Comparing criminal law to “big law” (spliced)

[QueensDenning]

24 minutes ago, wannabestacysmom said:

What is it that makes some clients difficult to work with? And why are cases emotionally draining compared to biglaw? Does biglaw pretty much only refer to big corporate law firms? 

Not that I have any experience in criminal law, but I imagine it would be difficult and emotionally draining to defend (often) unsophisticated clients accused of (sometimes) heinous crimes, wherein the lawyers' advocacy can make the difference between being free vs. in jail. Also its the lawyer/firm that is responsible for billing and collecting what is owed to them, and most individuals involved in criminal proceedings don't have millions of dollars in the bank ready to disburse for professional fees, as opposed to corporate clients - so I assume that would be more of a headache. Also in the corporate field your legal work is about money/business at the end of the day which, generally, is going to be less emotionally draining compared to defending (or prosecuting) someone's life/freedom. 

BigLaw refers to big corporate law firms, yes. 

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, wannabestacysmom said:

What is it that makes some clients difficult to work with?

Have you ever talked to a guy who has stalked and harassed a woman for years while she consistently told him to leave her alone before calling the police, getting a peace bond, and then cooperating with police and prosecutors to pursue criminal charges when he continued contacting her, only for the guy to insist to you that said woman is actually totally into him and just playing games? Criminal defence lawyers have to attempt to assist some rather deluded people at times.

Then on the Crown side, they don't really have "clients" but they have a wide variety of "stakeholders" pulling them in different directions. They have to deal with being caught between similar lunatics as self-reps (which comes with an ethical tightrope of not being their lawyer but having to explain things and not take advantage of their ignorance of the law), emotional complainants who feel deeply wronged and have unrealistic expectations for how the system will right things, police officers who are insanely hypersensitive about their (terrible) work being criticized (no matter how constructively), etc. Inevitably there will be days where they make everyone unhappy.

To be clear: there are reasonable accused people, complainants and cops out there. There are also very unreasonable people in all those categories (and dealing with them is part of the job). Not meaning to generalize.

1 hour ago, wannabestacysmom said:

And why are cases emotionally draining compared to biglaw?

YMMV.

When I was doing wrongful convictions work, one of the other students I worked with took a BigLaw job and told me that after speaking on the phone with her client (who had served over 20 years in prison for a murder he denies committing) she would need to take 5-10 minutes to cry about the situation, and she realized she couldn't do that for a living.

I like helping people and the work gives me a reason to wake up in the morning, but for whatever reason I'm not sentimental about it in that way. In defence sometimes I would get legitimately pissed off on a client's behalf when I felt they were being treated unfairly, and with the Crown on very rare occasions I've felt visceral disgust in relation to an accused's conduct (while being mindful of the dispassionate disposition required of the role). But I have yet to find any of it "emotionally draining," truthfully. I really think this is just about how one is wired. I'm not pretending to be "tough" or anything here, but I simply have never felt any of this but I've heard from other people that they have. I will grant that I have yet to have to cross-examine a sexual assault complainant though and I imagine that would be uncomfortable.

Edited April 2, 2022 by CleanHands

[GGrievous]

13 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

Not that I have any experience in criminal law, but I imagine it would be difficult and emotionally draining to defend (often) unsophisticated clients accused of (sometimes) heinous crimes, wherein the lawyers' advocacy can make the difference between being free vs. in jail. Also its the lawyer/firm that is responsible for billing and collecting what is owed to them, and most individuals involved in criminal proceedings don't have millions of dollars in the bank ready to disburse for professional fees, as opposed to corporate clients - so I assume that would be more of a headache. Also in the corporate field your legal work is about money/business at the end of the day which, generally, is going to be less emotionally draining compared to defending (or prosecuting) someone's life/freedom. 

BigLaw refers to big corporate law firms, yes. 

Also not wanting to work in an area of law where you're constantly being exposed to things like child abuse and domestic violence is understandable, but it isn't a reason to go into big law, which was the point of this thread. Obviously there are many alternatives to both paths. I was just piggybacking on @LMP 's point. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Barry

[Whist]

10 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

When I was doing wrongful convictions work, one of the other students I worked took a BigLaw job and told me that after speaking on the phone with her client (who had served over 20 years in prison for a murder he denies committing) she would need to take 5-10 minutes to cry about the situation, and she realized she couldn't do that for a living.

Apropos of this - my experience has been similar working with criminal/family/etc clients. It seems like after every other clinic shift or appointment of that kind, I get home and need to cry, and I don't even work with the file in the same capacity as a lawyer or articling student. Even though I'm not into Biglaw at all, I empathize with people for using it as a way to avoid criminal and family law, ha. 

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, Whist said:

Apropos of this - my experience has been similar working with criminal/family/etc clients. It seems like after every other clinic shift or appointment of that kind, I get home and need to cry, and I don't even work with the file in the same capacity as a lawyer or articling student. Even though I'm not into Biglaw at all, I empathize with people for using it as a way to avoid criminal and family law, ha. 

Thank you for sharing. I think it's important that people considering this get these different perspectives on it. This is also why it's vital that anyone considering it get some volunteer work under their belt as a law student to see how they personally feel about it.

[wannabestacysmom]

Ok this is all super good info! I understand about the emotional side of crime, cases that are violent or disturbing etc.

On another note, how popular is it for law grads to want to pursue prosecution instead of criminal defense? Also what about civil litigation? 

Edited April 3, 2022 by wannabestacysmom

[CleanHands]

3 hours ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I also loved criminal law in law school but was intimately aware that the practice generally doesn't engage with the interesting aspects of criminal law - unless you are working at Henein Hutchison or something. Conversely in BigLaw you will routinely grapple with complex legal issues.

You aren't "intimately aware" of shit if you're writing this. Lol

[Diplock]

16 hours ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I didn't necessarily fixate on BigLaw during the recruit, my goal was to land with a firm doing interesting work, with opportunities to learn from great lawyers. You will generally find that in BigLaw.

The outpouring of negative opinions stems from the fact that the lifestyle involves substantial personal sacrifices, and while many associates will make the calculus that it is worth it (for the reasons outlined above), there is a compulsion to voice the equivalent of a giant warning label on this career path. This is also why the attrition rate is so high with many going in for a few years, and then leaving for in-house jobs, often their former clients. 

I would wager that many BigLaw lawyers genuinely enjoy the work. The problem is the volume coupled with the extreme requirements of servicing sophisticated clients. But that's the nature of the practice and it's not changing anytime soon. 

I would characterize my articling experience as generally positive, but there were many "fuck this, why" moments throughout. 

I also loved criminal law in law school but was intimately aware that the practice generally doesn't engage with the interesting aspects of criminal law - unless you are working at Henein Hutchison or something. Conversely in BigLaw you will routinely grapple with complex legal issues. 

 

Man, I said I wasn't going to engage with this shit, and I'm breaking my promise. But this is what happens when people start talking about things they don't know - including areas of law they don't practice - and because I'm taking the bait I'm going to start doing the same because truthfully, I don't know "biglaw" practice from personal experience. But all the same, I've been a lawyer for an infinitely longer time than the student I'm replying to (literally infinite - since it's in a ratio with zero amount of time) and I'm right whereas they're wrong.

Lifestyle issues are a problem with, but hardly unique to, "biglaw." I don't disagree that's a lot of the problem, but ignoring the rest of it is a mistake. There are also many, many lawyers who just can't motivate themselves at all around the challenge of ensuring that rich and powerful clients stay rich and powerful or get richer and more powerful. I mean honestly, ensuring that Corporation X pays the least amount of tax possible or stays just three hairs on the right side of environmental regulations may well be an intellectual challenge that you find satisfying. And if so, I'm not here to disparage that. But you honestly must realize that a lot of people find that far less satisfying than you do, right? As in, for many of us, that isn't the sort of complexity that we find engaging at all.

The reason you've pissed me off is that you've stepped all over what I do for a living and used it as a counter-example to basically aggrandize your own chosen work over that of other lawyers - basically implying that we've settled for simplistic, uninteresting work. And honestly, get stuffed. I won't deny that the complexity in my job is different from the complexity in your work. But when I'm pulling a bail plan together out of three paperclips and an imperfect surety with a minor criminal record who has previously been co-accused with the person I'm trying to get out on bail (and this isn't hypothetical - I literally did this on Thursday) I know for a fact I'm doing something that requires skill, experience, and a full appreciation of everything I'm messing around with. In other words, it's very complex, only in a different way.

So honestly, I'm trying to be fair to people who are attracted to what you do and avoid terms like "soulless" (opps) but when you open that can of worms I'm going to punch back. There are many, many reasons to dislike the work that you happen to like, and pretending that the only real reasons are that some people can't hack the big leagues (which is basically what you've paraphrased) is the same dumb shit students feed each other in law school but that almost no one (including experienced lawyers in biglaw) even pretend to believe anywhere else. There are real, valid reasons to want to do other things, just as there are real valid issues in other areas of practice also, which aren't to be minimized. Painting with a wide brush, as you just have, is inaccurate to the point that it's dangerous, misleading, and insulting to your peers. And quite frankly, now that you're out of law school and working in the field itself, it's time for you to learn better.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Diplock

[GGrievous]

There should really be a standing ovation reaction. 

[CleanHands]

45 minutes ago, Diplock said:

The reason you've pissed me off is that you've stepped all over what I do for a living and used it as a counter-example to basically aggrandize your own chosen work over that of other lawyers - basically implying that we've settled for simplistic, uninteresting work. And honestly, get stuffed. I won't deny that the complexity in my job is different from the complexity in your work. But when I'm pulling a bail plan together out of three paperclips and an imperfect surety with a minor criminal record who has previously been co-accused with the person I'm trying to get out on bail (and this isn't hypothetical - I literally did this on Thursday) I know for a fact I'm doing something that requires skill, experience, and a full appreciation of everything I'm messing around with. In other words, it's very complex, only in a different way.

Not gonna lie; I was excited to see you responded to that post and then a bit disappointed to find that you didn't touch upon what I found most ridiculous about it. 😛

Which is the idea that only the likes of Henein Hutchison are "engaging with the interesting aspects of criminal law" (okay, to be fair, he threw in the qualifier "generally"). When really, every average criminal lawyer routinely:

• Engages in Charter arguments.
• Debates whether elements of offences are met.
• Deals with bizarre, convoluted fact patterns with multiple live issues that could be straight out of a law school exam.
• Contests sentencing positions based on a myriad of overlapping factors, which are extremely flexible and where judges have a staggering amount of discretion.

I could go on. These arguments deal with broad philosophical questions about the role of the state, the moral culpability of individuals who have done terrible things under the influence of horrific external factors, what Parliament intended to criminalize, conflicting values re: retribution vs rehabilitation, criminalization of mental health/addiction issues, what constitutes a legitimate investigative practice vs an abuse of process, what sort of criminal justice would outrage community standards of decency, etc. Yes, there is a lot of hustling and pleading out of low complexity cases (although every file is still important to those affected by it) but all of the above, the "juicy" stuff, is also day-to-day work (for Joe Average Crim Lawyer, not just for Marie Henein).

Really the difference between Henein Hutchison and the average criminal lawyer is that the former is getting the clients with the money. And just because accused people are rich people don't somehow mean their legal cases are more complex or interesting or challenging or satisfying. Most criminally accused people are poor, and all of the "interesting aspects of criminal law" are still engaged by their cases. Funny enough, Marie Henein's most famous case was Ghomeshi, and contrary to being an example of a case that "engaged with the interesting aspects of criminal law" (relative to other cases), it was a weak and straightforward case with complainants who had significant reliability and credibility problems, which any competent criminal lawyer would be able to secure acquittals on. This is absolutely not a knock against Ms. Henein, but...that's hardly the sort of case that all the plebs who can't work for Henein deeply wish they could have handled due to the intellectual stimulation it affords in contrast to other crim law work.

Edited April 4, 2022 by CleanHands

[SlytherinLLP]

6 hours ago, Diplock said:

-

I think you are reading too much into what I said.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss "BigLaw" corporate practices and why someone would be drawn to it. I don't know why you would think that by contrasting corporate/commercial practices that involve routinely engaging with complex legal matters with something like criminal defense work, which does not (not to the same degree), suggests that somehow your work requires less skill, competency or is somehow inferior. I was referring specifically to legal analysis.

I will say that characterizing corporate work as "ensuring the rich stay rich" is at least equally reductionist. 

Anyways, I have always respected your perspective and have never voiced a disparaging comment about your line of work (unless the above qualifies - in which case I apologize). 

Edited April 4, 2022 by SlytherinLLP

[PulpFiction]

9 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I think you are reading too much into what I said.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss "BigLaw" corporate practices and why someone would be drawn to it. I don't know why you would think that by contrasting corporate/commercial practices that involve routinely engaging with complex legal matters with something like criminal defense work, which does not, suggests that somehow your work requires less skill, competency or is somehow inferior. I was referring specifically to legal analysis.

I will say that characterizing corporate work as "ensuring the rich stay rich" is at least equally reductionist. 

Anyways, I have always respected your perspective and have never voiced a disparaging comment about your line of work (unless the above qualifies - in which case I apologize). 

lol what

The average criminal lawyer does deal with complex legal matters, and that comes with plenty of complex legal analysis. What do you think criminal lawyers do? I hope you're not relying on your limited time spent with a law school's clinic to come to a conclusion about the complexity of criminal law matters. You're still off the mark with your post, but this thread probably isn't the place to address it. 

 

Edit: coffee hasnt kicked in

 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by PulpFiction

[Hegdis]

16 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I think you are reading too much into what I said.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss "BigLaw" corporate practices and why someone would be drawn to it. I don't know why you would think that by contrasting corporate/commercial practices that involve routinely engaging with complex legal matters with something like criminal defense work, which does not (not to the same degree), suggests that somehow your work requires less skill, competency or is somehow inferior. I was referring specifically to legal analysis.

A huge part of my practise involves search warrants and Constitutional challenges under 24(1) and prior to now I have never heard anyone suggest these are not complex. Of course I wouldn’t think to compare the complexity of BigLaw’s routine practices because I have never done it. It would be an uninformed opinion. 

Sonce you apparently have (right?), where on the complexity scale would you put a Garifoli application regarding a sub facial challenge to an ITO against a merger? Keep in mind that in criminal law you do not have an in-firm specialized team of people to advise you - it’s just you - so that probably informs the analysis. 

(I will probably splice this since it’s an interesting offshoot. Let me get my coffee first.)

[GGrievous]

When you said complexity did you mean celebrity?

[Rashabon]

I do like the crim lawyers getting up in arms after a prosecutor called big law lawyers subhuman lol.

[WhoKnows]

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I do like the crim lawyers getting up in arms after a prosecutor called big law lawyers subhuman lol.

Pretty par for the course. Someone gets something horribly wrong about their practice, pile on. Call entire firms of lawyers subhuman money hungry garbage, all good. 

[Ghalm]

And as per usual, a thread seemingly intended to discuss the nature of big law work and god forbid the reasons why people would want to work in big law has been catapulted into a defence of criminal law with subtle and not so subtle disparagements of big law work and lawyers (coming from people who literally admit they know very little about the work).

And yes I understand that started because someone with less experience with criminal law made a comment that triggered the fight instincts of more experienced crim lawyers... 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Ghalm

[Fruitdealer]

1 hour ago, Hegdis said:

A huge part of my practise involves search warrants and Constitutional challenges under 24(1) and prior to now I have never heard anyone suggest these are not complex. Of course I wouldn’t think to compare the complexity of BigLaw’s routine practices because I have never done it. It would be an uninformed opinion. 

Sonce you apparently have (right?), where on the complexity scale would you put a Garifoli application regarding a sub facial challenge to an ITO against a merger? Keep in mind that in criminal law you do not have an in-firm specialized team of people to advise you - it’s just you - so that probably informs the analysis. 

(I will probably splice this since it’s an interesting offshoot. Let me get my coffee first.)

I guess it depends on what kind of biglaw practice you are doing, but most corporate transactional work is not really legally complex. On a high level, structuring deals and whatnot does have a degree of legal complexity and sophistication that most likely someone else has already gone through the efforts of figuring out. Even then, the bulk of the work is document review and prep.

My opinion, and one I have heard from many corporate lawyers, is that often the actual corporate law part of it is quite boring and mostly pretty routine. The interesting part is that you have more access to the business side of things with business/deal strategy and other non-legal aspects.

Edit: Also, I think some of the additional complexity that you get in biglaw situations (maybe more in litigation?) is not always that the issues are more/less complex, but that lawyers can afford to spend the time to explore alternatives and pursue interesting but low chance arguments where it just doesn't make sense from a cost perspective in smaller files.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Fruitdealer
Additions

[Hegdis]

As with every splice it’s a bit of a gambit keeping posts to the appropriate thread. So if you notice a person being quoted but their original post isn’t here, that’s what happened. 

Of course these things trigger our fight instincts! Part of the fun being a criminal lawyer is wading into the fray. 

I did not realize CH is a prosecutor. I pegged them as defence all the way (I also assumed their comment was tongue in cheek). Anyway, here’s the thread where we can scrap over thoughtless comments to avoid work on a Monday. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

46 minutes ago, Panda said:

Perhaps this is too on the nose, but I quite enjoy catching up on the forum threads that turn into dumpster fires like the ongoing "Reasons to Work in Biglaw" thread has become - a fun way to enjoy the morning coffee break. 

It's entertaining enough for you and me, presumably because we are actually in the field and have good mentors we can talk to. But it is unfortunate that students—many of whom don't have real life connections they can talk to about these topics—are pretty routinely denied the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of big law on this forum by people who have absolutely no exposure to the practice.

It's something that has been really missing from the forum(s) since Uriel stopped being a regular poster, and though there are quite a few people on the forum who could answer these types of questions I think most of us avoid engaging substantively because we know the threads are more likely than not to devolve in exactly the way that one did. At least, that's why I don't generally bother responding to those posts. 

[Rashabon]

Yeah I don't bother chiming in with any seriousness on those threads. If people want to talk big law they can PM me but the crim lawyers all want to swing their dicks around about how great they are every time any discussion pops up. It then gets absurdly reductive, and I vaguely recall calling out Diplock or someone else on this point on the old forum. "You're all about the rich getting richer" is the equivalent to "you get rapists and pedophiles off scot free" and "you throw innocent people in jail". It doesn't add anything to the conversation.

[Hegdis]

I thought there were a number of pretty helpful and responsive posts to that thread before it got derailed. Anyway, it's tidied up now so maybe it will get back on track.

[Ghalm]

33 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's entertaining enough for you and me, presumably because we are actually in the field and have good mentors we can talk to. But it is unfortunate that students—many of whom don't have real life connections they can talk to about these topics—are pretty routinely denied the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of big law on this forum by people who have absolutely no exposure to the practice.

It's something that has been really missing from the forum(s) since Uriel stopped being a regular poster, and though there are quite a few people on the forum who could answer these types of questions I think most of us avoid engaging substantively because we know the threads are more likely than not to devolve in exactly the way that one did. At least, that's why I don't generally bother responding to those posts. 

100% agree. Further to your point, I was reluctant to respond to that thread until I read your comment about distinguishing between why people want to work in Big Law vs. why do people end up working in Big Law. Even then, I tried to keep my response as focused as possible on the question and not say something that could trigger the almost inevitable devolution...

Edited April 4, 2022 by Ghalm

[CleanHands]

Addressing posts from @Rashabon, @WhoKnows, @Ghalmand @Hegdis:

There's a distinction between banter and completely misrepresenting what the work in a practice area entails, on a forum for law students and applicants, while purporting to be "intimately familiar" with said practice area. Speaking for myself, I'm not "up in arms" about anything, I just wanted to correct misinformation since people who are considering what practice area to pursue read these threads. As I'm sure someone like @Rashabonwould if I made a totally inaccurate statement about what the day to day of corporate lawyering entails (I don't do this because I am aware of my own ignorance of it).

Call prosecutors fascists and defence lawyers rapist-lovers for all I care. I'll give a "nom" rating and not bother with a response because bantz are bantz. 😛

(ETA: @Hegdis, you're tagged just because I'm concurring about the comment being tongue in cheek).

Edited April 4, 2022 by CleanHands

[epeeist]

Isn't this a case of one set of people who've never eaten apples and another set of people who've never eaten oranges, comparing apples to oranges based only on how they look from a distance? How many lawyers have experience both in practicing criminal law and biglaw that they can make a meaningful firsthand comparison? Or if not experience, have enough detailed objective meaningful knowledge to make an informed comparison?

(I think having at least some experience in both areas at least on the prosecutorial side of criminal law may be more common in the US for those with future political or judicial aspirations)