Wanting to help people & wanting to make money conflicting with each other?

[backtomac]

This is going to probably come off as a super dumb post, but maybe someone will be able to help guide me.

I'm an accepted 0L. Part of me wants to be a lawyer to advocate for human rights and make positive change. Still, I want to be a lawyer working for an elite firm because I crave financial security and want to send my future kids to a good school. 

Is it possible to have both? Can I work at an elite firm and do meaningful pro-bono work on the side?

[law0012]

looooooool. this is a very 0L question. i was in the same boat, and once you start actually getting experience in the legal industry you realize how much more nuanced it is. you also dont need to work at an "elite" firm to have financial security.

[LMP]

Let's not be coy with the "financial security" side of things. If a solid and decent living is all your after, social justice focused law will get you there. 

But you don't want security, you want the big bucks of big law! And that's just fine, you're totally allowed to want to make lots of money. But let's not pretend you are torn between being a corporate slave and forcing your kids to live in a cardboard box. 

In any case, your question was specifically about pro bono work while doing big law. This is, of course, predicated on you actually securing a big law job (lots of people have this identify crisis in 0L and then get rejected across the board). The reality of the situation is that you'll have very limited oppertunites to do pro bono work, especially in the early years. 

I know a lot of firms like to mention the oppertunity to do pro bono work, but if you talk to fresh associates they'll tell you the truth of the matter. At the end of the day your job is to make money for the firm and the type of work you do reflects that.

[backtomac]

4 minutes ago, LMP said:

Let's not be coy with the "financial security" side of things. If a solid and decent living is all your after, social justice focused law will get you there. 

But you don't want security, you want the big bucks of big law! And that's just fine, you're totally allowed to want to make lots of money. But let's not pretend you are torn between being a corporate slave and forcing your kids to live in a cardboard box. 

In any case, your question was specifically about pro bono work while doing big law. This is, of course, predicated on you actually securing a big law job (lots of people have this identify crisis in 0L and then get rejected across the board). The reality of the situation is that you'll have very limited oppertunites to do pro bono work, especially in the early years. 

I know a lot of firms like to mention the oppertunity to do pro bono work, but if you talk to fresh associates they'll tell you the truth of the matter. At the end of the day your job is to make money for the firm and the type of work you do reflects that.

I LOVE this. Thank you so much for the insight! I'm (obviously) going to try my best in 1L and attempt to secure a big firm job; knowing I'll be able to do pro-bono work in the future is enough for me — I don't have to be doing it during my first few years if the firm doesn't encourage that

[mistertubby]

the conflict goes away once you realize that corporations are people too

[Hegdis]

So you do realize that there are very lucrative jobs outside of Bay St corporate law right?

If you want both, become a criminal defence lawyer or a Crown, bust your ass to get a good reputation, and you will have the chance to change lives every single day. 

[Iwantsomeoffers]

I went through this too. I believe my meaning in life lies in helping others. My logic is imperfect, but I hope it can be helpful somehow. Everyone needs some income to live on. And many of them rely on their jobs. Companies provide jobs. And perhaps the bigger the company, the more jobs it can provide. So if I help companies to grow, potentially, I help to provide more job opportunities, and many people will benefit from it. So I am helping people, and money will follow if I am doing what I am saying. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Iwantsomeoffers

[WhoKnows]

2 hours ago, LMP said:

I know a lot of firms like to mention the oppertunity to do pro bono work, but if you talk to fresh associates they'll tell you the truth of the matter.

Am 3 years in. No shortage of pro-bono work to be done if you raise your hand for it here. It's also tracked and counted towards your billables. 

[CleanHands]

If you have to ask this question, just go work on Bay Street.

[123]

46 minutes ago, Iwantsomeoffers said:

I went through this too. I believe my meaning in life lies in helping others. My logic is imperfect, but I hope it can be helpful somehow. Everyone needs some income to live on. And many of them rely on their jobs. Companies provide jobs. And perhaps the bigger the company, the more jobs it can provide. So if I help companies to grow, potentially, I help to provide more job opportunities, and many people will benefit from it. So I am helping people, and money will follow if I am doing what I am saying. 

The internal logic of this is fine. Law is a service job. If you are a lawyer, then you are serving someone, and therefore helping someone. Given that your goal is to help someone, anyone, then you are succeeding. That does seem perfectly logical. 

You are not helping vulnerable people. And you are not practicing social justice law. Which is to say, if you believe that there are fundamental injustices in society, your day-to-day work does little if anything to push back on systemic or individual wrongs. That's all perfectly fine. You don't have to serve the most vulnerable. You don't have to dedicate your career to social causes. But if helping the vulnerable or fighting fundamental injustices is a student's goal, then it is harder to reconcile that goal with working in a primarily commercial or corporate practice. There would be tradeoffs about who you help and how.

[GoatDuck]

3 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

The internal logic of this is fine. Law is a service job. If you are a lawyer, then you are serving someone, and therefore helping someone. Given that your goal is to help someone, anyone, then you are succeeding. That does seem perfectly logical. 

You are not helping vulnerable people. And you are not practicing social justice law. Which is to say, if you believe that there are fundamental injustices in society, your day-to-day work does little if anything to push back on systemic or individual wrongs. That's all perfectly fine. You don't have to serve the most vulnerable. You don't have to dedicate your career to social causes. But if helping the vulnerable or fighting fundamental injustices is a student's goal, then it is harder to reconcile that goal with working in a primarily commercial or corporate practice. There would be tradeoffs about who you help and how.

Not to be a simp, but whenever I read your comments, I am so incredibly impressed by your ability to contradict others in the most kind, respectful and caring way. Goals

[Whist]

I know it’s probably not your or anyone’s intent to come across this way, but whenever people say a variation of “I want to do [insert social justice-y type law], but if I do well in school I’ll go for BigLaw,” all I hear is they actually want to do BigLaw and are afraid they just won’t make the cut. 

You have lots of time to decide what you’ll pursue after law school. As others have said, it’s not an all or nothing where you either work on Bay Street with a nice office or you’re living in a box advocating for orphaned puppies’ right to care. There’s nothing wrong if you just want a high paying job. There’s nothing wrong if you just want to “help people” but also make an okay wage.

Keep in mind that a lot of people who do social justice work are there because that’s what they’ve been working in their whole life purposefully. I’m not saying you can’t do pro bono and make a difference for some people, but how you live every day is what your life will become, and BigLaw lawyers aren’t spending most of their time doing pro bono for the vulnerable. 

[BlushAndTheBar]

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

The internal logic of this is fine. Law is a service job. If you are a lawyer, then you are serving someone, and therefore helping someone. Given that your goal is to help someone, anyone, then you are succeeding. That does seem perfectly logical. 

You are not helping vulnerable people. And you are not practicing social justice law. Which is to say, if you believe that there are fundamental injustices in society, your day-to-day work does little if anything to push back on systemic or individual wrongs. That's all perfectly fine. You don't have to serve the most vulnerable. You don't have to dedicate your career to social causes. But if helping the vulnerable or fighting fundamental injustices is a student's goal, then it is harder to reconcile that goal with working in a primarily commercial or corporate practice. There would be tradeoffs about who you help and how.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by BlushAndTheBar
Removed as was not helpful within the greater context of the thread.

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

You are not helping vulnerable people. And you are not practicing social justice law. Which is to say, if you believe that there are fundamental injustices in society, your day-to-day work does little if anything to push back on systemic or individual wrongs. That's all perfectly fine. You don't have to serve the most vulnerable.

I think we need to be very precise here. The comment above noting that this conflict goes away when you realize corporations are people too, while tongue and cheek and a bit glib, kind of gets at the issue I have with these conversations.

You've used multiple descriptors in the above to describe what one is not doing in corporate law. "vulnerable", "social justice law", "most vulnerable". 

I won't for a moment pretend that I practice social justice law or protect the most vulnerable, nor do I fight the sorts of systemic justices other people do. If I screw up, no one is going to jail, or getting evicted, or otherwise being forced into poverty. It isn't the same, and you won't find me pretending it is. 

But I'm at a biglaw firm practicing mostly M&A, and do a lot of mid-market work. A lot of my clients are founders exiting their companies. I'm dealing with the people who are the corporation, not some nameless faceless behemoth. 

These people are vulnerable. Because it turns out the guy who built a ten million dollar tool and dye company over 30 years and with his own blood sweat and tears isn't a lawyer, and isn't aware of just how many ways Dofasco is looking to screw him while purchasing it.

When I'm making sure his purchase price can't get erroded by predatory indemnity claims post closing, or making sure deferred price is properly guaranteed by a non-shell corporation, or explaining to him how he won't be able to work in tool and dye for 3 years but they can fire him in 6 months with no penalty, I am protecting a vulnerable person. Not the most vulnerable, and not for social justice reasons, but vulnerable nevertheless.

It isn't the same because in the end it is just money, and OP called out specific social justice issues that have me yelling "no, this aint for you" at the screen. But I do happen to think that is pushing against an individual wrong that could occur. I want people who worked hard and built something to get a fair deal on the way out. And I'm happy to know that they're selling their years of hard work with their eyes wide open. 

Like he said, it gets easier when you realize corporations are people too. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by WhoKnows

[Hegdis]

1 hour ago, GoatDuck said:

Not to be a simp

I don't... I don't know what that is. Is it like, suckup? Kissass? Groupie?

I am over 40 and need an education from you kids. I hear "sus" a lot these days too from my kids and when I use the full word "suspicious" I get these extremely patronizing looks which are very hard to take from people who still regularly put their underpants on backwards.

[123]

13 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

I think we need to be very precise here. The comment above noting that this conflict goes away when you realize corporations are people too, while tongue and cheek and a bit glib, kind of gets at the issue I have with these conversations.

You've used multiple descriptors in the above to describe what one is not doing in corporate law. "vulnerable", "social justice law", "most vulnerable". 

I won't for a moment pretend that I practice social justice law or protect the most vulnerable, nor do I fight the sorts of systemic justices other people do. If I screw up, no one is going to jail, or getting evicted, or otherwise being forced into poverty. It isn't the same, and you won't find me pretending it is. 

But I'm at a biglaw firm practicing mostly M&A, and do a lot of mid-market work. A lot of my clients are founders exiting their companies. I'm dealing with the people who are the corporation, not some nameless faceless behemoth. 

These people are vulnerable. Because it turns out the guy who built a ten million dollar tool and dye company over 30 years and with his own blood sweat and tears isn't a lawyer, and isn't aware of just how many ways Dofasco is looking to screw him while purchasing it.

When I'm making sure his purchase price can't get erroded by predatory indemnity claims post closing, or making sure deferred price is properly guaranteed by a non-shell corporation, or explaining to him how he won't be able to work in tool and dye for 3 years but they can fire him in 6 months with no penalty, I am protecting a vulnerable person. Not the most vulnerable, and not for social justice reasons, but vulnerable nevertheless.

It isn't the same because in the end it is just money, and OP called out specific social justice issues that have me yelling "no, this aint for you" at the screen. But I do happen to think that is pushing against an individual wrong that could occur. I want people who worked hard and built something to get a fair deal on the way out. And I'm happy to know that they're selling their years of hard work with their eyes wide open. 

Like he said, it gets easier when you realize corporations are people too. 

I take your point. And I'm not saying that work isn't important or good. But yes, I have a wildly different definition of "vulnerable".

[BlockedQuebecois]

I’m pretty sure I’m more vulnerable than every single one of my clients. I certainly couldn’t afford to pay my own bills. 

[WhoKnows]

8 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I’m pretty sure I’m more vulnerable than every single one of my clients. I certainly couldn’t afford to pay my own bills. 

I certainly am as well. Bodyguards usually make a lot less than their clients. 

[Mountebank]

6 hours ago, backtomac said:

Is it possible to have both? Can I work at an elite firm and do meaningful pro-bono work on the side?

I'd suggest putting the cart back behind the horse and consider that you may well do neither.

[GoatDuck]

39 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

I don't... I don't know what that is. Is it like, suckup? Kissass? Groupie?

I am over 40 and need an education from you kids. I hear "sus" a lot these days too from my kids and when I use the full word "suspicious" I get these extremely patronizing looks which are very hard to take from people who still regularly put their underpants on backwards.

A simp is someone who tries way too hard to get noticed and liked by someone else. It's usually used pejoratively to refer to a guy who is desperate for a girl's attention when she clearly doesn't care about him. Simps aren't dangerous, they're just losers who hope that their continuous efforts and gifts will win over the heart of their "queen."

[backtomac]

Just now, Mountebank said:

I'd suggest putting the cart back behind the horse and consider that you may well do neither.

Thanks for this, genuinely, but I was asking if it’s possible.

And I got many valuable responses in this thread so I’m grateful for that!!

I have an internship/job lined up this summer at a quasi-“elite” firm in the US so that’s what brought me to ask this question this early.

[123]

21 minutes ago, backtomac said:

quasi-“elite”

This made me laugh.

[WhoKnows]

34 minutes ago, GoatDuck said:

A simp is someone who tries way too hard to get noticed and liked by someone else. It's usually used pejoratively to refer to a guy who is desperate for a girl's attention when she clearly doesn't care about him. Simps aren't dangerous, they're just losers who hope that their continuous efforts and gifts will win over the heart of their "queen."

It's also a perjorative used by Andrew Tate types to describe...completely normal behaviour from men who love their partners. 

Which is why when it's used I always wonder if the person is on TikTok/Twitch too much, or is an actual misogynist. 

Don't worry, given that you're a frequent flyer on a niche internet forum, I figure you're likely the former.

Edited March 9, 2023 by WhoKnows

[Mountebank]

39 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

It's also a perjorative used by Andrew Tate types to describe...completely normal behaviour from men who love their partners. 

Which is why when it's used I always wonder if the person is on TikTok/Twitch too much, or is an actual misogynist. 

Don't worry, given that you're a frequent flyer on a niche internet forum, I figure you're likely the former.

Simp.

[Hegdis]

You know for all the mentoring I do around here I sure learn a lot myself.