Thursday, October 28, 2010

Counterpoint to Myself (re plight of new lawyers)

Inasmuch as my previous post (“Is the Legal Profession Neglecting its Young?”) could be considered a bit inflammatory (though it is meant solely to support the needs of the profession’s newcomers), allow me to convey some additional information provided to me by lawyers within the walls of our suite.

With regard to the sorely missing training element of apprenticeship:

• Some states do offer some kind of apprenticeship. Delaware and Vermont require at least a few months (Delaware, 5; Vermont, 3) of full-time clerkship in a licensed lawyer’s office in order to be eligible for admission to the bar.
• Some other states, including New York, permit law students to behave as lawyers in certain settings, offering but not requiring the opportunity for this kind of real-life experience prior to independent practice. Here in Massachusetts, Northeastern University School of Law’s co-op program provides each student with four distinct 11-week work experiences in real-life settings as a standard feature of legal training. Some other law schools provide a “clinical” component that also offers some exposure to real legal work under the supervision of a licensed attorney with a Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:03 certification. (This is more analogous to the practicum components of other kinds of graduate schools than to the post-graduation internship and supervised work experience.)
• A limited number of students each year who attend University of New Hampshire School of Law are permitted to bypass the bar exam by participating in a program of supervised practice.
• In Vermont, Virginia, California, and Washington, one may actually be admitted to the bar without having attended law school, but having instead spent an extended apprenticeship under the aegis of a judge or licensed lawyer.
• Many countries do require (and thus offer) an apprenticeship after achieving a law degree. These include: China, Israel, Japan, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Canada. [This list of countries comes from Wikipedia, so we cannot fully attest to its accuracy. Other information provided above was confirmed via review of official state or university web sites.]

With regard to deficiencies in availability of post-law school education and guidance:

• For help with practice management (as opposed to the how-to of handling cases), Massachusetts attorneys are fortunate to be able to get guidance from the LOMAP program, in areas including marketing, technology, proper handling of client funds accounts, etc. Also useful in this regard is are the articles posted on the Board of Bar Overseers/Office of Bar Counsel web site, covering a wide array of topics.
• Although Massachusetts does not require continuing education, according to the ABA (http://www.abanet.org/cle/mcleview.html), all but 6 states do.
• While available mentoring programs are limited in their scope and intensity, they are available in one form or another through various bar associations. Our widely knowledgeable colleagues at the LOMAP program have offered two very useful blog posts on locating mentors, which you may access by clicking these links: http://masslomap.blogspot.com/2009/02/finding-mentor-tool-for-success.html, http://masslomap.blogspot.com/2010/05/mentor-de-perseverance-mountain-legs.html .
• Despite the paucity of guidance offered in any routine fashion to new lawyers, a lawyer who puts enough energy into the legwork can, I am told, develop his or her own cluster of mentors by continuing to approach candidates and not being deterred by those who decline.
• More so than in the clinical professions, sufficient reading/research (accompanied these days by all kinds of listserv options), can elicit much of the guidance a lawyer needs to address novel challenges. Resources include West Law’s Mass Practice, LexisNexis, Social Law Library, ABA’s SoloSez listserv, and more.

So, although the legal profession generally offers much less than other professions in structured, routine guidance and grooming, it’s out there for those who go after it. Those newly admitted to the bar must recognize that, even without formal requirements or supervised experience, their professional education is by no means finished upon obtaining the degree.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Is the Legal Profession Neglecting its Young?

Physicians follow their academic training with years in hospitals, through internship and residency, partly as cheap labor, but under the watchful/critical eye of more experienced physicians. Psychologists follow their years of classes with a year’s internship and two years’ supervised experience (generally in a clinic or hospital) before they can be licensed for independent practice. Social workers must also garner two years’ of closely supervised clinical experience before seeking independent licensure. Nurses, teachers, barbers, etc. all have mandated mechanisms for apprenticeship before allowing novices to go out and practice on their own.

Not so for most lawyers. After a mere three years in law school, and usually very little exposure to the real-life practice of law, new attorneys leave the nest on their own and, to mix metaphors, dive right into the deep end. Those who obtain employment in agencies or large firms at least have some kind of structure in place to undo their mistakes and provide some kind of quality control, though many find that they are highly stressed, given little guidance and many demands. But the many, many new lawyers who jump right into solo or small firm practice are often forced to learn on the job, making their inevitable mistakes at the expense of real clients. Those who care deeply about doing the best job often develop anxiety symptoms. Those who are less troubled by such worries may find themselves doing things that could come back to haunt them by way of undesired input from the Office of Bar Counsel.

Overwhelmed young lawyers may also find it harder to justify taking the time for continuing education courses – these, too, are mandated for health professionals, teachers, etc., but not for Massachusetts attorneys.

I am not pointing any fingers – this is the way the profession has evolved, and systems that are firmly in place are notoriously difficult to change, even if there were a consensus. Given this perilous state of affairs, it is impressive to recognize that, in the vast majority of cases, it seems that no great harm comes to clients or to lawyers’ careers (aside from stress-induced effects on health, family life, etc.). Is this because new lawyers get case-specific help from their more seasoned colleagues? Not so much.

Some bar associations have mentoring programs, generally offered in a group format, that provide a helpful kind of overarching support, but not specific advice on what to do at the moment when a lawyer, trying to appear knowledgeable, is suddenly confronted by an unforeseen development in the evolution of a case. When I was a new psychologist, as anxious as I felt when a patient seemed potentially suicidal or otherwise unsafe, it was immensely helpful to know that I could contact my clinical supervisor for guidance. In the analogous legal situation, some new attorneys are fortunate enough to have personal relationships with voices of experience, or are assertive enough to track down those they don’t know but who are often kind enough to offer their perspectives. (At least one other setting reportedly provides close supervision to newer attorneys: agencies that operate under the Committee for Public Counsel Services.)

When new and anxious practitioners come to LCL for consultation, we try to help them identify and pursue sources of helpful input. In some of our discussion groups, like the Solo Practitioners Forum, they get support. But let’s hope that, over time, the profession itself will find additional ways to guide its progeny into the jungle of real life practice.

[Coming very soon: Counterpoint to the above.]