New York Lawyer
October 30, 2001

Q:
I�ve moved around a bit in my career -- five moves in six years. Some were legal jobs, others non-legal. Now I�m with a respectable New York firm, but I really don�t know if I�m fitting in.

I�ve thought of looking at other firms, but I felt I�ve just moved around too much, and another New York firm would be a stretch right now. I like the law as an occupation and I�m considering practicing law in a quieter neck of the woods � say, the Midwest. Or perhaps in-house. I realize a pay cut would be likely, but all I want at this point is security, a steady paycheck and reasonable work hours, so I can pursue my hobbies and other priorities in life. Becoming a big rainmaking partner isn�t so urgent a goal for me anymore. Any suggestions?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:
�I�ve moved around a bit� � now there�s an understatement.

You don�t say what you practice (or what your non-legal interests/competencies are), but it must be something in demand because firms keep hiring you. So your skill set certainly seems marketable. But you�re right: you have moved around too much. The definition of insanity is doing exactly the same behavior with the expectation that there will be a different result. You�re probably not crazy, but it does appear that you�re not learning from experience about the best role, setting and/or functions for yourself.

From an outsider�s point of view (and any new potential employer is going to be a skeptical outsider), your history raises a variety of possible alarms: maybe you�ve just been unlucky in your job selections. Maybe, despite your marketability, there are some performance-related issues that recur, forcing you to get out of Dodge. Or maybe you�re not committed to an identity and career as a lawyer � perhaps you�re confusing what you�re capable of doing with what you are temperamentally suited to do. Perhaps your frequent moves suggest low commitment to the employer and high self-interest, so you�re viewed with snake-eyes the moment you arrive at an already-poisoned well.

You also seem to have conflicting values: on one hand, your frequent moves suggest you easily get bored and constantly seek variety. On the other hand, you say �all I want is security.� I just don�t believe the latter. I think it likely that when you have security, you suddenly crave novelty. Conversely, when the novelty of change produces too much uncertainty, suddenly a secure setting seems most important. I think that at this point it is very important that you do some in-depth self-assessment to inventory your primary �drivers� � your core values and the satisfactions you most want to derive from work. Personal achievement? Intellectual stimulation? Autonomy? Affiliation? Variety? All your moves do not make you a bad person, but they do suggest that you have been trying to dine from the wrong motivational food groups.

As for pullin� up stakes, let me say that I�m originally from the Midwest and it�s a nice place � but to imagine it as �quieter� or fundamentally different in workstyle from New York is magical thinking. You are unlikely to find that a mere change in setting will automatically produce great contentment. Plus, there�s the enormous dislocation of a major move. Unless geography is a major dissatisfier for you, I�d be careful not to fix things that ain�t broke.

If you are able to diagnose your malaise candidly and objectively, it may appear that a move in-house might make sense. The fundamental structural difference between law firm life and working on a corporate legal staff is that in the former setting you operate as a profit center and in the latter it�s expected that you operate as a cost center. If you are an introvert, dislike self-promotion, or prefer to work for only one client, maybe a move in-house would make sense. But do not entertain the move with the idea that it is inherently easier. In-house positions can be every bit as specialized, demanding and stressful as the hot seat in a law firm.

For years I�ve been asking people, �Why did you go to law school? What was your vision and expectation?� Four major categories of response emerged:

One large group says, �I went to law school in order to learn how TO DO something (whether it be try cases, make a lot of money, or right great moral wrongs).� This is an �instrumental� motivation: the goal is the acquisition of a skill set; it is typical of people who function as individual contributors � whether they be lawyers or not.

A sizable second group says, �I went to law school in order TO BE a lawyer. I want the stability, prestige, collegiality and professional identity represented by membership in an exclusive club.� Given where the profession is going these days, people with this value set are taking something of a motivational beating.

The third group says, �I wanted to study law because it�s interesting, it�s stimulating as an intellectual pursuit.� These knowledge seekers may make great professors or appellate judges, but they usually feel stifled by the repetitiveness and dollar-driven priorities of law firm life.

The final group offers up default or externally-driven rationales: �They said law would never hurt me.� �I saw Melvin Belli try a case and wanted to be like him.� �My dad is a lawyer.� �The LSAT scores suggested I could be good at this.� These are weak rationales at the outset of a career, and if they still have motivating force after a person�s first or second job, the person is not doing a good job of analyzing their style, satisfactions, values, needs, hot-buttons and aversions. If they don�t or can�t do this, their career paths are likely to suggest the lament of one mid-career woman: �I feel like I�m bouncing through life, kissing frog after frog in the hope that one turns into a prince. If I find the right frog on my 80th birthday, I�m going to be real upset.�

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group