Practicing Law Sucks

Document it !

We have all told our clients numerous times how important (strike that - - how ESSENTIAL) it is that they document important matters to assist us (as their lawyers) in verifying their statements regarding contested occurrences and details.

But, how often do we, as lawyers, follow this admonition?

It is equally important (strike that - - ESSENTIAL) that we take the extra minute(s) to do the same - - to protect ourselves.

 It may be a "pain in the Ass," but the contents and conclusions reached in our office appointments, telephone conversations, conferences, and even casual meetings - - with clients and others pertaining to clients, should be reduced to writing and filed.

For those of you who do this on a regular basis, this is nothing new.  But, you would be surprised how many lawyers do not follow the admonition that they give to others.

With modern technology (e.g. using such devices and software as Dragon Naturally Speaking, etc.) this is no longer difficult or time consuming to do.

It is always that one Memo that we did not make, that we wish we had.

Preparing for that stressful event

The question is: What is the best way to prepare for that special stressful dreaded event?

We have all been there at one time or another.

That BIG Court proceeding - trial, motion, conference;  That Firm meeting that you are dreading;  That conference with the "Client from Hell;"  That appointment at which you have to be the conveyor of bad news;  That meeting at which you have to terminate an Associate or Staff member;  That business social event that you hate attending ! ...etc

Again, what is the best way to prepare for such stressful, oftentimes dreaded, events?

Some lawyers will stay up all night (the night before) preparing, practicing, revising, etc.

Other lawyers will call every attorney they know for suggestions, counsel and/or support - - most of which they will not take, anyways.

Other lawyers will try to come up with the most unique excuses to continue or avoid the event - - most of which will not work.

Other lawyers will worry themselves (literally) sick over the event, probably needlessly.

We suggest a different approach - - such as: have some fun; do something enjoyable; relax prior to the event.

Worrying needlessly adds nothing to (and often diminishes) your ultimate effectiveness.

Try the following, for example:    

• Get some exercise
• Do some yoga
• Get a massage
• Listen to some soothing music
• Call and talk to a friend and have a lighthearted conversation
• Watch something funny on television
• Go to an enjoyable movie
• Sit in a Park
• Take a nice walk
• ...and the like

In all probability, you are already well-prepared for the event, so spending another hour or so just prior to the event in further preparation will add little, if anything.

We suggest that it would be much better for you to go into the event with a "smile on your face" and a "light heart."  To be able to do that, you have to "work on your mind," rather than enhance your ability.

Self-efficacy

Why is it that some lawyers shy away from difficult tasks - wanting to do only what they know how to do best - whereas others, not only welcome, but thrive on new, unique and/or difficult cchallenges?

...and, why do some lawyers avoid possibility of rejection or defeat, whereas this seems to motivate others all the more?

The answer seems to be rooted in the word "SELF-EFFICACY," which is defined as the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain manner to attain a certain goal.  It is the belief that one has the capability to execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.

There is a difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy.  Self-esteem relates to a person' sense of self-worth, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person's perception of their ability to reach a particular goal.

Thomas Edison had self-efficacy when he did not allow his failing 1,000 times in the invention of his light bulb to discourage him from eventually succeeding.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had self-efficacy when they did not let Hewlett-Packard's rejection of their early Apple computer stop them from continuing with the development and eventual sale of their new computer.

J.K. Rowling's book about a boy wizard was rejected by 12 publishers before a small London house picked up "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

And what if Dr. Seuss had given up after his 27th rejection, and not tried once more?

These are all good examples of individuals who had "self-efficacy."

Melinda Beck, in her article entitled, "If at First You Don't Succeed...," appearing in the Wall Street Journal on April 29, 2008, asks the question," What makes some people rebound from defeats and go on to greatness, while others throw in the towel?"

I ask the question, what makes a Litigator sulk for days after a resounding defeat, while others are more energized than ever to prove themselves the next time they enter a courtroom?

It is that unshakable belief that some people seem to have that they have what it takes to succeed.

Ms. Beck says that self-efficacy is also a hallmark of the "positive psychology" movement now sweeping the mental-health field, which focuses on developing character strengths rather than alleviating pathologies.

Some people - many (good) lawyers - also succeed because they believe that persistent effort will let them beat the odds.

Where does this determination come from?  In many cases, it is inborn optimism - - somewhat like the kind of resilience that enables some children to emerge unscathed from extreme poverty, tragedy or abuse. 

So, when a law firm is in a hiring mode, perhaps they should evaluate a prospect's degree of self-efficacy as well as the more typical achievements about which they usually inquire.

The "Great Lawyer"

When casual party-talk gets around to discussing lawyers, statements such as "my lawyer was good," "my lawyer was not so good," "my lawyer was OK," "my lawyer did the job," are most frequently expressed.  Rarely does someone say, "I had a GREAT lawyer."

But, when they do say that, what do they really mean by saying that they had a "great" lawyer.  We believe that the word "great," when referred to lawyers, has a different meaning when expressed by an lay person, as opposed to another lawyer or legal scholar.

Typically, when the lay person says they had (or have) a great lawyer, they mean: that their lawyer got them out of a difficult situation that they probably should not have gotten out of; or, that their lawyer was cunning enough to take advantage of their opponent; or that their lawyer did something to "cover for them;" etc. - - none of which is the TRUE meaning of a "great" lawyer.

But, ask another lawyer, or a legal scholar, the meaning of a great lawyer, and you probably would get a response similar to the comments made by William Domnarski, a California attorney, in an article that he wrote for the Los Angeles Daily Journal on April 21, 2008, entitled "Reel World Lawyering."

Several of Mr. Domnarski's comments on the subject of being a "great" lawyer are:

• "A great lawyer tells his client that he or she has a bad case when it's true."
• "At least half the time the great lawyer will be telling the client to put the checkbook away - - and discourage litigation."
• "The great lawyers take the world as it is and sell their perceptive analysis of what they see. Celebrity lawyers, in contrast, boast of being able to turn white black and black white."
• "The great lawyer has to be supremely competent with the language, whether writing or speaking."
• "The great lawyer has to be widely read and receptive to ideas, always moving to where the best vantage point of reality can be found."
• "The great lawyer is a thinker, a writer, a legal mind, but above all, the great lawyer is a realist, seeing the world for what it is and helping clients see the world as it is, not as they want it to be."

Striving to be "perfect"

There is a story told about an Accountant who interviewed for a job with a large accounting firm.  Most of the questions were technical and required him to solve complicated tax and audit issues. 

At the end, the Interviewer said "Just one more question as we wrap things up" and asked: "What is 9 times 8?"

The Accountant answered: "73."

"OK, we'll call you in a couple of days," replied the Interviewer.

After the Accountant left the room, he thought about the answer he'd just given and cringed. "73!" he gasped.  "I can't believe I made such a blunder."

The Accountant sulked for days, berating himself for his senseless mistake.  But, to his surprised, the Interviewer phoned him a few days later and offered him the job.

"Sure, I'd love to work for your firm.  I'm relieved to find out that my mistake on that last question didn't count against me."

"On the contrary," said the Interviewer.  "Out of everyone we interviewed, you were the one who came the closest."

Unfortunately, we lawyers cannot afford to "come closest to the mark."  We must hit the mark, EVERY TIME. What with disgruntled clients threatening to sue us; what with the current state of Malpractice Insurance (if you can get it); what with our egos being what they are - - we must strive to be PERFECT, all the time.

No wonder we are under such stress!!!