How intellectually hard is it to be an attorney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I’m a lawyer and it’s not hate. It’s experience with other lawyers that tells me that you don’t need to be very smart to be a lawyer. Even a lot of good lawyers get by on connections and experience with whatever system they are in. Smarts just aren’t required for a lot of lawyer jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I've never heard of this distinction until now, i.e., attorney is generally business or finance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it intellectually taxing? Do you need a certain IQ?

Judging by some I know, absolutely not

This. I just had a meeting with an attorney in our office (non-law firm) and he's easily one of the dumbest folks I've ever come across in the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I’m a lawyer and it’s not hate. It’s experience with other lawyers that tells me that you don’t need to be very smart to be a lawyer. Even a lot of good lawyers get by on connections and experience with whatever system they are in. Smarts just aren’t required for a lot of lawyer jobs.

You do have to be smart to be a lawyer. Spend some time with people who have a low or average IQ. Try to explain the rule against perpetuities. Try explaining to your mechanic why certain cases get pain and suffering and others don’t. Try explaining why insurance doesn’t cover your health care. There is definitely a range of intellect among attorneys but all of them are smart. Anyone who says otherwise is just attorney bashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I’m a lawyer and it’s not hate. It’s experience with other lawyers that tells me that you don’t need to be very smart to be a lawyer. Even a lot of good lawyers get by on connections and experience with whatever system they are in. Smarts just aren’t required for a lot of lawyer jobs.

You do have to be smart to be a lawyer. Spend some time with people who have a low or average IQ. Try to explain the rule against perpetuities. Try explaining to your mechanic why certain cases get pain and suffering and others don’t. Try explaining why insurance doesn’t cover your health care. There is definitely a range of intellect among attorneys but all of them are smart. Anyone who says otherwise is just attorney bashing.

I grew up in a very rural area where the average amount of education is a high school diploma. I promise you I know people who aren’t smart. And honestly there is nothing wrong with not being smart, it’s just a neutral personality trait.

But lots of attorneys cannot understand the rule against perpetuities. I am above average intellect and that rule isn’t easy at all for me to grasp (the basic rule, yes, but all those scenarios they ask on the bar exam, no, those were difficult).

Honestly I’m kind of surprised that you don’t think a mechanic could understand these things. My brother works in the oil field and has just a few college credits and with some effort he definitely could understand the issue of awarding pain and suffering damages. And how often have you spoken with a solo practitioner who took three tries to pass an easy bar exam and shows up to court not knowing basic information about the law in the case he is working on? That happens all the time. I think most attorneys deal with the same issue over and over again and their jobs aren’t about the law, they are about getting clients, dealing with judges, filing motions using the same template they have used for years, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with that, it just means that not all attorney jobs require above average intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it intellectually taxing? Do you need a certain IQ?

Judging by some I know, absolutely not

+1

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Significantly smarter than the average person. The vast majority of Americans could not write a legal brief of such a standard that it would be admitted to a court of law. In addition, the vast majority of Americans could not successfully make a lengthy and complex verbal argument before a group of judges/jurors/attorneys. Most people are way too disorganized in their thoughts.

It's also pretty high stress. I work in a federal agency as a subject matter expert with a lot of lawyers, though I am not an attorney. They act as a final guardrail for anything we say or do, ensuring that we are in compliance with the law or are not misconstruing statute or regulation. They carry an immense responsibility.

That is just training and experience not intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I've never heard of this distinction until now, i.e., attorney is generally business or finance.

NP. At my work, the difference is between a solicitor and an attorney. Both are lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Being a lawyer is just a regular college degree in almost all other countries. I think somebody set it up to be some kind of racket here in America. I think it simply takes the right kind of personality and ego.

Lol nice try. It may be easier to become a lawyer in other countries but they also don’t make nearly the same money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a pretty low bar to get into law school in the US. There are 100s. It's not all prestigious law firms and big law jobs.

+1

Exactly this. In some states, you don't even have to graduate from law school to be a lawyer. You just have to take the bar exam. If you can reed, you can practice law, basically.

When they say it's not rocket science or brain surgery, they are not kidding. In fact, there is more math on the GRE than the SAT.

Think of some of the lawyers you may know, and you will have your answer. Some are top of the top, and some.....just aren't.

It's not a guaranteed paycheck, if that is what you are asking, OP.

[Anonymous]

HAHAHA *read

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significantly smarter than the average person. The vast majority of Americans could not write a legal brief of such a standard that it would be admitted to a court of law. In addition, the vast majority of Americans could not successfully make a lengthy and complex verbal argument before a group of judges/jurors/attorneys. Most people are way too disorganized in their thoughts.

It's also pretty high stress. I work in a federal agency as a subject matter expert with a lot of lawyers, though I am not an attorney. They act as a final guardrail for anything we say or do, ensuring that we are in compliance with the law or are not misconstruing statute or regulation. They carry an immense responsibility.

That is just training and experience not intelligence.

It could definitely be intelligence but yeah most of the time not, and most attorneys don’t do that. Most lawyers just do wills that you could almost as easily get off the internet, custody and child support agreements, negotiable settlements with insurance companies for car accident injuries, public defense for people who commit small crimes where most of what they do is have a client fill out one of those plea bargain agreements, etc.

I worked in criminal appeals and that was mostly intellectually demanding (there was some post-conviction stuff that was just sort of the same thing over and over again, though). DH does complex corporate litigation and that is extremely intellectually demanding. But it’s not like all or even most attorneys are doing those jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a pretty low bar to get into law school in the US. There are 100s. It's not all prestigious law firms and big law jobs.

+1

Exactly this. In some states, you don't even have to graduate from law school to be a lawyer. You just have to take the bar exam. If you can reed, you can practice law, basically.

When they say it's not rocket science or brain surgery, they are not kidding. In fact, there is more math on the GRE than the SAT.

Think of some of the lawyers you may know, and you will have your answer. Some are top of the top, and some.....just aren't.

It's not a guaranteed paycheck, if that is what you are asking, OP.

Agree, and if somebody is going to point out that the bar is hard to pass, that’s kind of true but it’s not like a hard worker of average intelligence can’t do it. It might them three times to pass the South Dakota bar, but average people do it all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite all the hate for lawyers it goes take academic brain power to be a successful lawyer. Also an attorney is different than a lawyer and takes more skill. Attorney is generally business or finance.

I’m a lawyer and it’s not hate. It’s experience with other lawyers that tells me that you don’t need to be very smart to be a lawyer. Even a lot of good lawyers get by on connections and experience with whatever system they are in. Smarts just aren’t required for a lot of lawyer jobs.

You do have to be smart to be a lawyer. Spend some time with people who have a low or average IQ. Try to explain the rule against perpetuities. Try explaining to your mechanic why certain cases get pain and suffering and others don’t. Try explaining why insurance doesn’t cover your health care. There is definitely a range of intellect among attorneys but all of them are smart. Anyone who says otherwise is just attorney bashing.

I grew up in a very rural area where the average amount of education is a high school diploma. I promise you I know people who aren’t smart. And honestly there is nothing wrong with not being smart, it’s just a neutral personality trait.

But lots of attorneys cannot understand the rule against perpetuities. I am above average intellect and that rule isn’t easy at all for me to grasp (the basic rule, yes, but all those scenarios they ask on the bar exam, no, those were difficult).

Honestly I’m kind of surprised that you don’t think a mechanic could understand these things. My brother works in the oil field and has just a few college credits and with some effort he definitely could understand the issue of awarding pain and suffering damages. And how often have you spoken with a solo practitioner who took three tries to pass an easy bar exam and shows up to court not knowing basic information about the law in the case he is working on? That happens all the time. I think most attorneys deal with the same issue over and over again and their jobs aren’t about the law, they are about getting clients, dealing with judges, filing motions using the same template they have used for years, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with that, it just means that not all attorney jobs require above average intelligence.

+1. The idea that all attorneys understand the rule against perpetuities is silly, many of them don't, couldn't relearn it, and probably never really understood it. I'm a lawyer and I've definitely had coworkers who were at best of average intelligence and had as much trouble explaining legal concepts to them as I do to our clients (individual clients of a broad range of intelligences).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significantly smarter than the average person. The vast majority of Americans could not write a legal brief of such a standard that it would be admitted to a court of law. In addition, the vast majority of Americans could not successfully make a lengthy and complex verbal argument before a group of judges/jurors/attorneys. Most people are way too disorganized in their thoughts.

It's also pretty high stress. I work in a federal agency as a subject matter expert with a lot of lawyers, though I am not an attorney. They act as a final guardrail for anything we say or do, ensuring that we are in compliance with the law or are not misconstruing statute or regulation. They carry an immense responsibility.

That is just training and experience not intelligence.

Oh c'mon (NP). Even a bad brief is usually relatively logical, structured and grammatical. I don't think you have any idea how badly most people write. And sure it's training, but that type of "training" begins in grade school if it is going to result in any real skill. (Otherwise known as an education...)

Also, quality oral advocacy is not remotely easy. Despite being a grad of "elite" schools, it is not my strength; it always amazes me how something that seems so straightforward is not. It is just that gifted "speakers" make it look easy...