I recently had the occasion to look up and read the case, Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., 938 P.2d 903 (Cal. 1997). In that case, a man who had a health plan through Kaiser got lung cancer. He had it for many years, sought treatment (for the symptoms) many times, and the Kaiser physicians didn't diagnose him properly until it was far, far too late.
The problem, and the issue in the case, was that the plan had a mandatory arbitration agreement. Without getting into the details, it was represented as being a quick, easy way to resolve disputes and had some language that seemed to indicate it was required to be so. Since Engalla was dying, time was definitely of the essence. His counsel made this very clear in many, many letters while Permanente drug their feet for months. This continued until Engalla died.
The point to this is that while I read, I was struck by the efforts of Engalla's counsel, David S. Rand, to make things happen for his client. Granted, he was somewhat limited in options, but he did seem to work hard and without doing so, things might have turned out far differently. Mr. Rand, at the time, worked for Carrol, Burdick & McDonough, which currently has 79 attorneys. This is hardly a BigLaw firm, but it serves to illustrate a point.
I've said before that firm life is not for me, but this case illustrates that it's not necessarily because of the nature of the cases. I went to law school to help individuals and my community. Granted, it may not be as common, but it is possible to achieve those aims in a firm, as the above case shows. Even apart from that, it's clear that the work can be interesting and challenging from an intellectual point of view.
So what's the problem with firms, specifically larger ones? The problem is billable hours. One of the lessons I learned before law school that I hope never to lose track of (and that has helped me immesurably to get through my first year) is knowing what is importand in life. There are two primary reasons for working at a BigLaw firm: Money and Prestige. Now, I won't lie and say that I care not a whit about either. I like financial security, and for others to think well of me (within limits). But there's a lot more to life. There's an interesting exploration of billable hours over at Stay of Execution. It highlights something I've always thought: that many firms' requirements prohibit one from living life. To me, work is a piece of my life, not the other way around.
I've always thought that there were three major areas of life fulfillment: monetary, intellectual, and social. Different people might prioritize these differently. In my case, the order is social, intellectual, and monetary. The first thing I value in my life is my friends, my relationships. Secondly, I want to be intellectually engaged, to use my mind a bit. Finally, I'd like the bills to be paid, but I don't need to be rich. I just want to be able to fix my car when it breaks and not have to eat cat food when I retire. I think that's why I love law school so much. I've met great people and I get to do some deep thinking constantly.
But if I had to spend 2200 hours per year (or whatever) billing clients, how much time does that leave for friends and family? How many walks can I go on? How much racquetball can I play? How many dinner parties (such as they are) can I host? I don't know the precise answer, but I know it's fewer. My job, though I want it to be rewarding, is, at the end of the day, not the most important thing in my life. That's what repulses me about BigFirm life, the pressure to build your life around the firm. The Firm is Mother, the Firm is Father. I'll be the first to admit that I have zero actual experience, but nothing that I have ever read (and I read a lot) has ever made me question this generalization.
But there's nothing about a firm being a firm that requires this. If I found a firm that treated people differently, that had its corporate priorities more in accordance with mine, it would be a different story. This is more likely to happen in small firms, of course, so if I do seek firm employment, that's where I'd do it. Actually, the prospect of working in a relatively small office with a bunch of people who believe in life, not billing, is rather appealing.
So, what does this mean? You'll work on your own? In a small firm?
If you're thinking of working for a DA's office, they probably work just as many hours. Maybe more?
:)
Just don't lose the faith. If you maintain your ideals, the longer hours will be worth the loss of free time.
TC
Well, from what I know of working in public positions, there are fewer hours required, generally. There are occasional exceptions depending on the workload, but that's part of the point. Generally speaking, firms look at how many hours you do. Working as a prosecutor, my performance would be measured by what I accomplished. That's an important difference.
I think you're right on the money. I don't think anyone that chooses the firm life would be surprised or argue with this post. I think it's sort of a necessary evil. For many of us we've lived life at the expense of other aspects of our lives this far based on lofty goals. Why stop now?
True, and I don't think I'm much different, it's just that my lofty goals may not be the same as others' lofty goals. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a difference in perspective.