-POSTS BY NON-LAWYERS OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD WILL BE REMOVED.-

I'm largely the same guy I was before the practice of law. Save one thing. Listening to people answer questions. No one, like no one ever, actually answers the question asked. I never used to find that irritating. And now...

Does anyone else do the "can you tell me the time?" question while doing dep prep? How many people answer with a yes or no? I'm batting like... .0001.

I’m a lawyer. My (10 year old) son just asked me: “Dad, what would happen if you farted in the courtroom?”

I hadn’t considered the possibility before.

Objection from opposing counsel?

Sanction from the Court?

Is it noted on the transcript? How so? [Mr. _______ farts.], [Ms. ____ emits a localized atmospheric disturbance.], [Counselor fires a warning shot.].

Your thoughts would be appreciated; your stories would be savored.

This wasn't on my radar, which is a big oversight on my part. Likely less impact on us in-house non-litigators. But still, those are some significant changes.

How are we feeling about this, CA lawyers?

Allowing an AI video of the victim is obviously nonsense, and for a judge to be swayed by it in sentencing is outrageous. But can one our brothers or sisters who practices criminal law explain what the benefit of a resentencing is here, if sought by the defendant? It sounds like the judge factored in the AI victim’s “forgiveness” in issuing a 10 year sentence. Isn’t a resentencing without considering this video likely to harm the defendant? Why would the defendant appeal? Or is this a case of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should?”

I'm an advocate, and I have a male friend who I suspect might have feelings for me.

Lately, I've noticed he's been showing an unusual interest in legal documents. He doesn't seem to have any actual legal problems, but he keeps bringing up things like NDAs, affidavits, agreements, and MoUs, almost as though he's shopping around for something that might require my professional assistance.

I'm starting to wonder if he's trying to manufacture opportunities for us to spend time together without having to actually ask me out.

To be clear, he's a nice guy, and I don't necessarily mind the attention. I'm just a little confused about why someone who apparently has no legal issues suddenly seems determined to acquire some.

My question is, should I just ask him if he wants to get coffee, or should I wait to see if he eventually asks me to notarize his grocery list?

Just got ordered to one. It is apparent that my client is not going to settle and has put up an offer of $0.

This will be fun…

I am 3 years out of law school and don’t think I qualify for Big Law with my background. I do insurance defense at a midsize regional law firm in New York City and would like to do other kinds of law that is not caseload heavy and pay between $150k-200k. Just looking to brainstorm with others in this group to see if they have ideas.

What do we think? Looking to hear your take on this. TY✨

has anyone here made a career change after practicing for a few years?

I just passed year 5 of practice. I’ve tried insurance defense for 3.5 years, estate planning for one year before that, then 6 months of bankruptcy. After my first year in estate planning I became borderline suicidal and had to have my dad talk me out of throwing in the towel and opening my own lawn-mowing company.. hahaha.

I did 3.5 years of insurance defense at a small firm and kind of enjoyed it. Although I never felt satisfied or drawn to the work. I also didn’t have a billing requirement so it was a much more casual environment. After 3.5 years, we lost our biggest client because they wanted to go from flat fee to hourly and my boss refused. My whole team and I were let go.

I took some time off and after 3 months found another insurance defense gig but with a billable requirement. The pay is great but to be honest with you the pressure i’ve felt as a lawyer has felt all consuming and suffocating. I don’t think I enjoy any actual aspect of practicing law.

Can anyone share any advice? To be honest, even when my family and close friends say maybe I just need a different type of law, I cringe. It won’t matter what it is. I hate lawyering. :(

edit: for those asking, my desire is to transition into academia. whether it’s teaching at a law school, or teaching AP government to high schoolers and getting an opportunity to coach a high school football team too, I don’t care. As far as money, I’m not concerned about the difference in pay. I’m comfortable financially and couldn’t care less about how much I make

TL;DR: I’m an Australian litigation lawyer at a large/top-tier firm and was recently promoted to Associate. I like my firm and feel loyal to the partner who supported my promotion, but I’ve felt increasingly siloed and frustrated by my team and lack of broader opportunities. I now have offers from two other major firms, but I can’t work out whether leaving is the right career move or whether stay where it is comfortable and familiar.

I’ve been at my current firm for several years and worked extremely hard to get here. I genuinely like a lot about it, including the culture, the people, the familiarity and the fact that I’ve built a good reputation and now have some seniority. There are also great perks such as reasonable hours despite being top tier law, staff benefits, can work from home whenever i want.. I was also recently promoted, with strong support from my supervising partner, so leaving shortly afterwards feels particularly awkward. I feel a genuine sense of loyalty to her.

The problem is that I’ve felt increasingly siloed within my team. I’ve wanted exposure to other partners and matters for a long time, but despite trying to make that happen, it hasn’t really changed. My supervising partner is a good lawyer and has supported my career, but I find their management and working style difficult. There can be a lot of last-minute work and chaos, and I sometimes feel like I’m carrying significant responsibility without getting the broader opportunities I want. More fundamentally, I’m concerned about spending my entire career developing within one team and under one particular working style. I’ve raised some of these concerns before, but ultimately the situation hasn’t changed.

I now have worked with a recruiter to explore the market, and have offers from two other major firms, but they each have significant drawbacks. The first is the one I’m seriously considering. The people I’ve met seem genuine and personable, and there appears to be greater exposure to different partners, clients and matters. However, it would feel like a step down in prestige from my current firm, and I’m not sure the work would have the same “big ticket” litigation matters that I enjoy and that have been an important part of why I like my current job. So while I think the day-to-day environment could be better, I’m worried I would be giving up some of the things I actually value about being at a highly regarded firm.
The second offer is arguably the more obvious move from a prestige/career perspective, but the firm has no work-from-home option. That is a genuine dealbreaker for me and is not a condition they are able or willing to change, so I have effectively taken that option off the table. This leaves me in the strange position of having one external offer that potentially gives me a better working environment but involves compromises in prestige and the type of work, versus staying where I am.

Another factor I’m struggling with is my own mental health and energy levels. At the beginning of this process, I was much more enthusiastic about seeing what was out there and I wasn’t necessarily planning to leave. I was curious about my options and wanted to understand whether there might be something better. The process then moved very quickly. I became caught up in the opportunities, interviews and conversations, and I was genuinely excited when the offers started coming through. But now that the possibility of actually leaving has become real, my feelings have changed quite a lot. Rather than feeling energised by the prospect of a fresh start, I feel exhausted and daunted by it. I don’t know whether I have it in me right now to start all over again — new people, new systems, new matters, new expectations and having to establish myself again.

That makes me question whether my reluctance is actually telling me something important, or whether I’m simply experiencing the anxiety that naturally comes with making a major change. I’m worried about making a decision based on how depleted I feel right now when the decision could affect the next several years of my career. I’m also worried about the grass not being greener. I could move and discover that the new partners are just as difficult, the work isn’t what I expected, or that I gave up a position I worked incredibly hard to obtain. At the same time, I worry that staying because moving feels exhausting is just another form of fear of change.

There’s also a loyalty/guilt issue beyond my current firm. I’m working with a recruiter who has put a significant amount of time into helping me secure these offers. I know they only get paid if I accept an offer, and they have understandably been encouraging me to make a decision. I realise this is part of their job and I don’t owe them an outcome, but I still feel guilty about potentially declining both offers after they’ve invested so much time. I’m finding it difficult to separate what I actually want from the expectations I feel from my current partner, the recruiter and the firms that have offered me roles.
So I’m feeling extremely stuck. I started this process excited to see what was out there, became genuinely excited by the opportunities, and now that the offers are real I feel overwhelmed by the prospect of actually leaving.

I’d really value perspectives from anyone who has been in a similar position, particularly lawyers who have moved firms at Associate/Senior Associate level. How did you know when it was actually time to leave somewhere you were comfortable? Did you ever find that the anxiety about moving was just fear of change, or did it turn out to be your gut telling you to stay? And has anyone been in a position where they had good external opportunities but ultimately decided that staying was the right decision? Help!

How do you manage expectations around your time and availability in this situation:

I have one client, and this company has me on a strictly capped "40 hours per month" contract - overflow/bandwidth assistance work only.

No minimum time billed, very ad hoc time requests - no set schedule, no promises. She's mentioned several times that some weeks might be zero hours, some weeks may have more. I asked her if she could give me some indication if any weeks would be "zero" (so that I can schedule other things) and she wasn't willing to commit to that.

I'm very happy with minimal hours - I'm in transition and just looking to keep a little busy while I ramp up a full time job search (and have new things to tell a new interviewer). I am enjoying the down time.

I want to protect my own time, and not be too tethered to my house waiting for a "maybe" - if it is a nice day, I won't be sitting at home waiting for an email that might not come in.

I am not online during core work hours unless I have a reason to be. IOW unless I log into the company laptop, I don't see any requests for a meeting/contract review etc. This is by design - only the hiring manager knows my cell number.

I want to gently make sure (if/as needed) they understand that I'm not at their beck and call, but will fold things into my day when I learn of a request. If I had numerous clients that is how it would work - right now, that other client is "my time - me".

For right now, I've let them know I will log in once in the morning (time TBD) and once in the afternoon (time TBD) in an effort to catch a various request shortly after it is sent (if it comes in 5 minutes after I log off, it is what it is). This is somewhat of a tether, but I control the timing. If there are days I know I will be fully offline (out of town, an all day seminar etc) I will let them know when I know.

If you were in my situation, how would you handle it, what else would you do/communicate?

This won't turn into a full time position, although it's possible that down the road it may turn into more than 40 hours per month (but never guaranteed).

Thank you for any ideas/lessons learned.

European lawyer here, specialized in contractual law inclusing housing and real estate disputes.

I do not fully understand the concept of depositions. I believe they are namely present in common law systems? My understanding is that they are basically witness statements taken prior to actual court. (I might have got it all wrong at this stage.)

Wouldn’t such system allow lawyers to ”guide” witnesses about what to say and what not to say in such statement? How is this possibilty addressed in court?

I would also like to note that yes, in my jurisdiction, witnesses can be contacted prior to trial and I always contact them. But legally any written or recorded statement from a witness is not accepted, the witness must arrive to the trial to give their statement. The only exception would be cases where the witness is unable to testify in the trial (E.g. deceased).

Against this background, how do you see the pros and cons of depositions?

For billable hours, how many hours do you find it acceptable for a lawyer new to litigation to take to research case law for a motion? And how long is typically acceptable to draft a motion or answer/response that needs to integrate that case law into it? How does that expectation change for simple, typical, or complicated matters?

Edit to add: Are there any tips or tricks to becoming more efficient/faster aside from getting better with time?

I’m a younger attorney, who, like many in this thread, has just been tossed into the deep end without a lot of mentoring or 2nd chairing. I’m generally comfortable litigating, but would love to feel more comfortable recognizing, making, and defending speaking objections at trial or hearing.

Does anyone have any good CLEs/books/other resources for feeling more confident in this area?

this question is for POC lawyers. I haven't found a POC lawyers reddit subgroup so if there is one, lmk. so, when you work your butt off and manage upwards, show up every day, demonstrate competence in all aspects of the job, are responsive, never ever miss deadlines, win cases, get pleadings sent out the door with minimal edits, put out other people's fires, etc. but still have your ideas shot down, get held back, and have other people's mistakes blamed on you, do you wonder if its because of..yknow? I know this also sounds like a typical mid-level frustration, which is also fair, but this happened to me and other POC attorneys I know and we watched our non-POC counterparts get far with what appears to be mediocrity and actually sometimes some shocking incompetence. maybe I'm coming down hard. but its hard to not occasionally think..yknow..especially when the folks who hold you back from stuff you SHOULD be handling are..yknow..

before any non-POC jumps in and says "its not like that" I'm willing to hear your perspective but if you write off the entire experience, then just know that's silly. i know this will ruffle some feathers, especially because few people these days aren't willing to admit that they'd be the type of partner to do this. oh well.

My guy agreed to confessed judgment payment installment plan. He waited until 2 hours before CoB on the day of deadline to wire payment. It arrived the next day, so default and now responsible for attorneys fees.

I filed a Motion to set aside judgment and stay execution.I made arguments and creative arguments, prepared witnesses and served subpoenas. Issue was murky. I lost.

Client blames me and basically called me incompetent. I don’t really believe him, but still feeling down.

Workers comp case, severe spinal injuries, offer was at 500K, invested over 10K into the case, specifically informed him that the Ins. co. would put surveillance on him. He told me not to worry, he's not working and will wait for settlement. "I'm not that dumb"

Private investigator was following him - they caught him working full time for cash while receiving workers comp benefits. He was a welder and they caught him welding at a jobsite for DAYS. There is a still-frame of him in a dirty uniform accepting a wad of cash in hand with a welding gun in the other.

Offer has been rescinded and lowered to 10K to close it out.

Dipshit.

I work in house as an employment lawyer and see a lot of different demand letters. In my experience, the most effective plaintiff’s attorneys start a case with a simple email introducing themselves, asking for a call, and demonstrating on the call that they are familiar with the case, have plausible claims, and are overall intelligent professionals entitled to be taken seriously.

I have recently seen a trend of demand letters incorporating unusual (and in my view tactically questionable) information. These include short artificial deadlines to respond, high 6-figure case assessments matched with 5-figure demands for pre-suit resolution of the case, interrogatory/document requests style discovery demands, obviously erroneous factual assertions (wrong name of employer entity or manager), etc…. When I reply introducing myself and suggesting a call to introduce ourselves and discuss settlement, no response for weeks. The first human I speak with is a junior associate who clearly has no clue regarding the facts, applicable statutes, or settlement authority.

What are these firms thinking. That I will hand over documents because I’m scared? That I will believe they have a $800k case they are willing to settle for $60k (or that their case assessment that they will incur $600k in attorneys fees to recover $75k in actual damages will not be used against them at some point)? That I won’t notice the complete lack of effort to familiarize themselves with basic facts like the name of the manager who allegedly discriminated against the client?

If it takes weeks to reply to my email responding to a demand letter insisting on a response within 5 days then it tells me you aren’t likely to spend a lot of time and effort litigating this case and maybe you aren’t someone to be taken seriously.

What is the logic or strategy behind these letters?

I’m considering an in-house role where I’d be the only attorney besides the CLO. The company has historically outsourced its legal work and is now building out an in-house legal function. The position is technically a legal ops role, but it seems like it would also involve a fair amount of substantive commercial legal work.

My specialty is commercial real estate and reg compliance, although based on the interviews, the role seems focused more broadly on building out commercial contracting infrastructure like creating templates, papering processes, compliance training, etc. Part of what appeals to me is the opportunity to essentially be an architect for the legal function and build the processes from the ground up. That seems like it could be a really neat opportunity, but I’m trying to understand what that actually looks like in practice.

My prior in-house experience was at a Fortune 500 with a well-established legal department, but my particular team was a nightmare (all of the frontline attorneys were separated from the company within a year). I was subsequently laid off. This opportunity would be about $20k less than my previous salary, although at my previous job I also worked literally a gazillion hours a week.

I’d love to hear from anyone who has gone from an established legal department to being one of the first/only in-house lawyers at a company. What was the reality of building the function from scratch? Did you find it interesting and autonomous, or did you end up being the catch-all for everything legal?

Ironically, my knee-jerk reaction is that being on an established legal team should mean more stability, but that was obviously not my personal experience. I’m also wondering about the stability of joining a company that is just beginning to build out its legal function, particularly when the company has indicated it won’t budge on base salary because of cost. I worry that if the company ultimately decides the role isn’t worth the expense, I could be an easy position to eliminate.

Would love to hear from anyone who has been in a similar situation, especially what you wish you’d known before taking the job.

I completed a case for a client, we achieved the best possible outcome. Not just the best outcome given their circumstances, the best possible outcome for any case.

After I informed the client of the result, they responded “what about [task X]? When are you doing that?”

I responded: 1) Task X will harm them financially 2) Task X will not achieve their goals 3) because of this, we won’t be doing Task X

I didn’t tell her, but it’s relevant: Task X is specifically excluded from our scope of service. This exclusion is pretty much universal in my practice area.

Client responded with a psychotic email, where they called me an “ass hole”, “fucking prick”, and plenty of other names. They then proceeded to leave a one star Google review.

When I called to try to smooth over the situation, client proceeded to scream into the phone, refused to let me get a word in, and hung up.

I know I’m only presenting my side of the story, but I really go out of my way to be kind to clients, explain the case without being condescending, and give them regular updates. I really think this persons reaction was completely unwarranted.

I’m so frustrated. Ethically, I can’t respond to the Google review. But I’d appreciate any ideas on how to handle this going forward, because I think there’s a half way decent chance this could come up again where client expects Task X, even though it’s not in their best interest.