Law & Society Blog

In response to the WSJ discussion of Douglas Litowitz’s book The Destruction of Young Lawyers, Nate Oman wrote a thoughtful piece on Concurring Opinions. Unlike some of the commentators on the WSJ website, Nate knows what he’s talking about, as he identifies two factors that contribute to the dissatisfaction:

lack of interest in the law and the mismatch between the dominant myths about the legal profession current in law schools and the reality of the legal profession in practice.

I don’t take issue with Nate’s analysis, but let me point out another potential source of frustration, even though I am confident that it only applies to a much smaller group: too much of an interest in the law. The law is one of the most fascinating creations of the human mind, and its study can be as intellectually rewarding (and thus intoxicating) as that of philosophy or social science, to pick two academic disciplines with which I have some familiarity. But practice can get in the way of that contemplation, if only because both take time, and thus dissatisfaction grows. I venture to guess that the thought: “This is really interesting. If only I had the time to research it!” is responsible for a great many academic careers that first started in practice.

So are we to conclude that those who are most interested in the law will ultimately have to leave practice to satisfy their curiosity? I hope not. In a handful of practice areas at least, some of the most accomplished practicing lawyers are also part of the serious academic discourse: international law comes to mind and so does antitrust. The ideal of the academic lawyer is certainly more prominent in Europe, but its influence in growing in the US, too. So maybe there is a cure for the dissatisfaction that comes from too much interest in the law ÇƒÏ even within the profession.

License

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License.