SMH:
edit: Palmer J's speech at the PLE Conferencehttp://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_palmer111106:
i don't think so. if it's Darwinism at its purest, the next generation of lawyers will be shit, because even if they can handle the stress/pace, they won't have the skills and training to do their job well.THE rudeness, aggression and demands of senior lawyers are leading too many young lawyers to burn out and leave the profession disillusioned, a Supreme Court judge has warned.
George Palmer, in a speech to practical legal education teachers, called for an increase in professional courtesy and ability for staff to have a life as ways to reduce bitterness in the law, and to retain new recruits.
"Just in the last month, I have heard of two young lawyers who became completely disillusioned after working for a year or so in a large firm, and have left the law for good," Justice Palmer said last weekend. His former tipstaff wrote of a recent job interview with a large city firm, which went off track when he asked about professional guidance.
The answer swiftly came: "I'm a busy man, I don't have time to be nice, so if you're looking for some sort of mentor, you've come to the wrong place."
"If I suspect you're not giving me 100 per cent of your best, you'll soon know about it," the partner said. The tipstaff was repeatedly asked if he was aggressive. (He declined the job.)
In August, a NSW Young Lawyers survey showed almost half responding members intended to leave their jobs within two years, mainly due to overwork. But a week after The Australian Financial Review published those results, it published a letter from a young lawyer which read: "Perhaps the fact that these sorry souls are leaving the profession is merely an act of Darwinism at its purest; an act of self-selection that can only make the profession stronger."
edit: Palmer J's speech at the PLE Conferencehttp://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_palmer111106:
The theme of this conference is ‘bridging gaps’. The most obvious gap you’ll be talking about during this Conference is the gap between a theoretical knowledge of the law, absorbed from lectures and the study of cases in law reports, and the practical knowledge which only comes from real life experience of working in the law.
Bridging that gap into the real world of practice can sometimes be a rude awakening. Recently a very bright young law graduate got a job with one of the largest and most prestigious firms in town. He couldn’t believe his luck when he was told he was going to work directly for the senior commercial partner. He was even more flattered when the senior partner invited him to his home for dinner to get to know him better. The law graduate arrived at the partner’s palatial Harbour-side residence and was shown around. Eventually they went into the partner’s study. The young man was incredulous to see a Picasso hanging on the wall.
“Gosh, sir,” he blurted out. “That’s a real Picasso, isn’t it? It must have cost an absolute fortune!”
“It certainly did,” replied the partner, putting a paternal hand on the young man’s shoulder . “And if you buckle down to hard work, my boy, put in fifteen to sixteen hours a day six days a week, forget about having a life and give yourself body and soul to the firm, in five years’ time, I’ll be able to buy another one.”
The gap I want to talk about is the gap between knowledge and wisdom – knowledge of the techniques of the law and the wisdom necessary to be a good lawyer. In referring to wisdom I’m not referring to ethical principles of professional conduct such as are covered in Ethics courses. I’m talking about the sort of wisdom that produces a well-balanced person equipped to use the law responsibly and beneficially, a lawyer who is ultimately a contributor to the stability and good order of our society.
Why, as PLT teachers, should you have to concern yourselves with that sort of wisdom? The answer, in my opinion, is that when young lawyers start their professional lives they may well not get a chance to acquire it for themselves before they become disillusioned and burnt out – before the contributions which they might have made to the law and to society is simply lost.
Am I being a little melodramatic? I don’t think so. Just in the last month I have heard of two young lawyers who became completely disillusioned after working for a year or so in a large firm and have left the law for good. Let me give you an illustration of why this could have happened.
Recently, a former tipstaff of mine wrote to me about an experience he had at a job interview. Now this tipstaff was a very bright graduate, had done excellent work during his year as a tipstaff/researcher and should have had an easy passage into a rewarding professional career. Listen to what he wrote about an interview with a partner of a large city law firm:
“The partner asked me what I was looking for in this job. I said that while I think I’m professionally capable, I’m still professionally young so guidance and a good feedback relationship with those senior to me is important so that I can learn the best professional practice. The partner responded brusquely: “I’m a busy man, I don’t have time to be nice, so if you’re looking for some sort of mentor you’ve come to the wrong place. I have high standards and I’ll hold you to them. If you don’t meet them you’ll soon know about it. If I suspect you’re not giving me 100% of your best you’ll soon know about it. Don’t expect this to be a nice place; it isn’t.” Not once did he laugh let alone smile. He didn’t even attempt to relate to me as a person. What he did ask, more than once, was whether I regarded myself as an aggressive person. As the interview progressed I realised the correct answer would have been to bare my teeth and snarl.”
Do you think that lawyer likes where he’s ended up - angry, impatient, aggressive, no time to be pleasant, no time to help a younger colleague? He would be the sort of lawyer who would, when corresponding with another lawyer, adopt an arrogant, sneering and superior tone, making peremptory demands for things to be done within impossibly short time constraints. He would be the sort of lawyer who tells his clients that no-one ever gets the better of him in a fight. He’d be the sort of lawyer who fights with the partners in his firm, with his clients and with his family, if any of them still speak to him. There are many lawyers, barristers as well as solicitors, just like him.
Where is my young tipstaff going to learn that professional excellence does not necessarily come at the expense of personal happiness? Who would tell the young law graduate that, far more often than not, given a certain standard of intelligence, technical knowledge and application, professional excellence is far more likely to be the product of a well-balanced personal life?
There are many lawyers, like the senior commercial partner I told you about, who will tell their impressionable protégés that a successful practice in the law can give you a high standard of living; it can give you kudos amongst your professional colleagues; it can give you a warm glow of satisfaction when you win a case or tie up a successful transaction. They probably won’t add that the warm glow lasts as long as five minutes – if you’re lucky. They won’t say that your legal practice is not a companion and a solace to you when you come home late every night to an empty apartment and you feel that the only way you can get through the silent hours ahead is with a drink – or two, or three, or six.
Where is the senior commercial partner of the prestigious mega-firm who says to the young graduate: the successful lawyer makes time for friends, family, relationships and interests and activities outside the law. There is no once-and-for-all formula for time apportionment amongst the pressing demands of life: each day brings its own compromises, but the successful lawyer always prefers the compromises to the surrenders. The successful lawyer has a smile and a pleasant word for the office staff. He or she is always willing to help a less experienced colleague with advice and is courteous and reasonable in dealings with opponents. Not only that, he or she looks for opportunities to use the law for more than just his or her own financial gain – in pro bono work for some cause that really excites his or her passions.
Why is that kind of lawyer successful? Because that lawyer does not have a bitterness in life which infects everything he or she does in court or in chambers or in the office. That lawyer is not always looking for an excuse to pounce on someone and bite, hoping to spread the infection of misery. Opponents like that lawyer because he or she doesn’t make unreasonable demands and is pleasant to deal with while being firm in protecting the interest of the client. Judges like that lawyer because he or she doesn’t waste time in court on silly disputes about things that don’t really matter, just for the sake of having an argument. And most importantly, clients like that lawyer and want to keep coming back because the atmosphere in that lawyer’s office or chambers always seems reassuring rather than stressful and the transactions or cases which that lawyer is handling seem to have generally successful, co-operative outcomes rather than becoming litigious nightmares in which everything goes wrong at enormous expense.
There is undoubtedly a section of the legal profession which espouses a culture of aggression and self-interest. Some may say that in the legal profession aggression and self-interest have become embedded and institutionalised. You might think that, as teachers, you can do little or nothing when aggression and self-interest are so firmly embedded in the culture...
If you think that some of the wisdom, as distinct from the technique, you have acquired as a lawyer might usefully be passed on to your students, how do you do it?
You could make soapbox speeches but they become tedious and young people are rightly resistant to moralizing. On the other hand you could do it indirectly, so that your own wisdom suffuses your practical teaching: the courtesies you employ in drafting model letters; the way in which you discuss the techniques of mediation or settlement of disputes; insistence in moots and mock trial on students knowing and observing the professional courtesies; the suggestions you may drop as to how legal skills can be volunteered to pro bono organisations; the suggestions you may drop as to some of your own interests quite outside the law and how they make such a refreshing change to the daily grind. The possibilities are endless.
The point is that if you have the imparting of wisdom in mind, you are providing practical legal training of a much higher order, in my opinion, than if you confine your teaching to mere techniques. You would be trying to produce good lawyers – successful in their practice of the profession because successful in their attitude to the profession. You would be bridging the gap between knowledge and experience.
Some may think all this is pie in the sky. I don’t think so. The tipstaff I told you about was offered a job by the aggressive partner. He declined and I’m pleased to say he is now working for another high profile firm with a partner he says is cheerful, helpful and encouraging. After three years in practice he says he really loves being a lawyer.
Wouldn’t you like to hear all your student say that!
Last edited:
