the following characteristics of new attorneys are also important:

·           Are they smart? (can they correctly analyze the law and apply it to the relevant facts)

·         Are they passionate?

·         Do they work hard?

·         Can they write clearly, concisely and persuasively?

·         Can they speak clearly, concisely and persuasively?

·         Are they professional? (in appearance, actions, communications, etc.)

·         Can/do they exercise good judgment?

·         Are they disciplined? (able to follow rules and procedures)

·         Are they able to deal with and effectively manage stress?

[And again, this is one attorney’s personal perspective, and these characteristics should not be viewed as comprehensive, universally applicable, or attributable to any single source or entity.]

Obviously (or at least hopefully), every aspect of a law school curriculum is intended to provide some training relevant to competence in the practice of law. Good grades are at some level reflective of intelligence and work ethic. But there are many things beyond the formal law school curriculum that can provide support for the character traits set forth above, and help enhance the credibility/employability of new attorneys.

THE EVIDENTIARY PICTURE: THE HIRING PROCESS AND INTERVIEW AS A COURTROOM DRAMA

Similar to establishing evidence to support all of the required elements of a cause of action alleged in a complaint, new lawyers want to provide as much evidence as possible to support the conclusion that they possess these character traits. As in a court room, evidence in this context can take many forms. Direct evidence can be provided by witnesses (references, answering interview questions, etc.) or documents (cover letters, writing samples, transcripts, etc.). Circumstantial evidence can be provided by other activities and involvement, such as the following:

·          Participating in a competitive moot court provides evidence of the ability to speak and write persuasively.

·         Participating in a law clinic provides evidence of the ability to be professional and exercise good judgment.

·         Participating in an intramural basketball league (or yoga club, etc.) provides evidence of the ability to deal with and effectively manage stress.

·         Participating in student, bar association and/or volunteer organizations provides evidence of passion.

Your resume is your exhibit and witness list. Like preparing for trial, compiling and organizing your supporting evidence is crucial, and should have the objective of helping you make a credible and compelling case for employment. Note that I am not suggesting simply filling a resume with as many activities as possible (“resume padding”). As trial lawyers know, even though there are numerous pieces of evidence obtained during discovery in a lawsuit, not all of them should be included on the trial exhibit list. And while there may ultimately be dozens or even hundreds of exhibits on the list, the critical issues for most trials can (and should) be narrowed down to a much smaller number of key items. The same approach should be employed in the hiring context, and you should not lose focus of the objective of building a credible and compelling case.

So while grades are important, so is the entire experience. Partake of numerous and diverse activities, and do not ignore or downplay their ultimate evidentiary value.

Everything – literally, everything – in law school matters.

And assuming I can convince Phil to turn over the keys to this blog to me again at some point in the future, I will share some additional thoughts on why, after you obtain your first legal job, nothing in law school matters.  (To be continued….)

----------------------------------------------------------------

David Feeder is licensed to practice law in Colorado and Missouri, and several federal courts. He can be found on twitter at @davidfeeder. He also hopes that everyone who reads this pauses for a moment and sends prayers, kind thoughts and/or positive energy to all of those who were impacted by the horrific theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012.