The following is from Edward Lazarus' review of "Trial and Error: The Education of a Courtroom Lawyer," the recently released autobiography of Chicago trial lawyer, John Tucker:
Could a Young Lawyer Today Possibly Replicate Tucker's Career?That was then - and this is now. In his book, Tucker not only recounts his own fulfilling career, but expresses, in an understated but unmistakable way, that careers like his own are now a thing of the past. Such a life in the law, he suggests, is now nearly impossible to replicate.
Why does Tucker view himself as so plainly a member of a vanishing breed? To answer that question, one need only look at what he identifies as the key ingredients of his success - and the difficulty it would take for a young lawyer now to attain any of them.
First, as a young lawyer, Tucker enjoyed the time to develop and hone his skills as an advocate, averaging somewhere between 1600 and 1800 billable hours per year.
Today, a young lawyer of the same age would bill, instead, at least 2200 billable hours - a sum requiring a total commitment of 60-70 hours a week, every week of the year. Such a schedule simply does not allow for the kind of side projects on which Tucker cut his teeth.
Second, Tucker was able to take on primary responsibility for trial and appellate cases early on in his career - in the form of paying matters that were relatively small, and time-intensive, trial level pro bono matters. The firm supported his interest in both types of cases.
Today, such opportunities at major firms are few and far between. Small business matters that senior lawyers could turn over to their juniors don't come to the firms in the first place - even associates' billing rates are too high. In addition, many of the blue chip law firms have cut back on their pro bono commitments - especially at the trial level, where a very substantial allocation of firm resources may be required.
Third, Tucker benefited from a relatively stable cadre of mentors and colleagues within his firm. They formed a cohesive group of people who shared a vision about the kind of law they wanted to practice, and the risks they were willing to run to achieve their goals.
Tucker accordingly did not have to fear that doing too much pro bono work would undermine his chances for partnership. To the contrary, his mentors and future partners respected the pro bono work he did, and counted it in his favor, not against him.
Today, the concept of firm loyalty is all but dead. Few lawyers spend their careers at a single firm, no matter how prestigious. Instead, they typically make one or more lateral moves, to other partnerships or in-house counsel positions - thus operating not too differently from free agents in the sports world, who are available to the highest bidder.
As a lawyer, I have enough information to believe that the above is true. The practice of law has changed. When I initially imagined myself pursuing a career in law, the practice of law was a high ideal, practiced by men of competence, morality and conviction. It was only after I was nearing graduation and began to examine the job possibilities that I noticed the realm of big firm lawyers had moved toward being more about how much money you could make than anything else. As such, not entirely believing that I wanted to trade 60 to 70 hours of my time in exchange for having more money than I would have free time to enjoy, I decided to go a different route.
I actually began my career prowling the halls of the Dallas County Courthouse doing misdemeanor court appointments for $150 a case. There are a lot of lawyers doing that, but if you hung around until almost noon, after most of the others had gone, you might pick up a straggler here and there. I did not have an office, just a small apartment and a phone. I made $500 to $800 a month, which paid for my up keep.
I actually did this for a number of years, although I did not practice long from my apartment, because several attorneys were eager to share empty office space for free just to have someone sitting there, or in exchange for simple leg work exercises, like standing in for pleas.
Eventually, I amassed a fairly large number of prior clients, mostly from the court appointments I had been doing. I maintained a fairly large docket in the 11 misdemeanor courts in Dallas County. My manner with clients and efficiency in handling cases was noticed by one of the top DWI attorneys in the area who hired me into his office. This was my perfect situation. We worked half a day on most days and made a good living. I personally handled about 150 cases, on average.
In 1994, that world fell apart. My wife died, and then my employer got caught up in a federal investigation and the whole operation went south. It was hard beginning again from scratch. I had completely given up court appointments, and there was a whole new generation of young attorneys who had taken over that niche in the interim. A friend of mine told me about a job that had opened up in a small Plaintiff's firm.
I got paid very little, but actually did very little. I was primarily a "hired gun." I drew a meager monthly salary to attend depositions and try those cases* that didn't settle. I was allowed to maintain my personal practice and it soon grew back to a point where I was again comfortable. Eventually I grew weary of the civil work and decided to go back out on my own.
A unique opportunity arose. Very near my house, an older attorney was needing someone to cover his office for an extended period. His paralegal was topnotch and mostly all they needed was someone with a license to prove up probate and divorce matters. The office billed for the services, I received one-half. I was able to continue to build my practice. When the older attorney returned, we were discussing how to rearrange the building so that I could move in my office furniture and establish a permanent office in the building when I got an invite from a friend of mine for lunch.
He had just been made partner in a small litigation firm and had discussed with his new partner how he would like to bring me in as "hired gun" for their firm to try cases. It sounded interesting. The firm had a very large staff and the money that was offered was good.
So I made a move to another area, and began work in that firm. Well, I soon learned that the turnover rate in that firm was high for associates. In fact, my friend, the partner, was partner in name only. He had very little control in the operations and did not make much more than I. Part of the deal was that I could not take on any more private clients, so within a few months, I was a company man. Then discussions began about cutting my salary, and then further discussions about the amount of work I was contributing. The rules seemed to change daily, and I was miserable. I was actually the most miserable I had been in all the years I had practiced law. Everyone is the office worked like dogs except the top guy, who came in about once a week and did nothing but bitch and complain about how no one was handling the cases the way he wanted them handled. And the only one actually making any money was the top guy.
It was after I had become completely disenchanted with this situation that I became acquainted with a guy who lived in this town through I newsgroup I used to frequent that met on occasion so that everyone could actually meet the other members of the group. He had heard my rants about my job and began to tell me how this town really needed an attorney. He invited me to come for a visit. I did.
notCrawford, Texas is a town of about 2500 and is the county seat of notClark County, pop. 7000. The county is small, the second smallest in the state, and is situated an hour to an hour and half from most of the Metroplex. When I visited, there were only two attorneys in the county, one older man, who limited his practice to real estate and probate, and the county attorney**. I had never seen a county seat in Texas who had no real practicing attorney available. My friend was right, this town needed another attorney.
So, this was the first of 2000. I visited a few more times, met and talked with one of the district judges who actually sit in one of the adjoining counties more than this one, the older attorney, and several friendly citizens. I decided to gamble and make the move. My plan was to stay in my position until the end of the year, save up as much money as possible and build a nest egg to finance my start up. I confided this to my friend at the office . . . who blabbed it to the big guy, who called me into the office and told me that my position would be terminated effectively on April 1.
Coincidentally, I had learned at the beginning of March that I would be needing to relocate my residence, as my landlord had allowed the house I was renting to be foreclosed upon, so I was already packing to move when I got that news. I had very little in savings, so was forced to make the decision whether to make the move to notCrawford, or to find another position or reestablish my private practice in Dallas and find another place to live. My gut told me that if I was going to make the break from Dallas, that the time was right, so I rented the only available place I could find in this area, a dumpy double-wide, hired two guys, rented a U-Haul truck and moved. It took two trips. After the expenses associated with the move, I had about $2000. I put an add in the paper and spent most of my time just visiting all the businesses getting to know everyone. I did not get a single case the whole month of April.
I was still driving back and forth to Dallas almost weekly taking care of a few cases that were still ongoing that I had assumed responsibility for after I left the firm. Thankfully, I settled out a couple of these, and under the agreement, split the fee with the firm, but I managed to survive. In fact, one of them settled in a structured payout agreement that guaranteed me $400 a month, so I was able to rent an office from the old attorney by July 1, 2000.
It has taken awhile to build up a practice here, mainly because so many people had become so used to going to a neighboring county to hire an attorney for divorces and such and the fact that the county court does most of its criminal business on a pro se basis. Tiger I am at that point now where I am busier than I can manage without help, but not making enough money to hire a quality assistant. I know, I have tested four who were willing to work for what I could pay.
Another attorney moved to town last year, and actually offices at my first location. I am actually in my third location, just recently moving after a business vacated the place I wanted on the square. We are very good friends and refer things back and forth. The legal life is fairly simple, but I have not really put a push on establishing too large a practice. After all, the County Attorney job is up for election in 2004. My ultimate goal is to be the sitting County Judge (which does not have to be an attorney because it is a state constitutionally established office) within 10 years.
What I have learned in the practice of law:
*I actually had no experience trying injury cases, although I had extensive experience trying criminal cases. I asked the attorney I was replacing (a son of the managing attorney, who was relocating with his wife who was in medical residency) if he would be around when the first case came to trial so that I could observe him and learn the ropes. His actual statement to me: "You can lose them as well as I can." It seems that the ones that actually did go to trial were cases which had hardly any chance of succeeding, but the managing attorney believed everyone had their right to tell their story, so if the insurance company did not settle, the case was tried, even if it was a sure loser. I did not lose them all, however. This seemed to be surprising to many, including the managing attorney.
**One of the first people I met when I first came to this town actually asked me to move to town and to file as a write-in candidate for the 2000 County Attorney election. I will be running in the 2004 election.
***I suspect that the reason the court allows most people to appear on misdemeanor offences without benefit of counsel, is to save money for the County on court appointed attorney fees and so that there are not that many legally trained eyes peering over the shoulders of the County Attorney and the non-legally trained County Judge in the handling of these matters. Although all defendants sign a waiver of attorney, I believe that Grady v. Corbin and due process would dictate that a person could not adequately waive counsel without having the benefit of advice of counsel. In my opinion, the right to counsel is too fundamental a right to be taken so lightly. I am still awaiting the right case where the stakes are high enough and the finances available to collaterally attack one of these "pro se" convictions so as to get the procedure before the Court of Appeals.
Posted by Tiger at May 30, 2003 12:38 PM | TrackBackI wish you the best in your "political" career....hope you make it to the Judiciary!
Posted by: Susie at May 31, 2003 11:26 AM