After my post below about the Doug Litowitz book, "The Destruction of Young Lawyers," I got an e-mail from a reader. I think he made a valid point, and I wanted to post his note and my response, because I think he made a fair point, and maybe this is worth opening up to other people's comments. Short version if you don't want to read all this: I'm probably more negative than I should be when I write about firms, and I forget sometimes that there are lots of people out there who like their jobs and it doesn't mean they're blindly following the herd, uncreative, and evil if they decide to work at a firm, and even if I recognize that there really are good reasons to go to firms, I'm not very good about making it seem that way when I write about them. Anyway, the e-mail exchange:
Jeremy --
I've been reading Anonymous Lawyer (the blog) for a few months now and occasionally reading your personal blog for less time. I think AL is pretty genius. My wife bought me the book a few weeks ago, and I'm looking forward to reading it soon.That said, I am slightly troubled by an aspect of AL and an aspect of your personal writings, both having to do with the fact that you are not practicing law at a firm (and as far as I know, you have not done so, apart from summering somewhere). I do work at a big firm, and for the most part I really like it. So with respect to AL, I'm troubled by how savagely you satirize law firm work (and life), despite the fact that, apparently, you don't have the basis of knowledge to satirize it properly -- although, amazingly, you get a lot of things very right, which is attributable probably to the fact that you were quite perceptive as a summer (and unfortunately also to the fact that law firms probably tend to live up (or down) to the worst possible stereotypes).With respect to your personal writings, you sometimes seem more than a little disdainful of those (like me) who are out there working at firms -- as though we've made an uncreative decision, falling into the default option presented to us. To the extent that's your view, I'm troubled because it disregards the possibility that some of us might actually find the law intellectually engaging and that some of us might really appreciate (if not require) the financial security and rewards the job provides. Which is to say that on a good day, I love my job, and I think that can be said for lots of lawyers out there (even associates in big law firms). (But your blogging sometimes implies that anyone who chooses to work at a firm is a sucker and that no one really likes the work.)I'm sure you must get these kinds of comments sometimes, and you appear to be self-reflective to have considered these issues (though it's not something I've read you discussing overtly). Nonetheless, I felt compelled to share my view. Thanks.-- XXXX
And my reply:
XXXX,
Thanks for the note. I actually don't get these kinds of comments as often as I expect I should, but I appreciate it because I think I sometimes do -- because I'm not at a firm -- forget that there really are people out there who do like the work. I expect a lot of it is selection bias -- the people reading my stuff are probably more likely to be the unhappy ones at the firm than to be the happy ones. But of course all of these are fair points.
As far as AL goes, you're right that I don't have the basis of knowledge to do this as well as I would if I'd been at a firm for ten years, or even one year. I can't do anything about my lack of experience except acknowledge it and apologize for it. When I started AL, it was just to play around with the thoughts in my head after the interview process, before I'd even summered, and then I kept it going because I found I liked writing in the character's voice, and that people were reading. I didn't expect it would lead to a book deal, and I certainly didn't expect I'd keep it up this long. To the extent I get the details right, that's great. To the extent I don't, it's harder and harder the more distance grows between my summer experience and when I'm writing, and to some extent the character has turned into a caricature anyway. I've been surprised throughout my time writing the blog how much people tell me it resonates. But, honestly, I expect my better audience are people who've had relatively little experience at firms, or just want a glimpse inside the world, not people who've been there for years and know a lot more than I do. I'm just trying to write an entertaining character that rings true to as much of an extent as I can do it, and where if the humor is competing against the reality, I'm inclined to let the humor win out. I am as surprised as anyone that people feel like it resonates as much as they do.
As far as my personal blog goes, I don't mean to seem disdainful, and I try really hard to make sure that I'm not just buying into my own writing and believing that it's really this bad, for everyone. I'm not sure if your e-mail is in part a reaction to my post about Doug Litowitz's book last night. Litowitz is angry. And I read something like that and to some degree I can't help but get sucked in and feel like something like that validates AL and validates my own choices. I don't mean to. Honestly though, most of my friends at big firms don't like it. Even the ones who thought they would don't, and are wishing they could get out. I'm certain this is even more selection bias than my blog readers -- my friends at big firms, even the ones I perceive as being as likely to be happy there as anyone else, may not represent a fair sampling. But I talk to them and they don't find the work all that engaging, and they're frustrated at the lack of ability to plan their days and know whether they're leaving the office at 7 or at midnight, and they feel handcuffed by the salary, and wrestle with the question of whether or not it's worth it. And don't seem very happy. I imagine these things resolve themselves after a few years, and as the work gets more interesting, for some people the tide turns and they realize it is worth it, and the job can actually be pretty good. But even if I don't mean to be, I'm sure I'm influenced by the fact that even the people I talk to who are at firms don't like it, and so, really, it's easy for me to forget there's a whole class of people out there who do.
I probably shouldn't have gone to law school. I got very lucky that all this stuff happened with the blog and the book deal, but, really, I didn't want to be a lawyer, and I did this because I wanted a safe backup plan, I'm risk averse, and I didn't know what else to do. Those weren't good reasons. It is absolutely easy for me to forget that there are people out there truly interested in this stuff, who don't see the law firm as a default option, are not merely there to pay off their loans, and actually enjoy it. To the extent that my writing reflects that, it's a weakness and I don't always catch it, and I apologize for it.
Not sure if this answer satisfies, or just rationalizes. Would love to get your thoughts on whether any of this makes sense.
Actually, if you're cool with it, I'd love to quote part of your e-mail and post some of this -- I really do take the feedback seriously, and don't want to come off as disdainful to people at firms, who like it there, and I know that to an extent I probably do, because I do forget that not everyone is living inside my head, and the kinds of things that drove me to law school are totally different from the kinds of things that drive most people to law school, and that lots of people are actually engaged by this stuff and like their jobs.
Best,
Jeremy
And his reply back:
Thanks for your response, which I think makes a lot of sense and isn't purely rationalizing (and even if it were, that would be fine).You are correct that my email was prompted somewhat by your post on the Litowitz book, partly because I reject that his sweeping negative conclusions (at least as I recall your summary of them) necessarily hold true for all big-firm associates (and also because I question the extent to which you know whether he's right). I'm also sensitive to negative stereotyping about law firm work, because I think the predominance of that sort of viewpoint (whether based in fact or not) is largely what makes it so bad sometimes -- e.g., I never feel so negative about what I do as when I leave a social event with the firm at which a number of my colleagues have been whining about various aspects of the job (along similar lines, I think most of the unpleasantness that often surrounds the issues of billable hours and the politics of advancing within the firm tends to be generated by associates rather than partners).
Just thought that was interesting enough to post in full...
"To the extent that's your view, I'm troubled because it disregards the possibility that some of us might actually find the law intellectually engaging and that some of us might really appreciate (if not require) the financial security and rewards the job provides."
Maybe i am sceptical, but i dont' think commercial law is the area where people law is actually intellectually engaging. Everyone I knew who wanted to do this ended up doing policy work or becoming lawyers in government departments or non profit organisations etc.
I work in a large top law firm, and actually at the end of the day, it's about money. You're glad if you can do policy or papers. But, the higher you move up, the less you get (because you cost more per hour)
I don't want to sound slack, but in a sense I think I, and a lot of other lawyers I know who read anonymous lawyer and your blog, will probably agree with you and would just be able to laugh at themselves and would probably not get all defensive and write that letter to you with similar comments.
I am also surprised that he also thinks that your summer spent is not enough to satirize life at a firm, because it's enough to even hear about it, and to even observe it from afar.
Maybe I am being defensive on your behalf, but it seems that this particular reader does not understand the idea of "taking the piss". For the most part, all of us love Anon Lawyer and we can read that and take a laugh and not take ourselves too seriously. Or maybe we are just from a culture where we are used to taking things easy and from our perspective Americans take themselves way too seriously.
In fact, I know a partner of another top tier firm who reads your Anon Lawyer blog and loves it. So keep going.
For those of us at top tier firms, we recognise that it's not the most creative, but for the most part there are a lot of uncreative people out there anyway and they understand that. For the creative, working in a firm doesn't stop anyone from being creative.
This is disjointed because the text box is so small!
Anyway what I really mean is, I feel your reader was way too defensive. I definitely think you're on the right track with Anon Lawyer and I think it's enough you were there and you continue to get stories from others.
Posted by: M | August 20, 2006 at 05:35 AM
I forgot to say, I, and many other top tier lawyer Anon Lawyer readers, are quite happy with our jobs.
That's not to say there is the usual gripe against billable hours, stupid firm rules, and long hours, crazy clients, demanding partners. At times it is frustrating, at other times, amusing in a dark way. But I think you will find most people have gripes against their jobs, be it lawyer or not.
Of course, having written all this, I realised some people just can't take it because it's "too real" or as he put it "sensitive to negative stereotyping about law firm work". I have just remembered that I have a friend who can't watch the UK version of The Office, because it reminded s/he of an office environment s/he worked in.
I don't mean to diss your reader, but I am happy with my work, I don't take it too seriously (my role... of course I have to be serious about my work given the commercial and legal implications)!
Posted by: M | August 20, 2006 at 09:49 AM
M,
Your friend who can't watch UK Office is missing out on an amazing show.
Posted by: Sean | August 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Jeremy,
You've fallen into the classic trap of responding to a gratuitous attack couched as friendly concern. Your book is a work of fiction -- any authenticity and resonance lends credence to your imaginative and expository gifts. You really have no need whatsoever to apologize or make amends for your lack of corporate law experience. If you had years of corporate experience behind you, you would have been unable to write this book.
Posted by: cam | August 20, 2006 at 04:24 PM
I just want to second what Cam wrote. You don't need to spent three years as an associate to know that large corporate firm work is utterly mindless, demeaning, and, for the most part, harmful to employees, investors, consumers, and the environment. They're where talent, creativity, personality, and values go to die (but for healthy compensation). You should never feel that you have to apologize for parodying that world.
Posted by: mitch | August 20, 2006 at 05:52 PM
Thank you for posting your reader dialogue above. I graduated a year or two ahead of you and currently love my job at a big firm. I read AL quite a bit before you "outed" yourself as the author and thought it was fantastic. I read AL less now because it feels like a lawyer joke to me -- partly because your more recent posts are too over the top for my taste (satire has to be realistic to work) but also because whenever I read something especially bitter or cutting, I know you don't have the experience to back up your tone. The more extreme AL gets and the further you get from that 2L summer, the easier it is to relegate you to the shark-joke-making masses who have never dealt with a lawyer but hate them anyway.
I didn't think your Litowitz review was negative toward firms at all -- instead I appreciated your tone and your thoughtful discussion of how you feel about firms -- but I'm grateful to have seen the dialogue. Thanks.
Posted by: RD | August 20, 2006 at 10:08 PM
People don't give the imagination enough credit.
You have to work at a place for ten years to be able to write with authority about it?
Wow! The whole fiction genre is in trouble!
Peace,
Maxine
Posted by: Maxine | August 20, 2006 at 11:33 PM
I'm not quite sure how my experience fits into this scenario, but . . . whatever. I am currently in tax law for a top tier firm in Australia but used to work for the government and therefore consider myself to have seen both sides of the coin.
While I do not consider that large firms are where "talent, creativity, personality, and values go to die" (actually I find this presumption quite insulting - tax structuring for large multinationals can get quite creative) I can definitely see that this is what happens in the public service with its mantra of "give up money for time", but without the "healthy compensation".
I think happiness can largely depend on expectations and whether those expectations (from life or career etc) are being met. If your expectations can be met in a low paying govt job, then good for you, same with the higher paying law firm job. It comes down to making a choice that suits you. Choices always have consequences (The Merovingian - The Matrix).
The danger lies in thinking it is a choice between the stifling mediocrity of "American Beauty" or the destructive hedonism of "American Psycho". What is good to see are things that illustrate the person who has made a different choice to AL ("About Schmidt"???) and the consequences for their life of that choice. It's nice to laugh at AL and say you will never end up like that because you are not going to work at a big firm, but what are the consequences of your own choices??? Do you choose to be working in your 70s because you can never save a decent amount to invest and retire on, or can you make the choice to retire in your 40s and spend your time flitting between your beach houses and boutique fashion houses???
Again, it comes back to making choices that make you happy with the consequences in the short and long terms - because those are the things you will have to live with.
Posted by: Ben | August 20, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Whatever. The emailer clearly has stockholm syndrome.
Posted by: MF | August 21, 2006 at 08:47 AM