Are there any lawyers, law students, or aspiring law students in the crowd who wouldn’t mind discussing what led them to choose the practice of law and what values they consider(ed) important in getting there?
I am a 3rd year student in a BA program (Classics) who is considering a PhD in my field or a career in law. I would highly value any contribution anyone can make to my decision.
What I value in the practice of law (from my very basic understanding of the subject) is the rigorous logic and argumentation that must be used, oratorical skills, and an excellent grasp of the legal system, its workings and evolution - something which greatly interests me as a student of past societies. But I am concerned that my interest in law may be too theoretical (ie. such as philosophy of law, or simply romantic, ie. following in the footsteps of Cicero) and that lawyers too frequently find themselves in situations which are ethically compromising.
In the Classics, I would be able to study Latin and Greek, delve into every detail of Graeco-Roman civilization, and mold young minds.
Is there anyone else on this forum who is considering (or has considered) these two choices?
I’m still in high school, and I know that I will not go into law school to the extent that one can know these things, so I doubt I could offer much insight, but I’m not clear what your intention is. Do you want to be a practicing lawyer, or just to study the legal system?
hi alon, i’ve done a law degree and i’m now a corporate lawyer. i think law is just another job and that, for any career you choose, you need to spend years building up skills to be able to perform it at a professional level: law is just like other trades in that way.
if you chose law, you wouldn’t be losing out on the theoretical side: in my law degree subjects like legal philosophy were compulsory; for many branches of law (e.g. torts, contracts, criminal law, public law &c) we also studied several critiques of those systems: e.g. in torts, we all studied feminist, legal theory and other critiques of the tort system; in criminal law, we all studied the disadvantages and abuses against minorities and the underprivileged in australia, none of this is left out. also you can usually choose specialist electives near the end of your degree: i was able to choose subjects like human rights in ancient rome as well as more normal subjects.
once you finish your degree you don’t have to start chasing ambulances and compromising ethics… i’ve spent a year in mergers and acq.s and i’m now in finance law where you don’t really deal with the courts at all. you deal with legislation, court judgments and regulatory policy to advise clients and to structure deals. some people after law go into international diplomacy or things like that without becoming a lawyer, it’s quite open… if you have any other qns you can ask me here
I fit into your second category of currenlty studying law - although I’m doing it off campus. For a few years now I’ve been working as a paralegal in both commercial and litigation. I much agree with Chad that it does become just another job. When you talk about oratorical skills etc., not many lawyers actually present cases in court - barristers do. Most of it is just sitting in your office digging through piles of paperwork, doing the interlocutory steps, etc. and then most cases get settled out of court. Don’t get me wrong, I love it, but please don’t expect it to be anything like any movie or tv-show you’ve seen on tv, it is not like that at all. Indeed you will acquire a good knowledge of your legal system, but it becomes very routine, just a checklist to run through really.
But like Chad said, a law degree can really get you anywhere. It is useful in politics, every local government and company of some size will have a legal department, it can open doors to more general management positions, etc.
hi klewlis, i think in the us and maybe canada you have a group of lawyers near each court who practice as “trial” lawyers, like “The Practice”, is that right? technically they could do all legal work but they specialise in in-court appearances. we inherited from the english an actual professional division between solicitors and barristers. barristers do the in-court stuff and they wear wigs and robes. they build up a knowledge about the practice and procedure of courts and about particular judges: what types of arguments to run before particular judges.
I’m not aware of a difference in Canada or the US - we just have lawyers.
Of course, I don’t really know much about the legal system. [/quote]
really my fault, Klewlis - ‘lawyer’ covers both solicitors and barristers. solicitors (the largest group) generally do the research for the and then brief the barristers with their findings, who then present the case in court. Although it often seems like a lot more work for the solicitors to prepare a case, (good) barristers tend to make a couple of grand a day.
really my fault, Klewlis - ‘lawyer’ covers both solicitors and barristers. solicitors (the largest group) generally do the research for the case and then brief the barristers with their findings, who then present the case in court. Although it often seems like a lot more work for the solicitors to prepare a case, (good) barristers tend to make a couple of grand a day.
Even so, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard those terms used here, or know of any such distinction. There are different types of lawyers and probably, as chad mentioned, those who specialize in trying cases in court, but it is my understanding that really any lawyer CAN go to court if he chooses.
hi klewlis, that’s true, but what trial lawyers and barristers have in common is a day-to-day knowledge of particular judges and of the practice and procedure in particular courts. as a solicitor i don’t have this. the general rule is i think, if they have a barrister, you should get one too, maybe it’s the same with trial lawyers
