New York Lawyer
May 20, 2004

Q:
Holly, your advice last week to the person who fears being too sensitive or ill prepared for life at a big law firm (after clerking for two years for a well respected Federal judge, no less) was all technically sound -- but I'm afraid you may have missed the real point.

This person has a major self-confidence issue that definitely will be a problem for him or her. I don't want that person working for me; how could I entrust such a lawyer with responsibility to interact with adversaries to represent a client zealously? How will it make my life easier to have someone like that on my team?

I respect your attempt to be supportive but the person's problem runs a bit deeper than the usual lack of knowledge about what is expected of young associates at a big firm. It sounds to me like this is someone who thinks they "should" go to a big firm but doesn't really want to, and if they don't want to, they shouldn't. Simple as that.

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

I disagree that it�s that simple. I can�t tell you how many people I�ve talked to who have mentored or coached someone who arrived at a BigLaw firm lacking the supposedly requisite "confidence" and helped them move to the next level. One of the myths supporting the system of Darwinian survival within law firms is that one either has what it takes or doesn�t, and that brimming confidence can�t be acquired. There�s way too much evidence to the contrary.

Of course someone who truly doesn�t want to go to a big firm shouldn�t do so. However, there�s a mindset out there that only people who are "naturally" confident should be allowed past the front door. Those folks who arrive swaggering with confidence often have other less desirable traits that go along with their bravado, such as a certainty that they are always right (even when they know very little) and an unwillingness to admit when they�re wrong, or even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. "Strong but wrong" is not a good approach in the law; clients want "strong and right."

A specific problem is that those lacking confidence don�t do well at hiding their uncertainties, even though they�re intelligent and qualified. And indeed, concern about personal integrity is often what fuels an apparent a lack of confidence. Far from lacking ability or smarts, what these people don�t possess is an automatic assumption that they can provide solid answers and reassurance. They are uncomfortable with providing guidance that may not be 100 percent accurate, only in the interests of advancing some supposed appearance of confidence.

Many seemingly confident people also harbor doubts, but are better at masquerading their concerns in ways that don�t rattle the confidence of their colleagues or clients. For example, clients often want to be assured of the outcome of cases. It�s not appropriate to say, "Gosh, I really don�t know, and I�m petrified about how this case is going to turn out. Who knows?" Now this may be the way you�re feeling, but instead, one should say, "Of course we can never predict with certainty how courts will rule, but looking at past precedent and other indicators, we can measure the odds in the following way." Said with a degree of certainty, but with words that couch the odds in an accurate and appropriate way, this formulation can retain the confidence of others while not compromising one�s integrity.

So -- my bottom line is that you shouldn�t count people out because of superficial appearances of surface confidence or lack thereof. Targeting coaching can overcome many initial obstacles and help produce a top-notch lawyer.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work