Published: Mar 10, 2009
If you anticipate spending most of your legal career striding up and down in front of a jury, think again. Most litigators -- especially junior ones -- spend a larger part of their time in law libraries or in front of computers. You cannot rely on a mere argument to win a case; it must be supported by thoroughly researched case law.
Research is the substance of any legal argument. No good lawyer would go into court with just his persuasive skills and a plan of action set in stone. Initially, a lawyer comes up with a tentative approach to solving the client's problem and then sets about researching the relevant law. Junior associates will research each issue and try to find as many cases as possible that support the proposed argument or suggest a viable alternative. When a "bad" case shows up, one that runs against his client's position, a competent litigator will not hide it. Instead, he will try to distinguish that case, to differentiate it from his client's situation or show why it does not govern this case. If that's not possible, he will re-formulate his argument -- hopefully before the litigation has gone on too far. Hiding the case would be useless; remember, the opposing party is likely researching the same questions and will probably have found the same case. The last thing a good litigator wants is to be sideswiped in court by a case he either ignored or didn't know existed. Better to have an active defense and be prepared. That is the goal of all legal research.
You might find no case similar to your client's in your jurisdiction, but a case like yours might have been decided in another state. You can argue that it applies to the present instance. But you'll need to know the facts of the case, the relevant laws and the cases that influenced the judge's decision. You'll need to make sure that any cases you rely on are still "good law" -- that is, not overruled by more recent decisions or a higher court. While this sounds like enough work, in reality, there probably won't even be a case just like yours in any jurisdiction. (If the law were that easy, there would be less litigation!) So you'll have start the process by looking for a case that supports the argument you're trying to make. Hopefully you'll find something close. If you're unlucky, you'll find something that goes directly against your argument. At that point, you'll have to distinguish that case or amend your argument and start from scratch.
Sound confusing? It's easier when you get the hang of it. Some litigators enjoy this investigation into the law. And there's nothing like crafting an airtight argument for your case. But if the idea of spending hours in front of a computer screen, scouring legal databases for the perfect case, actually gives you the hives, then you might want to think twice about a litigation career. "Maybe 10 years ago, you could get away with mediocre computer skills," says a senior litigation associate at a large firm. "Now you can't. Our firm has a couple of partners who don't have computers, but believe me, they're the exception to the rule. You won't get anywhere in litigation without good computer skills."
In this final post of our emotional intelligence series, good news abounds. We’ve spent the last two posts driving home the importance of emotional intelligence and exploring all the various reasons why the legal industry doesn’t have enough of it, but today we bring a message of hope.
As a law student, you are well-versed in the law from many hours of academic study, hypothetical case scenarios and legal principles. But what else might you encounter when working in the legal industry that goes beyond your classroom teachings?
In BigLaw, with annual salaries for first-year associates at most firms over the $200,000 mark, with senior associates making more than $400,000 a year,[i] and with equity partners raking in millions of dollars annually,[ii] it’s no wonder that most people see a legal career as being lucrative—and why many harbor ill will toward attorneys for the money they make. But before the point can be made that lawyers are greedy scoundrels and that attorney fees are exorbitant, one must consider:
We’re under no illusions that this post is the first to address the question of what makes a “good” junior associate (given that a quick Google search will reveal numerous identical-sounding pieces). What makes this post different is the simplicity of our suggestions that can help you from Day One.
Greetings to all the aspiring entrepreneurs out there. Very recently we spoke about some common habits of the most successful entrepreneurs, and as promised, this time we’re going to tackle some of the biggest challenges new entrepreneurs face, along with effective strategies to overcome them.