A thread to vent toxicity about litigation (or law generally) when you've had a bad day

[TheBadLawyer]

Ten days later and I need this thread again. I spent last night wallowing in dread at the thought of working today. This morning it took forever for me to get going because of how viscerally I just want to avoid everything to do with work right now. The irony is that I had a couple of contested hearings clear up this week so I actually have the time to do some of the stuff I feel so guilty and anxious about not getting to lately but, right when I finally have some time, my anxiety and depression have hit an absolutely crushing point. I'm crying at random intervals and feel a bone-deep self-loathing over the fact that I can't seem to just pick myself up and do my goddamn job. I have never before been this close to needing to go on leave. Fortunately, I have shrink appointment on Thursday, so hopefully I can just limp through to then.

[123]

5 minutes ago, TheBadLawyer said:

I have never before been this close to needing to go on leave.

I am not an expert in mental health, but you are probably past the point of needing to go on some sort of leave. Anxiety, depression, and burnout can combine can make for a pretty toxic mixture. You need rest (I know you said you just went on vacation, but vacations are not always restful, especially when you're dealing with anxiety and depression).

If you're going to stay in practice, you probably also need to make changes to your practice. I had to do a bit of a practice reset this year. I stopped taking certain very stressful files. That was a difficult decision, because I believe that someone needs to do those cases and not very many people do. But it wasn't tenable for me long term. I was dealing with the kind of crushing anxiety you described, and at a certain point, you're just not helping anyone. It's a "please put your own oxygen mask on before assisting someone else" kind of situation. I am much better off now.

[frozenbananas]

As a student interested in litigation I wonder, if you could all go back - would you have chosen a litigation career or a transactional one?

[JohnsonWest]

4 hours ago, TheBadLawyer said:

Ten days later and I need this thread again. I spent last night wallowing in dread at the thought of working today. This morning it took forever for me to get going because of how viscerally I just want to avoid everything to do with work right now. The irony is that I had a couple of contested hearings clear up this week so I actually have the time to do some of the stuff I feel so guilty and anxious about not getting to lately but, right when I finally have some time, my anxiety and depression have hit an absolutely crushing point. I'm crying at random intervals and feel a bone-deep self-loathing over the fact that I can't seem to just pick myself up and do my goddamn job. I have never before been this close to needing to go on leave. Fortunately, I have shrink appointment on Thursday, so hopefully I can just limp through to then.

Really sorry to hear about your situation. I hope you get the help and break you deserve soon. 

[TheBadLawyer]

10 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I am not an expert in mental health, but you are probably past the point of needing to go on some sort of leave. Anxiety, depression, and burnout can combine can make for a pretty toxic mixture. You need rest (I know you said you just went on vacation, but vacations are not always restful, especially when you're dealing with anxiety and depression).

If you're going to stay in practice, you probably also need to make changes to your practice. I had to do a bit of a practice reset this year. I stopped taking certain very stressful files. That was a difficult decision, because I believe that someone needs to do those cases and not very many people do. But it wasn't tenable for me long term. I was dealing with the kind of crushing anxiety you described, and at a certain point, you're just not helping anyone. It's a "please put your own oxygen mask on before assisting someone else" kind of situation. I am much better off now.

You are not wrong. My vacation wound up being consumed by a health emergency in the family and subsequent recovery. I had the time off work, but it was in no way restful.

I managed to get enough done today that I feel slightly less like I'm in a car careening down the highway with cut brake lines. But I'm going to be on once a week shrink appointments for the next while.

Broadly speaking, though, I think I need to pump the brakes on the number of sex assaults I'm taking - they're just way too labour-intensive - and maybe just generally be better about realizing that my plate can only handle a certain amount on it. When the family stuff hit, I should have taken a couple of volunteer obligations off my plate; instead, I (rather stupidly) added things to my plate.

[TheBadLawyer]

6 hours ago, frozenbananas said:

As a student interested in litigation I wonder, if you could all go back - would you have chosen a litigation career or a transactional one?

I can't imagine doing transactional law on the daily. I would probably switch careers entirely rather than switching to transactional law. In addition to my numerous other blessings, I have ADHD, so desk jobs are torturously boring for me. In my more emotionally stable (or at least less depressed) times, I like the excitement of court work. But I am also keenly aware that there is an expiration date on my ability to practice litigation, and it's likely one that's looming in the not-too-distant future.

As a long term prospect, I think there are two types of personalities that manage to survive the emotional ups and downs of litigation and come out in tact:

1. Supremely, supremely confident people: you know, the type of people who - unlike those of us with depressive triad thinking who explain away all of our successes - feel their wins are due to their legal prowess but can manage to shrug off any loss as the judge "getting it wrong". I hate them a bit, but mostly because I'm jealous of that confidence.
2. Buddha-level calm people: these are the people who don't get caught up so much in the emotional ups and downs. They're quietly pleased with wins and mildly disappointed with losses but can leave both at the office. With litigation in particular, it's important to be able to distance yourself from the result. In crim, if you lose, a client whom you genuinely believe to be innocent may go to prison (potentially for a long time) - that is pretty tough not to take personally, but some people manage.

I think for the rest of us, litigation has an indelible impact on our psyche that people cope with in different ways. Drugs, alcohol, and overspending are coping mechanisms that have gotten many lawyers into trouble. Lots of trial lawyers fall into or maintain horrible lifestyles, seldom exercising and sometimes compounding ill health with smoking and eating like shit. And then, God only knows what the general level of stress does...there are seemingly infinite studies linking stress to negative health outcomes so I can't imagine it's great.

If you can see yourself enjoying transactional law and are not one of the above-noted two types of personalities who seem to practice litigation unscathed, you may wish to consider veering away from litigation. 

[CleanHands]

40 minutes ago, TheBadLawyer said:

As a long term prospect, I think there are two types of personalities that manage to survive the emotional ups and downs of litigation and come out in tact:

1. Supremely, supremely confident people: you know, the type of people who - unlike those of us with depressive triad thinking who explain away all of our successes - feel their wins are due to their legal prowess but can manage to shrug off any loss as the judge "getting it wrong". I hate them a bit, but mostly because I'm jealous of that confidence.
2. Buddha-level calm people: these are the people who don't get caught up so much in the emotional ups and downs. They're quietly pleased with wins and mildly disappointed with losses but can leave both at the office. With litigation in particular, it's important to be able to distance yourself from the result. In crim, if you lose, a client whom you genuinely believe to be innocent may go to prison (potentially for a long time) - that is pretty tough not to take personally, but some people manage.

I'm a tad concerned by this post as I'm an early career litigator who is loving it but who certainly doesn't fall into either of those categories. I have my own theory as to why I'm suited to it in spite of that but I'll have to get back to you in a few years before espousing and defending it now.

For what it's worth, I dealt with depression pretty much my entire life until law school and I feel that this work has been positively beneficial to my mental health, at least in the short term. But I'll be the first to admit that's an unusual trajectory.

Edited September 27, 2022 by CleanHands

[TheBadLawyer]

6 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I'm a tad concerned by this post as I'm an early career litigator who is loving it but who certainly doesn't fall into either of those categories. I have my own theory as to why I'm suited to it in spite of that but I'll have to get back to you in a few years before espousing and defending it now.

For what it's worth, I dealt with depression pretty much my entire life until law school and beyond and I feel that this work has been positively beneficial to my mental health, at least in the short term. But I'll be the first to admit that's an unusual trajectory.

Well, I have to admit that's just my theory. I hope you score one for Team Depressives!

[Bob Jones]

11 hours ago, frozenbananas said:

As a student interested in litigation I wonder, if you could all go back - would you have chosen a litigation career or a transactional one?

150% transaction work. Ideally start at a bigger firm for the experience, then after a couple years move In House for the more relaxed lifestyle. If you can do a JD/MBA program that would be helpful but not necessary.

Litigation is not what you see on TV. You’re not meeting with clients for consults in the morning and going to trial in the afternoon. It can be 18 months of absolute bickering and a grind on every step of the way. But the biggest secret they don’t tell us in law school is law firms are a business which means expect high high volume of files, since it can take a long time to collect anything (at least when on plaintiff side work). 100+ files can easily be dumped you and you’re expected to work like a slave to push them along. Push your files forward at all costs so your bosses get paid sooner. That’s all they care about. And that can be horrible. Plus add the needy plaintiffs who send you follow ups every other day, and passive aggressive emails from your bosses, it can be horrible to say the least. 
 

If you do get into litigation, stay away from plaintiff/contingency work, as defends/hourly clients always have billings so that helps, and they’re usually less demanding since every phone call/email comes at an hourly cost. Plus it’s not your responsibility to push a file forward (at least for defence work). Expectations for high volume are still there though.

Not that transactional work isn’t a grind, but the constant bickering and pressure in litigation is not fun. Avoid it. 

 

 

15 hours ago, TheBadLawyer said:

Ten days later and I need this thread again. I spent last night wallowing in dread at the thought of working today. This morning it took forever for me to get going because of how viscerally I just want to avoid everything to do with work right now. The irony is that I had a couple of contested hearings clear up this week so I actually have the time to do some of the stuff I feel so guilty and anxious about not getting to lately but, right when I finally have some time, my anxiety and depression have hit an absolutely crushing point. I'm crying at random intervals and feel a bone-deep self-loathing over the fact that I can't seem to just pick myself up and do my goddamn job. I have never before been this close to needing to go on leave. Fortunately, I have shrink appointment on Thursday, so hopefully I can just limp through to then.

Sorry to hear you’re having a rough time! Glad to hear you’re getting help. If you can, try getting into exercise before/after work.  Even 20 mins. I find that really helps me burn stress and stay mellow. Otherwise I get overwhelmed with all the bs. That said, you have options. So many places are hiring. Don’t be pressured to stay in a toxic environment. 

[Rusty Iron Ring]

6 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I'm a tad concerned by this post as I'm an early career litigator who is loving it but who certainly doesn't fall into either of those categories. I have my own theory as to why I'm suited to it in spite of that but I'll have to get back to you in a few years before espousing and defending it now.

I would say there is at least a third category:  People with a very good poker face, who make themselves look like they belong in one of the other categories.

One of my early mentors in litigation was an unbelievably kind lady who celebrated every win and took every loss extremely hard.  She would wake up in the middle of the night worrying about her files.  She told me how, after her first loss in court, she came back to the office and spent the rest of the afternoon sitting under her desk crying. She really, really didn't like high-stakes, high-conflict litigation, she just happened to be very good at it. 

You wouldn't have known any of this from looking at her.  She gave every appearance of being completely unflappable. She was completely fearless in taking on difficult cases, and completely fearless in the courtroom.  She was a wonder to behold, and a very senior member of the bar with multiple reported decisions in complex areas of litigation. 

I don't know which category I fit into.  I'm not in the supremely confident category (i.e. narcissists, of which there are many very successful ones in litigation).  I don't think I really fit in the buddha group, though I probably seem that way from the outside.  I'm more in the TheBadLawyer's camp, with a rampant case of ADHD that makes it impossible for me to pay attention to anything that isn't intense and stressful.

14 hours ago, frozenbananas said:

As a student interested in litigation I wonder, if you could all go back - would you have chosen a litigation career or a transactional one?

I've thought about this a lot.  I honestly don't know.  Boredom is my mortal enemy, and I think that I might have become bored. But I never really tried it, so I don't know. 

Definitely after losing in court I feel like I absolutely should have done this.  But then after winning I feel like it would be insane to do anything other than this. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Rusty Iron Ring

[BlockedQuebecois]

I think there is also a pretty healthy class of folks who are neither supremely confident nor incredibly calm, but instead just don’t derive a lot of their personal self worth from their professional accomplishments. 

I’m definitely not a supremely calm person – I care a lot about my files, and I find winning exhilarating and losing incredibly disappointing.

I also don’t think my wins are the result of my legal acumen or my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge. Or at least, I don’t think *all* my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge (and at least some of my wins are the result of bad judicial reasoning, too). Maybe it’s because I clerked – and therefore know how much outcomes rely on a vague sense of justice and the facts (and conversely how little they rely on the quality of the advocate, assuming baseline competence) – but the idea that I’m having a material affect on most of my files is a bit laughable. 

Instead, I try to draw a lot of my self worth from non-professional accomplishments. That keeps me balanced when I win or lose a case, and more importantly it keeps me balanced during the inevitable ebbs and flows of professional success and failure. 

I’m relatively junior in my career, but a lot of the senior litigators I know who are most content with their lives and practices seem to do the same. 

[Cool_name]

15 hours ago, frozenbananas said:

As a student interested in litigation I wonder, if you could all go back - would you have chosen a litigation career or a transactional one?

I’ve done both. 
 

The highs in litigation are higher, but the lows are also lower. 
 

The only thing I wish I had from the solicitor side is exit ops out of law. Seems like far more opportunities to move in house in a transactional/ law adjacent role. The in house roles for litigation seem more like they are still litigation, just for one client (granted this typically means you can be managing the litigation rather than conducting it). 
 

I don’t think you need to be supremely confident or Buddha level calm to survive as a litigator. You should have a bit of a stoic attitude and able to separate life from work (this is easier as a solicitor I found), but I think that is a healthy trait everyone should work on. 
 

You also should either love the law, love winning or both. You need to find some intrinsic motivation to keep pushing for that golden nugget. Frankly, I love winning more than I love the law for the laws sake.

 

It can also just be a job for you, and there is nothing wrong with that. Its a good paying job. 

[Rusty Iron Ring]

How it feels to win or lose really depends a lot on your expectations going in. 

When you tell the client an argument is probably a loser and they make you go ahead anyway, it doesn't hurt to lose.  It just proves that you knew what you were talking about. 

When you tell them that an argument is probably a loser, but they make you go ahead and you manage to pull it off, that feels pretty fantastic.  And you look like a hero. 

The real danger is when you think you should win.  If you do, it doesn't feel like much of an accomplishment - the win was what was expected.  But if you think you're going to win (and especially if the client thought you were going to win) and you don't, that can be absolutely crushing. 

[CleanHands]

 

2 hours ago, Rusty Iron Ring said:

I'm more in the TheBadLawyer's camp, with a rampant case of ADHD that makes it impossible for me to pay attention to anything that isn't intense and stressful.

I feel this and this is half of what I was getting at too. The other half being that I was depressed before my law career when I didn't have a clear reason to get up in the morning and saw no value in anything I was doing. That's one respect in which litigation work dealing with meaningful subject matter can actually be beneficial to mental health for certain kinds of people.

I am not a supremely confident person, nor am I "calm" ("I will not be confused for docile - I'm free, motherfuckers, I'm hostile"). But I feel irrevocably wired to need to fight for something and this scratches the itch (and in a more productive way than most alternatives). And although I'm not especially confident, after getting over my initial jitters and fumbling through my first handful of proceedings, I don't find court appearances particularly intimidating or stressful anymore.

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I also don’t think my wins are the result of my legal acumen or my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge. Or at least, I don’t think *all* my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge (and at least some of my wins are the result of bad judicial reasoning, too). Maybe it’s because I clerked – and therefore know how much outcomes rely on a vague sense of justice and the facts (and conversely how little they rely on the quality of the advocate, assuming baseline competence) – but the idea that I’m having a material affect on most of my files is a bit laughable.

I half agree with you, but there's one thing I want to challenge you on.

You clerked at an appellate court and my understanding is that you do low volume, high complexity litigation work on big files that are handled with a lot of care and have a lot of eyes on them. I would agree that these cases really are about what the law is and should be, and that one's ability to influence outcomes as an advocate is quite limited.

That is far less true of high volume, low complexity litigation work, and quality of advocacy can make far more of a difference in that context. And those files are often still of tremendous importance to affected individuals. Pre-trial negotiations can make a huge difference in outcomes, and performance at trial often matters beyond the bar of baseline competence. I have run more than one trial where the outcome came down to whether a single specific question was asked of a single specific witness, that may or may not have occurred to a generally competent lawyer. I have run more than one sentencing hearing where the outcome came down to specific information that a lawyer provided that not every generally competent lawyer would have thought to.

Also even maintaining a standard of baseline competence across literally hundreds of trials is not something to assume or sneeze at--most Crowns for example can point to one trial where they simply forgot to canvas one of identity/jurisdiction/date/essential element because that happens when you are in court 3 days a week and running half a dozen trials in a day.

58 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

I don’t think you need to be supremely confident or Buddha level calm to survive as a litigator. You should have a bit of a stoic attitude and able to separate life from work (this is easier as a solicitor I found), but I think that is a healthy trait everyone should work on.

You also should either love the law, love winning or both. You need to find some intrinsic motivation to keep pushing for that golden nugget. Frankly, I love winning more than I love the law for the laws sake.

Respectfully, these paragraphs seem to be something of a contradiction to me. It's difficult to separate life from work when having a genuine interest in your work and intrinsic motivation to be successful at it is a requirement.

At any rate I don't think separation is necessary, or even realistic or sensible--your work is not only part of your life, but a highly significant part of your life. So any effort to "separate" it from that is going to create cognitive dissonance. What I think is more important is to recognize what is and isn't within your control and not sweat the latter at all, and to be willing to learn and grown from actual mistakes without beating oneself up too much for them.

Edited September 27, 2022 by CleanHands

[TheBadLawyer]

Just to be clear about what I said, I wasn't saying that ONLY the two types of personalities I mentioned can do litigation longterm or at all. This is what I said:

16 hours ago, TheBadLawyer said:

As a long term prospect, I think there are two types of personalities that manage to survive the emotional ups and downs of litigation and come out in tact...

Everyone else seems to pay the piper in some way or another.

This (below) would not seem to be a third category to me:

9 hours ago, Rusty Iron Ring said:

I would say there is at least a third category:  People with a very good poker face, who make themselves look like they belong in one of the other categories.

One of my early mentors in litigation was an unbelievably kind lady who celebrated every win and took every loss extremely hard.  She would wake up in the middle of the night worrying about her files.  She told me how, after her first loss in court, she came back to the office and spent the rest of the afternoon sitting under her desk crying. She really, really didn't like high-stakes, high-conflict litigation, she just happened to be very good at it. 

It seems like the profession taking its toll and harming her mental health. She may have managed to continue in objectively unhealthy circumstances for a long time, but that doesn't make those circumstances healthy. 

9 hours ago, Rusty Iron Ring said:I've thought about this a lot.  I honestly don't know.  Boredom is my mortal enemy, and I think that I might have become bored. But I never really tried it, so I don't know. 

Definitely after losing in court I feel like I absolutely should have done this.  But then after winning I feel like it would be insane to do anything other than this. 

Yep! Litigation is like a drug. The emotional cycle really does mimic addiction.

[Cool_name]

23 hours ago, CleanHands said:

 

Respectfully, these paragraphs seem to be something of a contradiction to me. It's difficult to separate life from work when having a genuine interest in your work and intrinsic motivation to be successful at it is a requirement.

At any rate I don't think separation is necessary, or even realistic or sensible--your work is not only part of your life, but a highly significant part of your life. So any effort to "separate" it from that is going to create cognitive dissonance. What I think is more important is to recognize what is and isn't within your control and not sweat the latter at all, and to be willing to learn and grown from actual mistakes without beating oneself up too much for them.

Something being difficult doesn’t make it a contradiction.
 

It boils down to what separating life from work means. To me, it means being able to devote your full attention to other things when not needing to work. That other thing could be your significant other at dinner, a hobby you enjoy, a tv show, or even just a cold beer on a summer afternoon. 

Sometimes work thoughts sneak through, but the work thoughts should be sneaking in, rather than always being there. 
 

It sounds like you already have a separation, but I don’t think that is true for everyone, especially those who burn out.

[123]

On 9/27/2022 at 9:53 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

I also don’t think my wins are the result of my legal acumen or my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge. Or at least, I don’t think *all* my losses are the result of bad reasoning by the judge (and at least some of my wins are the result of bad judicial reasoning, too). Maybe it’s because I clerked – and therefore know how much outcomes rely on a vague sense of justice and the facts (and conversely how little they rely on the quality of the advocate, assuming baseline competence) – but the idea that I’m having a material affect on most of my files is a bit laughable. 

On 9/27/2022 at 11:39 AM, CleanHands said:

I half agree with you, but there's one thing I want to challenge you on.

You clerked at an appellate court and my understanding is that you do low volume, high complexity litigation work on big files that are handled with a lot of care and have a lot of eyes on them. I would agree that these cases really are about what the law is and should be, and that one's ability to influence outcomes as an advocate is quite limited.

That is far less true of high volume, low complexity litigation work, and quality of advocacy can make far more of a difference in that context. And those files are often still of tremendous importance to affected individuals. Pre-trial negotiations can make a huge difference in outcomes, and performance at trial often matters beyond the bar of baseline competence. I have run more than one trial where the outcome came down to whether a single specific question was asked of a single specific witness, that may or may not have occurred to a generally competent lawyer. I have run more than one sentencing hearing where the outcome came down to specific information that a lawyer provided that not every generally competent lawyer would have thought to.

Also even maintaining a standard of baseline competence across literally hundreds of trials is not something to assume or sneeze at--most Crowns for example can point to one trial where they simply forgot to canvas one of identity/jurisdiction/date/essential element because that happens when you are in court 3 days a week and running half a dozen trials in a day.

I also agree and disagree to an extent. I agree that legal arguments tend not to be a major factor in persuading decisionmakers. Most panels instead usually try to reach the right outcome based upon their understanding of the facts, and my framing of the facts and law tend to matter only around the margins. I also agree with the overall point that it's good not to take outcomes too personally as counsel, because the outcome is largely beyond the advocate's control, and we have less impact than we might imagine. Also what I'm about to say shouldn't imply that Counsel are to blame for everything witnesses say or don't say -- that wouldn't be true, and in a thread on toxicity in litigation, I wouldn't want to up the ante / stress on lawyers.

Still, in the spirit of forum pedantry, I'll push back on this. When we're talking about less sophisticated, non-institutional clients, I disagree that the facts, as they appear on the record, can be separated from the advocate's competence in this way. Facts are not a pre-existing entity, which will emerge irrespective of a client's representative. At least in my practice (and some of this will be practice specific), a tonne of work goes into preparing witnesses and the documentary record. For instance, I essentially start witness prep in the client intake meeting, and I keep advising and working on testimony through the drafting of pleadings, all the way up to practice sessions before a hearing. My client's testimony is usually a disaster when we start. They can't answer questions directly. They ramble, contradict themselves, focus on irrelevant issues, omit probative and helpful information, express opinions, and describe events in vague or uncompelling terms.

Whether clients and witnesses get from that place, to a place where they are able to be found truthful and reliable, and where the salient facts emerge in testimony, often depends a lot on the advocate's skill and work prior to a case being heard. It's not work that would be obvious to clerks at Federal Courts. But that kind of prep work accounts for the bulk of my time, and I find it often makes the difference in many cases. Maybe you would roll prep into baseline competency. Which, perhaps. But many lawyers with good reputations, who are competent by any accepted standard in my area of practice, do this part less well, if they do much of it all. And even if it is, I still don't think you can separate fact and counsel. I've done several JRs, where the facts and record as it appears to the Federal Court aren't the same thing, because the facts didn't make it on record. And that wasn't incompetence of counsel -- counsel may have fulfilled all of their baseline duties and obligations. But I've also seen instances where more skilled counsel would have better shaped the record, even if in ways not obvious to a reviewing Court.

Edited September 28, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Rusty Iron Ring]

I agree with this.  

It probably does look like advocacy doesn't matter in most cases, if you're watching from the courtroom.  But if you're watching from the courtroom, you haven't actually seen most of it.  You haven't seen the witness prep that realpseudonym is talking about here, nor have you seen the evidence that the witness would have given without it. You haven't seen the improper evidence that a good lawyer kept out, and you haven't seen the much spottier and more confusing record that everyone would have been stuck with if the lawyer hadn't done their job as well. 

Most of the advocacy is already baked into the case by the time it's presented in court. 

And that's leaving aside the advocacy that's involved in convincing parties to settle, which doesn't make it to court but is actually what makes the difference in almost every case. Most of the time our job isn't to actually win the case in court, it's to know what's likely to happen in court and why, and then explain it convincingly to others.

[BlockedQuebecois]

@CleanHands and @realpseudonym I think it is probably fair to say that the quality of the advocate has more of an effect when we’re talking about less sophisticated clients or less complex, high volume litigation. I debated including a disclaimer along those lines in my original post, because one of the real benefits of my job is that nearly all of the lawyers I deal with are competent and generally effective advocates. 

With that said, “more of an effect” is a relative term. In my view, regardless of the sophistication of the client or the complexity of the file, the vast majority of advocates are only exerting a very marginal force on the outcomes of their files. With relatively few exceptions, most lawyers could be replaced by a replacement level lawyer without materially affecting the outcome of any given matter.

There are obviously outliers on either end of the spectrum – lawyers that are so good they push the odds of success on any given brief up by a significant margin, or lawyers who are so bad they push the odds of success down by a significant margin – but in general, most lawyers are roughly of the same quality and their advocacy is not going to affect the outcome of a matter in a material way. For every time a roughly average advocate has a great idea that makes it into a devastating cross and turns the tides of the trial, the other roughly average advocate has a great idea on a different file that the first would have missed. 

Note that what I’m not saying (and to the extent my prior post may have been construed this way, it’s not what I meant) is that whether or not someone has a lawyer is immaterial. The involvement of a lawyer matters a lot. What I disagree with is that the identity of that advocate matters a lot, generally speaking. 

@Rusty Iron Ring my experience and conclusions are not based solely on “watching from a courtroom”. Apologies if that was not clear to you. 

[Rusty Iron Ring]

3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

@Rusty Iron Ring my experience and conclusions are not based solely on “watching from a courtroom”. Apologies if that was not clear to you. 

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, counsel. 

I was responding in general terms to the view that "outcomes rely on a vague sense of justice and the facts (and conversely how little they rely on the quality of the advocate, assuming baseline competence)".  The judge or jury are considering the facts and considering what is just, but all I am saying is that they are doing that based on an evidentiary record that was presented in the courtroom, and is itself the result of lots and lots of advocacy. 

[Bob Jones]

Just had an unnecessarily difficult discovery with an old timer OC who was busy puffing his chest and trying to correct and undermine me, rather than focus on his client. This really doesn’t have to be so toxic and difficult. Let me ask my questions, you ask yours, and then let’s move on. 

[happydude]

As a civil litigator, my vote is to just stop caring. It helps a lot. I try my best and prepare the best I can. If I lose? Don't care. Not my life that gets impacted. If the judge or opposing counsel thinks I suck? Don't care. Many (certainly not all) of both are jerks and have God complexes and/or personality disorders so why mind their opinions anyway. I'd rather be known as a middling lawyer than a dbag anyway so joke is on them. Client unhappy? Again don't care. I've been paid already, some clients are always going to be mad about something, and since I do always try my best and prepare thoroughly, I have 10x more happy clients than upset ones. 

We are only human. It is impossible to truly detach from all emotion. The stress and anxiety is real all too often. But the above approach has served me well.

Maybe criminal lawyers have it different. But when I think of myself on my death bed, pondering over some guy having lost or made money or whatever the case might be from whatever civil case I handled, all I can do I laugh. Talk about unimportant and irrelevant. People might say I don't take the job seriously enough. I think others take it too seriously. Try your best and go home. Nothing wrong with treating your job as a job.

Edited October 7, 2022 by happydude

[MagnaCarter]

I agree with happydude's candid but wise perspective. I'm fortunate enough not to have to rely on contingency fee cases, but I think plaintiffs lawyers likely cannot follow that philosophy. 

To add to the discussion about the effect of the advocate on outcome, I think the general disposition of a particular type of advocate can be a decisive factor when dealing with juries. It is definitely a soft skill. Having a strong knowledge of the law or even top-notch presentation skills may not be enough, as jury trials require a type of persuasion that needs the lawyer to get 6-12 people, who realistically hate having to spend time away from their lives to be there with you, to like you more than the other person, or even trust and like you more than your own client, depending on how they come across. You need to be able to connect more with the average person, which, perhaps, may be less natural for less experienced lawyers from privileged backgrounds.

High volume, maybe; but I wouldn't group all jury trial work into the less complex category.

[Bob Jones]

Part of the problem with plaintiff-side litigation is the pressures of contingency work. All bosses care about is that you take on an obscenely high volume of clients, and settle/collect fees ASAP at an astronomically high figure. Over work and under pay is their model, and it can take a lot of time and energy to move things along, especially as we’re talking about an adversarial process by definition. Clients meanwhile have no trepidation about calling or emailing all day long complaining about their file and why we didn’t magically get them money over night. 
 

There’s issues too with Defense/hourly work, but long term I think that’s where I’d like to practice. My defense work is so much more relaxing, clients are not as needy, and you can actually focus on work rather than settling files for the sake of settling so you have high collections on a contingency basis. Whether you did a good job or not for the client is irrelevant. 
 

I know it’s overstated, but law schools really do a terrible job at preparing us for the realities of being a lawyer. 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Bob Jones

[CleanHands]

This week was the first one where I've disliked my job since I went to law school.

1 trial day (with 8 trials scheduled), 2 combined trial/docket days, 1 full (lengthy) docket day. Oh, and half of my one day out of court was spent dealing with a security incident.

Somehow prior to this I've managed to keep all parties calm and understanding for the most part even when they are upset with what has happened on the files or disagree with my actions. Now this week, somehow virtually every complainant, accused person, and individual tangentially associated with the files, was more upset and unreasonable than anyone I had encountered in my capacity as a lawyer or law student prior to that. I ran multiple insane self-rep neighbor dispute situation files where everyone was buried so deep in years of petty grievances that they had completely lost perspective and couldn't even comprehend that their trials were solely concerned with specific and narrow incidents, and of course regardless of the outcome they were pissed that we didn't litigate a million different things completely outside of that scope.

Multiple people bombarding my poor assistant shouting at her over complete bullshit (in more than one case they literally wanted to ask me questions I already gave them answers to) and I literally did not have time to call and placate them about nonsense with that kind of workload. Although I can completely justify that I don't need to drop everything and call such people when I have to prep files and talk with actual counsel about actual urgent matters, when a lot was already being asked of me it doesn't feel great to have half a dozen "lunatic keeps calling our office wanting to talk to you" situations hanging over me when I'm already doing a ton of work and getting not a ton of sleep (and I do want to make those calls, if only to tell them we've done what we could, the matter is resolved, and I don't want them to bother our support staff anymore).

Edited October 9, 2022 by CleanHands