Eeeeyup.

Amen. Hahaha!!! This is something I think is funny, and not really in the Ha Ha way, even though it strikes me that way when I'm in a black humor.


Here's the deal. The law is about reading. Lots and lots and lots of reading. And writing things. And arguing. Sometimes. And researching.


So, if you don't like reading, and you don't like arguing, you ought to look at something else. And I don't even mean litigation arguing, but rather a semi-literate defense of your position.


What's funny is the level of romanticism that attaches to being a doctor or being a lawyer. What they don't show is the level of boring. Reading about depreciation is boring. It just is.


They also don't show you how ambivalent the law is with regards to your client. There are rarely clear cut answers. Furthermore, if you litigate, you don't want clear cut. Otherwise, half the time: you lose. And I disliked the pettiness of most of the disputes: one side simply felt like doing something else. Maybe you got to represent them. Maybe not . . . . .

Worse, is when you do transactional work. You'd like some clear cut answers . . . so that you're not waffling your client later on down the road: "Well, we were pretty sure you could do that, but turns out, ya can't! Who knew!?"

Most civil litigators seem to fight over a "he said she said" type of fight anyway. (nless you're in insurance defense. Then you're trying to point out why you shouldn't pay . . . and don't say that in a pejorative way. Assuming everyone one is either a crook or conversely a saint won't get you very far.

Point is, you need to know what lawyers do on a day to day basis. And if you don't like THAT sort of thing, don't go into law. Because like the lady says, you'll be a LAWYER for at least a while. Other options do open up, but you won't know about them till you get out and they tend to be rare on the ground. Even worse, I think, is the nature of law school to blind you to anything but 99% of the litigation model as a career path. But that's a whole 'nuther post.