For those of you who thought that my recent post on Goldman Sachs was controversial you will no doubt decide that I have certifiably lost my mind to come to the defense of lawyers. Of all the undeserving species that roam the earth none is as commonly reviled as Lawyer Americanus.
As many of you know I started professional life (some would argue life itself) as a lawyer and I confess to having liked the education the practice and many of my colleagues. But yet the profession is often viewed as loathsome. Why is this I have often asked myself?
I think the following often-heard refrain reveals a good part of the answer: "My lawyer is great but [my wife’s/the other side’s] attorney is impossible." Well of course she is; she is supposed to be. We like our representative to raise the tough issues we would prefer to duck but we seldom complain that our counsellor is overly focused on protecting us from a variety of things that can and do go wrong.
So why all the lawyer jokes? I think it is because we like to believe that we live in a better and safer world than is in fact the case. In business we like to pretend that every issue can be "win-win" and we utter platitudes like "one plus one equals three in this merger." How often have I heard the complaint from some high-minded CEO: "my counterpart and I had it all worked-out and then the damn lawyers got involved and screwed it up." Typically a quick review of the facts would reveal that the two CEOs had in fact reached some very squishy 60000 ft understanding and then their respective legal teams (who have no doubt been up two nights in a row working on the details) forced them to answer questions such as what happens to the agreed price of the all-stock deal if the share price of one of the parties suddenly plummets or who should bear the risk and costs if the antitrust authorities object to the combination.
Lawyers are a pain in the ass because life can be a pain in the ass.
Most of the lawyers I know and I readily admit they include more big firm attorneys judges general counsels and law professors are kind decent people who were often attracted to the law in the first place by an enhanced sense of fairness or justice and who will listen and respond to rational argument. There are also a certain number of moral retrobates who prey on the weak and the innocent and produce nothing of socially-redeeming value while billing at a high hourly rate but in my experience they are generally the exception.
I have tended to keep these thoughts to myself over a career now split about equally between time working as a lawyer and time working as a manager. However for the last two years I have had the good fortune to be reunited with the law through the Legal business of Thomson Reuters. We employ so many attorneys to produce and support our services for legal professionals that we would count among the 20 largest law firms in the US. This has given me not just the excuse but the obligation to get back in touch with the people and substance of my professional roots and this has been both rewarding and enjoyable.
So the next time you feel ready to garrotte "the other guy’s" lawyer just ask yourself the question whether it is not her principal you should strangle instead and reflect on whether this highly ritualized form of battle is not preferable to the law of the jungle
I have no problem with lawyers. We need them to protect us. It is a land of law. We need to make sure good laws are in place. Lawyers are not the problem. We should be more concerns with our lawmakers the Congress.
I have the benefit of commenting to your blog as a non-lawyer. Indeed you
In my experience lawyers and legal advocates are truly incredible. They are a responsible to deliver within a complicated and dynamically changing system everyday for the sake of their peers. It is an enormous weight to bear and I applaud them for their part in influencing thought in respect to civil liberties. They roll up their sleeaves and get their hands dirty where others simply complain. Lawyers may get a bad rap but if you were the one being represented… wouldn’t you expect the most tenacious saavy and relentless professional in your corner? I sure would. I volunteer for SafeHouse Center here in Ann Arbor where legal advocates fight for the rights of Domestic Violence survivors everyday. These advocates are simply remarkable. They are sharp and fearless in their support of those in need; navigating a legal system fraught with obstacles and double standards. They are heroes in my book.
One reason lawyers get so much bad rap is that we’d rather we didn’t need them. Life would be a lot easier if we could all just agree and not need tedious arguments and contracts. Unfortunately life isn’t like that so we still need lawyers. However lawyers often take advantage of this — like Sean’s statement – we know what the contract should be but we have to pay someone $200 to copy/paste from one document into another and change 5 words. I complain about anyone doing that (there are many examples beyond lawyers). My personal complaint is “lawyering” produces nothing and stops/delays/or hinders most everything. I work in the software industry. I’ve never seen “lawyering” create software or test it or sell it or market it. I have often seen “lawyering” get in the way. I once saw a wonderful example of a system design – it was wonderful because it followed the widely published best practices exactly. I wanted to show it – minus identifying and security information – to a bunch of undergraduates so they learn how to build software correctly. The system designers said yes… the lawyers said no. There was nothing proprietary about this design and it wasn’t part of the company’s business strategy. In another case I once sold a small chunk of IP to another company. That small chunk of code made use of some existing code I’d written and made open source. The existing code was in no way special simply a few bits of convenience that could be replicated in a few hours. The code being sold was the interesting part. Yet the lawyer had no concept of ‘open source’ caused delays and wracked up a huge bill over attempting to force me to give up my prior work. That was not working out details that was pure paranoia. Technically speaking most confidentiality statements in hiring would prevent me from tutoring a high school student because the lawyers haven’t distinguished between basic knowledge “helper code” and the real valuable stuff. I don’t mind people who ask hard questions – though you don’t need a law background for that – they deserve our respect even if we don’t like it. But I do mind the people who hinder work prevent education delay good ideas and make rules about things they don’t understand. Those lawyers should listen to the domain experts more stay out of the way and think of ways to create value rather than stopping it. Then I’d respect them. (and yes some do – like Robins – but not many)
We need to make sure good laws are in place. Lawyers are not the problem.