I started work with a firm in Idaho Falls last Monday. The firm is about 10 lawyers, which for Idaho Falls, at least, puts it on the 'large' end of things. By most standards, however, it would be a stretch to call it a "Firm".
In the 5 days I've been there I have worked on criminal defense, criminal prosecution, real estate transactions, estate planning, wills, premise liability, personal injury, corporate law, custody, adoption, trusts, divorce, contract, tortious interference with business. . . etc. Some of those bleed into each other quite a bit, but I can think of a unique issue I've dealt with for each of them. I've also attended oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment, a sentencing, and a board meeting. Oh, and a Rotarian Meeting for "Law Day".
Like most clerks, I spend a good amount of my time researching legal issues and preparing pleadings and motions and such. Someone asked me once if I thought the practice of law is much like high school or college debate. After thinking about it a little, they really are kind of similar. You go about things in a different way, but the research and writing sure feels similar. It might feel more that way to me know because I spend less time worrying about the nuances of the law and procedure and more time worrying about persuasiveness.
It is still pretty common to be given an assignment and have very little idea about how to even start. It just doesn't cause the panic that it used to. I guess I've grown used to not knowing what I am doing.
4 comments:
Sounds like fun...and you're getting paid, eh! Firm has a nice website.
Being a general practice lawyer sounds incredibly daunting, like being a family physician. People are going to come to you for advice on EVERYTHING under the sun, and somehow you've got to make sense of it and give them sound advice. I know all the money (in medicine and law) is in specializing, but I'm not sure exactly why...seems harder to be a good generalist.
Be careful, unless you are referring to patent law, somebody might say you are in violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct if you claim to 'specialize' or 'be a specialist' in an area of law ;)
But you are right that most people do wind up 'specializing' in an area. At the Firm I 'm with now, different attorney's are responsible for different areas of law. . . and they all give me assignments, so I get a chance to dawdle in a lot. Today we had a trial re a family law issue. The issue wasn't too exciting (though they rarely are), but it was exciting to be involved in a trial and furthered my suspicion that I would enjoy a career in litigation more than in transactional.
Hmmm...I didn't realize patent law was the only valid specialty in law. That blows my mind a little, since SOOOO many other professions are intensely specialized (all of medicine, business, academics, etc.), and also since I suspect most lawyers do actually end up with a "wink wink" specialty. So why not organize, accredit, and - more importantly (as with patents) - exclude others from legitimately practicing in your area of expertise?
Speaking of patents, I was looking at your firms website and they mention being one of the few area firms to have a dedicated patent expertise...but none of the list attorneys are described as having a patent background. How does that work?
As far as I know, nobody in my office sits on the patent bar, but I've never asked. Firm also has an office in Boise. . . but I never got the impression they did patent either. Huh, if the web site is accurate, then I assume whatever patent practice they do have must be from the Boise office. I don't see info for the Boise lawyers on the site.
Post a Comment