posted
I had my first two firm interviews today. One was a non-starter – the office I want doesn’t have the practice area I want, which would have been nice to know before I wasted an interview slot.
(I should state that I haven’t given up on being a prosecutor. My advisor, who got a job as a prosecutor out of school 5 years ago, told me that most prosecutor offices don’t hire on an academic schedule, and they require passing the bar before they’ll hire you. So it’s necessary to have a job out of school in order to look. If I get a clerkship, this would all be moot.)
The second place seems almost perfect. It has a broad litigation practice, an excellent training program, and decent quality of life policies. They have a policy of “you write it, you argue it” and send you to court within the first few months. They also have a pro bono practice where I could serve as a Domestic Violence Victim Advocate and a deputized prosecutor in child abuse cases. The firm is heavily behind it, and they let their litigators spend significant time on it. They have an altruistic and self-serving interest in it, as it provides great courtroom time and training while filling a very real need.
Such a position would give me great networking opportunities with prosecutor’s offices, great experience, and let me do something meaningful amongst the corporate fluff.
The one caveat – this firm represents tobacco companies in litigation. Now, I don’t agree with all the suits against tobacco companies, but I do not want to help them in any way. I would definitely not be working on the tobacco clients (different office and everything). If forced, I would clear out my desk that day.
What do you all think about this? Am I selling out by working for a firm that handles cases I wouldn’t work on? Is the distinction meaningful in any way, or am I kidding myself?
posted
I think you are not aiding the 'bad' parts of the practice, which they are going to do anyway, I assume; while on the other hand, working for them enables you to do good things that you would not otherwise be able to do at this time, and furthers their 'good' litigation.
So, I say take the job at the second law firm.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you all think about this? Am I selling out by working for a firm that handles cases I wouldn’t work on? Is the distinction meaningful in any way, or am I kidding myself?
Depending on the overall size of the firm in discussion...
My boss used to work at a firm ("MS") that's still involved in the tobacco lits, and as a former partner he's still getting a slice of the pie. A few days ago, we were discussing how large firms handle these kinds of cases in general, the high-profile, usually class action, big-money lits. Two things that may help you make a decision based on MS's experience:
First, he told me there is a select team of attorneys, paralegals and secretaries assigned solely (and often exclusively) to THAT project, so it's rather unlikely that you'd be working on the tobacco case once you're hired. If and when tobacco ever settles, that team will be reassigned to another major class action case.
Second, MS fronts everything on that case - filing fees, dep costs, expert witness fees, travel expenses, on and on - and the rest of the firm's overall practice (personal injury, domestic, probate, real estate, etc.) supports everything until the case is over and the payoff comes through. So (assuming your firm works in the same way) what you'd be doing on a day to day basis will essentially help make it possible for the tobacco case to continue to be handled throughout the course of the litigation.
Just my opinion, but as long as the other work that the firm handles has no direct and immediate impact on me, I pay as little attention to that other work as I can. My boss handles probate, real estate, and corporate, so those are my focal points (and now I'm considering getting my paralegal with a real estate specialty). I'm aware that we do personal injury and med-mal, but I have nothing to do with them so they're barely a blip on my radar. The bosses know that I have absolutely no experience in either, so unless there's a really time critical deadline and the lit secretary is out, I don't see any of it. They'd rather wait for Sharon to return than to babysit me through preparing a filing.... an attitude I cultivate LOL.
I've probably confused you even more than you were before I started this....
posted
My brother is an attorney in DC, and he is currently working as a contract attorney for a large oil company. His rationale for this (and it's not just an excuse) is that he feels he can effect change from the inside, and be a positive force.
posted
Actually, you can't pick your defendants in criminal trials. Zealous defense of all criminals is crucial to our adversarial justice system.
You absolutely can refuse to take on clients in civil matters you think are immoral. You may have to quit, but ethically it's allowed.
Alan Dershowitz has an interesting discourse on this in "Letters to a Young Lawyer."
And tobacco companies will never be my enemy, mainly because I think many of the suits against them represent an abdication of personal responsibility and represent horrible legal and public policy.
Oh, and the law firms that sued the tobacco companies made a lot more money than the defense counsel ever could. Angelos took a huge portion of Maryland's settlement.
posted
Thanks for the thoughts, Storm. I'm leaning that way, but I thought I'd run it by some others to make sure I'm not engaging in wishful moral reasoning.
Goody, that helps crystalize the real issue, and the one I will spend some time thinking about more. Thanks for putting the thought into it.
I don't know if change from the inside is realistic in my case, DocCoyote, so I'm scared of using that to rationalize.
posted
I like the idea of working from within for change. Oh, I don't mean that you should strive to snub the tobacco execs, or confront them with accusations that they are killing people.
You could sponsor a "Lung Cancer" fund raiser, especially on a date their reps happen to be in the building.
posted
Dag, I just want to say I have great respect for you, because you think of ethics like this and even worry about it.
That said, I agree that you can do a lot of good in the area of the firm where you can work. Do good with what you have, where you are. Use this as a stepping stone to your bar exam and future prosecutor position. Since you won't believe working directly with the tobacco litigation or supporting it, I don't feel you will be compromising your personal ethics.
Farmgirl
( and you could always look at it this way -- paying law firms takes away from the profits of tobacco companies, not add to them)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, don't worry about the tobacco companies. Any large firm with broad litigation practice will represent unsavory characters. You simply cannot avoid it.
Like you, I also deliberately avoided working for firms that are famous for their association with tobacco companies. I eventually selected a firm that represented mostly banking institutions, thinking that financial cases would be less emotionally draining than PI or class action tort cases.
Boy was I wrong. My first two years of practice involved doing great things like:
-Defending corporations that allegedly made illegal profits from the California electricity crisis.
-Defending a drug company against allegations that it has improperly extended its drug patents to prevent its competitors to market cheaper versions of life saving drugs.
-Defending a defense contractor's right to export sensitive technology which the government believed could be converted to military use by foreign governments.
I had no idea this was the kind of cases I would be taking on when I joined the firm. And it's not that I was especially unlucky or anything. I talked to my friends in other big lit firms (300+ attorneys) and they confirmed that they went through pretty much the same things.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this mean you shouldn't work for large lit firms? No.
If you don't take that job, there will be twenty other law students waiting to take your place, and I'll bet at least 90% of them do not have the noble intention of becoming a prosecutor in the future.
If you take the job, you will get invaluable training that you could use later on against the evil corporations. Evil corporations paying for their own destruction. There's something poetic about that. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you probably support tobacco companies with the food you buy. Kraft and Nabisco are both owned buy Altria, and they are far from the only brands. If you drink Miller beer you give money to Altria.
Morally, I fail to see how representing tobacco companies (and getting paid for it?) is any worse than giving them money, which you probably do. You would be amazed how hard it is to not buy anything owned by one or another; I certainly am not successful.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan - that's a good idea. The funny thing, they'd probably like it.
Thanks, Farmgirl.
Beren, that's a good point. The only difference, and it's not a large one, is that the tobacco companies are entirely immoral in my opinion. But your right about the experience and training - it's exquisite.
Danzig, that's also a good point. I gave up on that a long time ago, for much the same reason.
The firm in interviewed with today won the GM v. Dateline case in which Dateline put a firework in the gastank of a pickup truck to show how easily it caught fire in a rear-end crash. They also represented a public interest group (Free Voters???) in Maryland against the Diebald voting machines.
And, more importantly, they're fighting for all our rights to buy wine via mail order.
But they also have the same type of cases Beren described, so it's not like they're any better.
I think as long as I'm working for someone with a profit motive, I'll have to accept some of this. Just more incentive to jump ship to public interest that much faster.
posted
I think that thinking about this is very similar to prosecuting defendants where you aren't positive about their guilt....you believe so, but that isn't your decision, it's a jury's.
If the work you are doing is meaningful, and personally satisfying, then what does the other side of the firm have to do with it? I understand the concerns, but without both sides they wouldn't be able to offer as much pro bona work as you say they do either.
I would be fairly clear about your concerns, and tell them you wanted to be ethical and tell let them know....but as long as they agree to keep that away from you (or the other way around.. ) I don't see a problem.
If you go into prosecuting I'm sure you will see things...deals being made, people who may be innocent still being charged....you don't like. But the system is still a good one, far better than assumptions of guilt are....so you deal with it, and keep the faith yourself.
So to be there are some similarities between the two situations. As long as you are working on the type of cases you believe in, and are remaining ethical yourself, then it is as good as you can hope for in the legal field, IMO. At least at this stage of your career. Once you get more prestige and experience then you can become more discriminating if you wish.
Not to say that you shouldn't think about these things, just that in law things aren't usually black and white....there are a lot of shades of gray in between, and this sounds like one of them you will see over and over again.
quote:The firm in interviewed with today won the GM v. Dateline case in which Dateline put a firework in the gastank of a pickup truck to show how easily it caught fire in a rear-end crash. They also represented a public interest group (Free Voters???) in Maryland against the Diebald voting machines.
If this is the firm I think it is - K&E - then YES you want to work there!!! I've had a long and happy relationship with K&E litigators and sometimes I miss those days... well, okay, that part of those days LOL
posted
Kwea, that's very true. One of the reasons I want to be a prosecutor is that they generally get to take concepts of justice into account more than any kind of lawyer. A defense attorney can't refuse to defend guilty clients; a prosecutor is supposed to refuse to prosecute innocent defendants. Of course, they'll be times when a prosecutor isn't convinced of guilt and goes forward - that is what the jury is for. But that's more comfortable to me than some other things.
Good to hear that, Goody - I got a very good vibe from them, especially when they told me about how work is assigned. And how lawyers treat paralegals is a VERY good indication of firm culture. It sounds like the teamwork stuff isn't just for interviews.
posted
Dag, I didn't mean to confuse you. I didn't work directly for K&E, but I did spend a lot of time working with them. I worked for a court reporting service, where I was the head of our IT and software training department (hell, I WAS the software training department). Between training attorneys and their teams on how to use LiveNote and being on-site for real time depositions, I think I spent almost as much time at the Chicago office as I did in my own office! Plus all my hands-on work with the transcript production gave me another "in" with the paralegal teams.
My firm was also heavily involved in the mock trial weekends that the firm ran at the Chicago offices, and I would spend all weekend on-site and bouncing from room to room to make sure things ran smoothly. (I don't know if VCR is still providing reporters and realtime services for these weekends, I've been at my current lawfirm for 3 years now)
Yes, the team mentality is definitely very strong and is not just an interview ploy. I absolutely felt like I (and by extension my court reporting firm) was a part of many of the lit teams there. I dealt with several of the large environmental matters, some intellectual property (including one really "fun" one with an executive who left one company to go to the competition and suddenly the competition was coming out with products remarkably similar to the first company), and some class action medical. I didn't deal with the tobacco cases at all. (yay!)
Oh, and do we take the "whupping if I'm still at a firm in 6 years" to mean that you want to be a sole practicioner by then?
quote:K&E has a great trial advocacy program for their summer/spring associates. You will love it.
This may be the same program I assisted with every year... NITA perhaps? Couldn't think of the name when I was at the office.
One year the "lawsuit" was loosely based on a real-life construction accident that flooded most of the basement of the downtown Chicago area. Yep, in fact, now I'm certain that it was NITA (National Institute for Trial Advocacy?) cause the case name they used for that one was "City of Nita vs. (something) Construction". I might actually still have floppy disks with some of the mock deps on them!
posted
I think it is either NITA or a NITA copy. I'm glad to hear that you had a good experience with the attorneys there Goody. We usually hear horror stories about litigation attorneys yelling at paralegals and support services. Nice to have good press for once. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is either NITA or a NITA copy. I'm glad to hear that you had a good experience with the attorneys there Goody. We usually hear horror stories about litigation attorneys yelling at paralegals and support services. Nice to have good press for once.
Beren, the vast majority of attorneys at K&E (at least the ones I dealt with) were definitely highly ranked among my favorite clients while I was at VCR. If I ever leave my current firm, K&E is where I would like to go. I just didn't have anywhere near the required experience to start out there. But I still don't want to do lit!!! LOL
quote:Oh, and do we take the "whupping if I'm still at a firm in 6 years" to mean that you want to be a sole practicioner by then?
No - I want to be a prosecutor. Possibly some other public interest firm, but if I was in this for money I'd have never changed careers. I just want to make sure I can live up to my ideals.
I looked at greedy associate - great info. The K&E in-house is based on NITA, but is not actually NITA.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
