Part of going to law school today consists of reading earnest articles about how hard the job of being a young lawyer in a large law firm has become. Professional behavior is down, hours are up, and novice attorneys are slowly but inexorably ground in the teeth of the law firm machine. Last week, though, law firm partners speaking in the National Law Journal mixed it up on us. Far from being dutiful and productive cogs, we're told, "Generation-Y" associates have a flabby work ethic, lack loyalty, don't want to be lawyers, and don't even serve on internal firm committees when they're asked to do so. Most surprising of all, the work-obsessed heroes of law school horror stories are apparently not "work-centric" enough for their seniors. Believe it or not, they even react badly when their colleagues are mistreated. The nerve!
Speaking seriously, though, I don't doubt that both sides of the above dichotomy contain some truth. Law firm life must be hard sometimes, and the hours demanded of associates in return for their admittedly high pay have clearly escalated in the last few decades. I'm equally sure that most associates know they haven't a prayer of making partner, and this knowledge has spurred some rational apathy in a lot of them. Similarly, our generally high levels of formal education probably make us loathe to accept jobs that are clearly mechanical or unstimulating. But the fact that both the above stories are told with straight faces makes me think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
In fact, young lawyers today are probably exactly like young lawyers have always been - stressed, and unsure, and eager to do a decent job without entirely sacrificing their lives. Whenever I notice anyone complaining in either of the two ways above about law, my mind always turns to a series of letters on the subject I read in the biography of a lawyer working in the early 20th century. After graduating from HLS, taking many of the same courses we take, he started work at a private law firm in Albany and soon fell into a mild sort of depression. The cases were "very dull," he thought, and he wasn't learning very much - "I am really getting to feel that something must be done or all my years will be gone with nothing to show for it." He eventually was convinced to move to New York City, and again began feeling underappreciated at the Manhattan firm he had chosen. Confused, and holding offers from two rival firms, he wrote his father-in-law for advice, and was told to think of nothing but the money - whichever firm he chose, the partners didn't particularly care about him. "The action of both [firms] is governed by purely selfish business considerations.... [Therefore], there is just one person you should think about and whose interests you should seek... to promote, and that person is [you]." Though the lawyer chose his new firm on exactly those business considerations, he still felt out of place. Finally, after a few failed efforts to find a better job, he took the lucrative training the firms had given him and decamped to the federal bench. The rest, as the saying goes, was history - the man who couldn't find a home in a law firm, who behaved like precisely those mercenaries our contemporary firm partners so excoriate, happens to have been called Learned Hand.
In the end, I'm not too bothered by the NLJ article. After all, I can't imagine any worse recruiting ploy for the firms named in the piece than to grouse publicly about their future employees. Part of having an "off-putting sense of entitlement," it seems to me, is being touchy when people recruiting you insist on making public comments like the ones we read. But even more, I'm not bothered by the comments because identical thoughts have probably been formed by every generation of lawyers, and parents, and doctors, and everyone else from the beginning of time. That kind of false nostalgia is part of becoming more experienced, and I'm looking forward to the day when I too can tell my stories of slogging back and forth from the firm through ten feet of snow. I'll make do until then.
Raffi Melkonian is a 3L who reacts badly when his colleagues are mistreated.


My wife's father is hessaby as in www.hessaby.com (they stole his cash and put it there) and my mother-in-law family is related by marriage tot the Pakravans., who headed the SAVAKPan Am was nicknamed PanIran as the Shah's family was the largest shareholder. I have extreme amount of details of exactly was going on
from the Iranians wanting him to return their assets to other coup attempts to 6 months before the Shah son pretended he was bankrupt in a public trial, to my wifes relative coming to our house talking about the coup and we did not know they were in Washington DC, to the Iran Contra hearings trial that was going to start Feb 20 th, 1989 to the tipping of the coup to the Iranian govt, ,to something in writing I can prove the coup to the Salamon Rushtie Feb 14th insult to islam to get the people on the street to avoid the coup to the Iranian govt announcement of a coup by 'dissent mullahs' announced at the time to the negiotations between the Bush people involved pretending they were going to make a deal to the 'nice' stories plant in US newspapers at the time (including the Post) as part of the negotation to the fact the bomb had to placed out of London based on the flight path as I worked at USAir at the time creating the flight plans for the 'planes to fly themselves' to overt CIA agents around me at the time to the fact that Bollier, the guy who made the timer for the bomb's wide was IRANIAN and the Libyans told me and said they were not allowed to say... there were 3 witness only.. the main one was trashed.. Bollier and a guy whom said he soldm the Libyan a suitcase in Malta.. hence, one the suitcase guy would be left.. the Libyans did not put up a defence in exchange for evidence to trash the main witness on the stand to what an overt CIA agent told me in the US 4 years later.. etc. etc and the details of several coups to the new World bank (my wie's cousin involved who used to work at the work bank)and US loans starting May 1990 to Iran to the fact that PANAm was shut down 18 months later as they thought it would be targeted again because of the Shah connection (the US airlines go in and out of bankruptcy all the time - this was the one of the first US airlines - an ICON) etc
I also know where the Iranian govt officials have money in the US, Canada and UK; the back door dealing etccall me for details.. Barry Lanza 00 44 1786831554.. My father-in-law was a convicted spy given amnesty