Might As Well Admit It

I always kind of thought the BIGLAW recruiting line that "we get to do really sophisticated work here" was hyperbole, doublespeak for "we do about the same kind of work that smaller law firms do, but with more zeroes on the end of the transactions and our bills." I think this kind of thinking let me feel as intellectually superior as I might have been able to at BIGLAW even as I chose a different kind of lifestyle. And even though it's ugly to admit I think the pull on bright law students to go, as they're expected to, towards the "sophisticated and intellectually challenging" work is very hard to deny (especially since, by happy coincidence, it's where the big dollars are). Part of the whole snob thing. From time to time I wonder to what extent the road not taken really did offer a truly different and higher intellectual path.

But I'm slowly acknowledging that that whole line of reasoning is irrelevant to me. It's hard to let go of because I've been patted on the head for so long for being clever and quick and nimble at sorting through complicated problems. Sometimes I get confused and think that's where my entire value as a person lies, and where I really SHOULD derive the most satisfaction.

What I like doing even more than solving complicated sophisticated intellectually challenging puzzles (and I do like that), is translating legal mumbo-jumbo into practical language so intelligent business people can make good decisions. I am so happy doing that. It's so much fun. Especially when it requires me to learn the lay of the land, legally, first, and then explain it. But even when I'm doing more basic stuff -- choice of business entity, for example, or the considerations some prospective business partners are going to need to resolve before we enter into an agreement, or the effect of a bankruptcy filing and the hurdles different people are going to have to jump to get the things they're asking for -- I just love the process of finding the right metaphor or story or explanation to give people just enough of the right information so their anxiety about the legal part of their life is diminished. I feel so alive and helpful and pleased when I get to do that.

I like the other equivalents of that. I like doing research for partners -- taking a thorny issue that they're anxious or fuzzy about and translating it into language that makes finding the answer clear, and then delivering the answer in a concise and practical way, with an assessment of the degree of risk associated with that answer. But my favorite part is talking to worried business people and giving them the knowledge they need (and the sense of calm that comes with a matter-of-fact assessment of the problems and the solutions) to move on with their lives.

I'm zigging toward something here -- not sure exactly what. I think being a lawyer is a pretty good fit for the things that make me feel happiest. And I'm refining that somehow -- ready to acknowledge the kind of lawyer I'll most want to be. Thinking is more interesting than knowing -- I'm with Goethe on that. And listening (so I really know just what my client needs the most) and then going forth and learning what I need to learn and explaining it back in words that are useful and accessible -- that's the most interesting of all. Even though it's hardly the most sophisticated.

I guess I'm just letting go of the idea of myself as an intellectual. (My blog readers have never imagined me to be one, I'm sure....) I like regular people and their day-to-day concerns, however pedestrian, too much to be drawn toward doing things that only other sophisticated lawyers and a handful of academics care about let alone understand.

Comments

[David Giacalone]

Just this afternoon, I was reading a book about the 17th Century Danish scientist-priest Steno, the "father" of geology, which included a quote from Steno to Spinoza that I really liked:

"Beautiful is what you see. More beautiful is what you understand. Most beautiful is what you do not understand."

[David Giacalone]

[Please excuse the prolixity of this Comment] As usual, you're making lots of sense -- and showing a lot more emotional intelligence than most "intellectual" or "sophisticated" lawyers seem to have. IQ without EQ (and law practice without emotional investment) are of little use in finding a satisfying career and life.

Take a look at synonyms for intelligent in the American Heritage Dictionary,
and I think you'll see that all of the terms apply readily to you, Scheherezade, and that being "intellectual" is probably the least important aspect of intelligence for practicing lawyers (even those at BIGLAW) -- not to mention for being an interesting, well-rounded human being.

SYNONYMS: intelligent, bright, brilliant, knowing, quick-witted, smart, intellectual These adjectives mean having or showing mental keenness.

Intelligent usually implies the ability to cope with new problems and to use the power of reasoning and inference effectively.

Bright implies quickness or ease in learning.

Brilliant suggests unusually impressive mental acuteness.

Knowing implies the possession of knowledge, information, or understanding.

Quick-witted suggests mental alertness and prompt response.

Smart refers to quick intelligence and often a ready capability for taking care of one's own interests.

Intellectual implies the capacity to grasp difficult or abstract concepts.

Whenever you say something like "ready to acknowledge the kind of lawyer I'll most want to be", I want to make an edit for you that adds "in the near future or for the time being," The "kind" of lawyer you'll "want to be" has much more to do with your attitude toward human beings and life, your values, or your stage of life, than with size of firm or practice area.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sophisticated," but if you mean intellecually challenging and appealing (as opposed to appealing to self-proclaimed "sophisticates"), complex bankruptcies and business re-organizations are pretty darn sophisticated, even if not practiced from the 60th floor of a skyscraper.