Her Day in Court
I have to give law school props for trying and, in some measure, succeeding. I went in a dedicated liberal hippie do-gooder and came out another Big Law first year associate, going to work in my black suits and white shirts and carrying the obligatory black umbrella. I was pleasantly surprise to discover the other day that I have not entirely gone over the the corporate world.
I went down to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit my first week of work, along with the other shiny young things in my department. Among the arguments we heard was a case involving a Bernie Madoff like Ponzi scheme. The case had gone into receivership, and the appeal was from a woman contesting the receivership plan.
Like pretty much everyone else in the case, she'd lost everything. She was representing herself, because she didn't have the money for a lawyer. Her argument was basically that since she was the last person to invest in the scheme, and since her money had been deposited less than twenty-four hours before the bank froze the account, and since the account still contained more money than she'd put in, she should get all her money back.
Listening to this woman, who had no idea of how the legal system worked or what the law dictated, stand before the court and argue that they should give her money back because that would be fair, was heartbreaking. The problem was that the judge in the trial court had tried to do what was fair - to give all the investors something, even though it would only amount to cents on the dollar. It was hard not to sympathize with her, though, because if she had just put the money in a little later, or if the bank had waited a little longer to clear it, or if the SEC had moved a little quicker, she wouldn't have been standing in that courtroom.
The trial court's ruling was upheld, of course. It's not like the Second Circuit could have done anything else. Which makes me hope that when she got the ruling, and realized she really had lost everything, she at least felt like she'd been heard.
Because sometimes that's all our system can do.
I went down to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit my first week of work, along with the other shiny young things in my department. Among the arguments we heard was a case involving a Bernie Madoff like Ponzi scheme. The case had gone into receivership, and the appeal was from a woman contesting the receivership plan.
Like pretty much everyone else in the case, she'd lost everything. She was representing herself, because she didn't have the money for a lawyer. Her argument was basically that since she was the last person to invest in the scheme, and since her money had been deposited less than twenty-four hours before the bank froze the account, and since the account still contained more money than she'd put in, she should get all her money back.
Listening to this woman, who had no idea of how the legal system worked or what the law dictated, stand before the court and argue that they should give her money back because that would be fair, was heartbreaking. The problem was that the judge in the trial court had tried to do what was fair - to give all the investors something, even though it would only amount to cents on the dollar. It was hard not to sympathize with her, though, because if she had just put the money in a little later, or if the bank had waited a little longer to clear it, or if the SEC had moved a little quicker, she wouldn't have been standing in that courtroom.
The trial court's ruling was upheld, of course. It's not like the Second Circuit could have done anything else. Which makes me hope that when she got the ruling, and realized she really had lost everything, she at least felt like she'd been heard.
Because sometimes that's all our system can do.
posted by Bekki at 6:57 PM
31 Comments:
You may also be surprised to learn this: that an important function of oral appellate arguments is to give the parties a chance "to be heard" is a view you share with Justice Clarence Thomas. That is why he doesn't ask questions, or so he claims in the video series linked above.
Why do you think you turned from a liberal hippie to a corporate America employee? Did you realize your hippie ideals were flawed or were you willing to abandon your ideals for the right price?
Don't forget prestige.
This speech by Justice Stevens (a distinguished private antitrust) is particularly on point to the original post (beginning at the 14 minute mark). The earlier parts of Justice Stevens' speech relating to the death penalty are also on point about the "do-gooders" of the private bar.
*antitrust lawyer
I am not sure that I understand how the first paragraph of this post has anything to do with the rest of the post.
I don't understand - you think that simply by joining at big law firm - "going over to the other side" - you can't have a heart and feel compassion for someone who lost everything?
I'm actually very interested to hear what Bekki has to say about the questions at 8:17 and 10:28. In my opinion, the distinction between "Wholesome Do-Gooders Who Care About People" and "Evil Corporate Drones With Black Umbrellas" is a tired Hollywood plot at best, and a false dichotomy lending itself to ignorance at worst. Most things in life are shades of gray, whether you're saving trees or selling firewood.
It seems most people who start off law school with altruistic dreams don't forfeit those dreams entirely and go over to the dark side. They end up finding a way to marry those ambitions with the practical realities of student debt and needing to earn a liveable wage.
It's a bit unrealistic to attribute those changes-of-heart to the law school (particularly a school like Boalt where saying you want to work in BigLaw earns you an automatic stank face)... rather, I'd attribute them to growing up.
While I agree with L'Alex that it is possible to retain one's altruistic value system while working at a law firm, I find it somewhat irritating to suggest that changing priorities are attributable to "growing up," as though those of us who do take jobs in the public sector or public interest just haven't grown up yet. Plenty of public interest jobs offer a liveable wage, depending on what your standard of "liveable" is - I don't drive a fancy car, but I am supporting a family including two young kids and living in the bay area on a public sector salary. I'm definitely a grown up, for better or for worse. And I also wear a black suit and carry a black umbrella on occasion.
- An alum at the public defender's office
1:41 - to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that BigLaw is the only "grown up" option or that BigLaw salaries are the only "liveable wage" (I mainly referenced BigLaw because that was the subject of Bekki's post). I have crazy respect for people who work in the public sector!
Tired Hollywood plots are far, far worse than false dichotomies, an example of which is: "most things in life" as opposed to everything else. So let's see if among the latter, the not-gray-but-black-and-white, we can count the conversion of "dedicated...do-gooder" to almost entirely corporate attorney who is surprised at her own experience of empathy. Does that little ray of sunshine somehow add a blush of gray that complicates, to her advantage, an individual's perception of herself and of the shortcomings of "our system"? How so? The fact that the corporate world helps a person accommodate "practical realities" is a weak argument for its redemption.
The suggestion that people go to Biglaw to earn a "livable" wage is ignorant at best and insulting at worst. No matter what your student debt load is, $160k + bonus a year is more than a gross majority of the people on this planet will earn in their entire lifetimes. It is far more than the median income in the US, even in the most expensive cities.
It seems highly unlikely that Bekki's self-perception as a "liberal hippie do-gooder" matched the reality of her political positions and her life aspirations. As a rule, the vast majority of those who spend their lives working for the good of people other than themselves don't get rich. That's simply the reality. Most people who come from a middle to upper-middle class background, when faced with a choice between their own perceived material comfort and their desire to help others will make the safe choice.
As with all things, this safe choice will be rationalized in various ways. Some people will pat themselves on the back because they felt sorry for a pro se plaintiff that they randomly saw in court. Some will maintain they need the Biglaw job to get that clerkship or judgeship. Some will claim that the only way to raise a child is on $160k+ a year. A scant few will talk about how they actually like the work. At the end of the day, most biglaw people cite exactly what l'alex did: those "practical realities."
In the end, it's far less offensive to say, "I'm nervous about being less than upper middle class" than it is to make some claim as to the "practical realities" of a "livable" salary. It's also far less offensive to talk about how bad our pro se system is as opposed to some sort of rant touting one's ability to feel sorry for people while doing relatively little to help them.
Also working for big law you generally represent the big guy against the little guy. I'm sure 90 percent of people that come to law school to do environmental law believe in more regulations to protect the environment. They then end up defending polluters against EPA lawsuits, actively working against their original ideals. Yes you can work for big law and feel sorry for a pro se plaintiff but you are still selling out in the sense that you are helping vested interests maintain power at the expense of the individual.
Amazing how a post about the inadequacies of our justice system devolves into a scuffle about BigLaw vs. the world.
Law school, as an institution, tends to make people numb. Although Boalt might not be as bad as some schools, think about the atmosphere in the library around finals time. If you don't learn to tune out the stress and suffering of everyone around you, you drive yourself mad.
Now, contrast the cultivated indifference that lawyers (BigLaw and public interest alike) build to protect themselves with the sense of helplessness almost everyone in the courtroom felt as this woman tried to get her life back.
The justices, all three of whom felt no compunction about ripping into the lawyers making the previous arguments, not only let her talk long past her time was up, but actively tried to make her questions and her arguments part of the process.
If there's anything uplifting about the whole thing, it was that.
I don't understand your objection, 4:35. $160k is a livable wage - the fact that it is also more than a livable wage does not undo that fact.
And like I said, I wasn't talking exclusively about BigLaw careers. Generally people going into law school have no idea what kind of career options are available - whether you're aiming for the private or public sector, there's a fair bit of adjustment most people have to make to their ideals (it's a part of growing up).
Bekki
Many of the commentators asked you thoughtful questions about your decision to enter biglaw given your pre-lawschool ideals.
I'd really appreciate it if you would join the discussion. If you choose not to can you explain why?
Going in to Big Law isn't just a response to financial practicalities, it is an opportunity that many people take because it keeps the most doors open for professional advancement in almost any field of law. Talk to the top people working in disability law, legal aid, environmental protection, municipal law, or in-house corporate counsel. Many of them (though by no means all) started their career in big law. There is no need to bash people for jumping on a springboard to success (or worse to act like it was some moral quandary). If you know what you want to do, right now, as a 3rd semester law student, and its not big law, GREAT. Go for it! You will probably be successful because of your commitment and intelligence. But if you don't, big law is often times the best option to get a leg up in a professional field you know little about. You're not selling-out (4:58), making some inescapable jump to the corporate (read: EVIL) world (Bekki) or growing up (L'Alex), you are doing the same thing that probably put you at a top law-school: keeping your options open to end up at the top of your given class/profession/field. Its not the only way to do that, but its certainly the most time-efficient and profitable. That's why after 1L year, no one gives a "stank-face" to those working in big law except for those comforted by their own self-righteousness.
Simply because something will enhance your career doesn't mean it's morally right.
Are you saying, with a straight face, that working at a firm is morally wrong? I realize your comment doesn't necessarily mean that, but just want to establish the mindset at work here.
Do lawyers in private practice "help others"? Do you help others when you form a corporation and help the business get going? When you do trusts and estates work? When you assist a big corporation to comply with employment, environmental, and financial regulations? When you facilitate international trade? Does any of that "help others"? I'd say so.
11:12 is slightly off the mark. The argument is not that working for a big firm is morally wrong. The discussion is merely finding out what is going on inside the head of a certain group of people: people who go to law school specifically because they want to do public interest and represent the individual. These people are often the ones who say negative things about big firms during 1L year.
But when OCI comes around they are in their interview suits like everyone else kissing the ass of the firm recruiters.
Why do they do that?
11:12 was on the mark, because the post up there made repeated references to people who "help others" as being distinguished from the ones that go to private practice biglaw.
And 11:12 didn't make a defense to arguments about being "morally wrong," so you're the only changing the terms of the discussion.
so, again, are the lawyers in private practice helping others and aren't they serving the public interest?
I have to jump in to correct the misimpression that 90% of Biglaw work is Big Guy v. Little Guy. It's not. It's very, very rarely anything other than Big Guy v. Big Guy. The Big Guy doesn't hire Biglaw to defend against a tiny case where the Little Guy is represented by a two-lawyer firm; Big Guy hires a small or mid-size firm that charges 1/2 (or less) of what Biglaw charges. Trust me, no giant corporation is coming to Biglaw or paying Biglaw rates for tiny, run-of-the-mill employment discrimination suits. The plaintiffs' firms we're up against are every bit as well-funded as we are.
This thread is a great example of what's fucked up about middle and upper-middle class, liberal Americans.
You recognize that the little guy needs help. Yet, you'd still rather settle corporate disputes so you can drive a Mercedes and send your kids to private school.
Ummm 2:32 is ignoring most class actions, mass tort litigation, and catastrophic injury cases. Defendants definitly hire biglaw. Also, big law defends against government agencies filing enviormental and consumer protection lawsuits.
The lawsuits where corporations hire biglaw are the suits where the damages are high (the individual has gotten hurt really really bad). These are usually the most important individual rights cases.
I did human rights work in undergrad and wanted to be a human rights lawyer when I started law school. Later I realized that the primary reason I devoted myself to human rights work was recognition. Human rights work made me competitive for law school and fellowships like the Fulbright and the Rhodes. Doing work for developing countries was seen as the "cool" and "in" thing to do when I was an undergrad.
At OCI, I interviewed with many firms and accepted an offer at a prestigious top ten firm.
All my human rights buddies questioned my decision. I lied to myself for a while and used all the normal bullshit excuses: I have debt, I am working at biglaw for the training, my parents want me to have a stable career, I’d like to have a family someday etc.
In reality, I have strived to be “the best” my entire life. I tried to get the best grades in undergrad, do the most extracurriculars, and get into the best law school. While human rights work was satisfying, it was a means to an end.
Big law was the next step for me in my progression up the social ladder to a prestigious and stable career. Most of you are like me but refuse to admit it. Go back to your personal statement and look at the reason you wanted to go to law school. If it was to bring about social change, how much were you really committed to that goal? Did you have any plan about how you would achieve it in law school? Or did you just see your social justice personal statement as a theme that related to your background enough to generate a compelling personal statement?
That is a pretty horrible version of what it means to be "the best."
At least you're honest about how much you suck, though. Even if it's anonymous.
Going to big law is not immoral, but for a lot of people, it is a bit of a bait-and-switch. Think about how many people got into law school with personal statements that talked about their commitment to working in public interest/government, and are now in or headed to big law. Of course, the point is moot at schools that don't really pay attention to your personal statement, but I think Berkeley actually does.
There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money, but it is what tempts people away from the idealized vision of their career of helping the downtrodden they had when applying to law school. To claim that you are going to big law because it will somehow allow you to be more effective in helping the little guy is just self-serving rationalization.
"BigLaw" lawyer here (assuming someone posting on N&B in the middle of the day on a Thursday counts) to agree with the anonymous comment made 11/2 at 4:35. Although I actually often find my job interesting and fun, the single biggest reason I'm here is something along the lines of, I'm nervous about raising a family less than upper middle class. I think people making the choice I'm making should acknowledge it and should have a lot of respect for ex-classmates now working for the good of people other than themselves and their families.
As a public interest lawyer, I just want to say thanks to all the "BigLaw" Alumni who help fund LRAP.
For those of us that grew up with a single parent on < $25k a year, biglaw salaries are a way to pay off loans quickly and make sure that we can take care of ourselves and our parents so their hardships are over.
Eff your guilt.
Post a Comment
<< Home