Question — Firm Dynamics
It seems like everyone at my firm who has flourished is part of the old boys network. How do I break through that?
Answer

It is easy to say, "you should've done your research" or "you're imagining or exaggerating things. That firm has an excellent reputation."

So many firms are attractive because of their "prestige." And, rightly so. However, if you find yourself in a situation where the architecture was born from a male hierarchy that has not evolved, I have seen a couple approaches work:

1. Embrace the Suck. Call out the idiocy in clever ways. "Um, I prefer the term Lawyerette when addressing me." Sarcasm intended. You're bright; bring it.

2. Take it head on. If a group of colleagues is poorly concealing an afternoon off, show up. No stern lecture. Even the mouth breathers will get it.

3. Develop a caucus with your fingerprints all over it. Within the firm, draw from similar practice areas, similar politics, diverse interests, or like-minded people.

Don't forget to invite one of your Fossil lawyers. He or she would be a fool to miss learning about the people that pay for their second home. Similarly, don't forget to include paralegals or administrative assistants that are particularly engaged and valuable team members.

Make the firm pay for the "Wolverine Club" or "Pop Tart League" (or whatever you call it) under the firm's heading. Invite clients, whoever.

The resulting personal and firm-wide benefits are free. And if the firm never evolves, it paid for your name recognition — Admiral Strawberry.

Question — Appellate Argument
I am arguing in a Federal Court of Appeals and am absolutely mortified. Any practical tips other than "know your cases"? Duh.
Answer

Whether you are an experienced attorney or not, this is a powerful experience. Here are a couple techniques you can noodle on:

Assure yourself that your legal skill belongs in the building. Think of a classmate from law school that has already trodden this path. If you have former colleagues that are now federal judges, or classmates that are federal clerks, pick one that you thought you typically dominated or, at least, held your own with. Visualize those interactions and conversations.

As to the setting, I use this: no matter your background, visualize the nicest private residence to which you were ever invited. Were the hosts inviting? Did they treat you with respect? Was the home spectacular? Were the rules of the house readily apparent or, within your means to figure out quickly?

Now, assuming all of those are true, how do you think the visit would have gone if you barged in barking orders, ran to the fridge and grabbed a beer without asking, and then took a giant dump in the first bathroom you found?

Credibility? = 0%

Return invites? = 0%

Law enforcement? = 50%

Inviting hostile inquiry = 100%

Avenues for embarrassment = infinity

Question — Writing & Practice
I am a brand new attorney who is always asked "to keep it short" in both my writing and witness statements and depositions. It is really starting to piss me off because I thought the point of law was a well-reasoned position accounting for every conceivable attack your opponent could bring? It reminds me of a time in high school when my mom asked me to pick up some items at the store and I kept texting her over and over because I didn't know exactly which ones she wanted. She simply would not respond. I didn't know what to do so I brought several different brands of each item. My work kind of reminds me of that. Has this ever happened to you?
Answer

No. Thank you for your subscription fee.

All kidding aside, brevity is the soul of wit, and there is some very powerful truth in the expression: "don't use ten words to say something when three will suffice." It's called a 'brief' for a reason.

Don't solve the problem, win it. Pick your three strongest arguments and let them dominate the discussion.

Have a question of your own?

Submit anonymously. Ask what you've been wondering about practice that you can't ask anywhere else.

Submit a Question