How intellectually hard is it to be an attorney?

[Anonymous]

As others have said, it depends (how's that for a lawyer answer?). Becoming a lawyer isn't easy—law school itself can be intellectually challenging, and the bar exam isn't exactly a cakewalk. But there's a wide range of law practice. Patent law, for example, is rather famous for the intellectual challenge. Appellate practice, too. Other areas flex different mental muscles: tax law and ERISA law, for example, may not flex the same mental muscles as appellate practice does, for example, but they're awash in esoterica. And trial litigation is yet a different sort of intellectual challenge.

But there are some law jobs that are just utterly stultifying and dull. Or at least some people would find them to be that way. I'm not going to name any, because I'm sure practitioners in those areas would show up and argue that I'm wrong. But some law practice is about fairly routine application of a narrow set of law to essentially the same facts over and over.

Basically, "being an attorney" covers a wide range of jobs. Some of them are really challenging. Others, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And I practice international law and lawyers, like in the UK are awful. UK is starting to think about moving to US style as is much of the rest of the world.

+1. I work with a lot of lawyers in other countries and they are the worst. Unless they had really good training early in their career, they are a mess.

[Anonymous]

I work in an pretty esoteric subject matter area of law, so my perspective is probably limited. I find that writing on legal issues, dissecting the minute distinguishing facts and law require intellectual stamina more than great depth. I would say that my DH who is a DOJ prosecutor and his colleagues demonstrate more strategic nimbleness, but again not the greatest intellectual depth. I do think law is one professional degree that people of varying intellectual levels can do well. I agree with another PP that many in the profession are intellectually lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some are very smart, some are average, some aren’t really even average. Typically the “dumb” lawyers PP are talking about are LAZY lawyers, who also aren’t smart enough to be lazy and do a good job.

Same with doctors, I’ve met some medical doctors who are very smart/intelligent, and some who are pretty much dunderheads outside their medical speciality. See also engineers and scientists and accountants.

Professors (high ed) are probably the group of people that I’ve noticed that are generally consistently intelligent and intellectually curious, but of course, that’s anecdotal and full of observer bias.

I also think people tend to mis-estimate the ‘intelligence’ of the average person, it’s not that people are inherently stupid/dumb, it’s that they are intellectually lazy, and things like poor grammar* (spoken or written) or not having a basic understanding of history, literature, science, and/or math just doesn’t bother them. Who cares if their FB post about their weekend plans isn’t properly written or if they don’t know the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.


* I’ve reviewed my post a few times since I mentioned grammar, which means I’m 10x as likely to have made a trivial mistake or typo in my post…

+1

I know some people who are the "go to" in their field, justifiably so, because they truly are brilliant - often humble, too.

I also know some complete dumbarses that got where they are because their parents paid for their schooling, and who knows what else. The latter are usually quite pompous - "I'm an attorney!" or "I'm a whatever!" types. They think they can do what they want, basically, and it shows. Not usually the humble type.

As for doctors, the ones who don't make it through surgery training, they obviously do something in the doctor field that is less taxing - that is no secret.

[Anonymous]

Smart in the regular world doesn't equal smart on DCUM. Smarter / more motivated / better test taker than the average American? 100%. Smarter / more motivated / better test taker than the average DCUM'er? Eh. But keep in mind how this board skews (rich, white, big city, educated).

[Anonymous]

It's a mix. I definitely know some lawyers who aren't particularly smart. But some of them are very successful (and as someone else noted, make more money than the smart lawyers) because they're good with people. The law covers all areas of the human experience, so it's not surprising that the skill set involved can be variable.

For me, the stress isn't really the intellectual side of things. It's that I work for an organization where I tend to be the last stop before a final decision. So, there's always the anxiety that I've maybe missed something. It usually works out, not because I know every law, chapter and verse, but because my instincts usually lead to any mistakes being more or less reasonable and defensible.

Also, as for the attorney/lawyer distinction, those words are pretty much interchangeable as they are commonly used in the U.S. I think the etymology is that "attorney" refers to an advocate or representative. We're technically talking about "attorney at law" who can speak on your behalf in front of the courts. Non-lawyers are given "power of attorney" in various circumstances. A "lawyer" is someone who is trained in and advises you on the law.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think you need to be smarter than average, but I do think it’s a different skill set. I’m the GC to a larger company with international operations, and it’s shocking how much the business comes to me for minor, frankly non-legal tasks and acts like I’m a magician for being able to solve their “problem”. Solving their problem almost uniformly requires issue spotting, paying attention to small details, and coordinating/aggregating feedback from different groups of stakeholders. It’s definitely not rocket science, but it does seem like the lawyers are often tasked with playing quarterback to get matters over the finish line.

[Anonymous]

If one of your strongest skills is critical and creative thinking, law is not where you will maximize your opportunities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before my law degree, I got an engineering degree. I can say for me engineering was infinitely harder. I went to Georgetown law while working many hours at a law firm. And still graduated top of my GT law class. In my practice I’ve dealt with lots of extremely technical issues. I’d say it’s not been very intellectually challenging.

Not many lawyers can understand the technical issues, write a good brief and argue a case well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If one of your strongest skills is critical and creative thinking, law is not where you will maximize your opportunities

IDK, most companies hire lawyers to skirt them along the edge of the law. I think you need to be both knowledgeable + creative to identify those opportunities to arbitrage the law on behalf of your clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As others have said, it depends (how's that for a lawyer answer?). Becoming a lawyer isn't easy—law school itself can be intellectually challenging, and the bar exam isn't exactly a cakewalk. But there's a wide range of law practice. Patent law, for example, is rather famous for the intellectual challenge. Appellate practice, too. Other areas flex different mental muscles: tax law and ERISA law, for example, may not flex the same mental muscles as appellate practice does, for example, but they're awash in esoterica. And trial litigation is yet a different sort of intellectual challenge.

But there are some law jobs that are just utterly stultifying and dull. Or at least some people would find them to be that way. I'm not going to name any, because I'm sure practitioners in those areas would show up and argue that I'm wrong. But some law practice is about fairly routine application of a narrow set of law to essentially the same facts over and over.

Basically, "being an attorney" covers a wide range of jobs. Some of them are really challenging. Others, not so much.

Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that appellate law is really intellectual (and more solitary), like you said. What makes it so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one of your strongest skills is critical and creative thinking, law is not where you will maximize your opportunities

IDK, most companies hire lawyers to skirt them along the edge of the law. I think you need to be both knowledgeable + creative to identify those opportunities to arbitrage the law on behalf of your clients.

Most companies hire lawyer to reduce risk. Skirting the law and pushing into the grey is a totally different mind set and is not the majority of lawyers(specially corporate lawyers). Most lawyers say no and have to be pushed/pulled into anything that is new or different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

As a long ago former law clerk to a state Supreme Court, I must respectfully disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As others have said, it depends (how's that for a lawyer answer?). Becoming a lawyer isn't easy—law school itself can be intellectually challenging, and the bar exam isn't exactly a cakewalk. But there's a wide range of law practice. Patent law, for example, is rather famous for the intellectual challenge. Appellate practice, too. Other areas flex different mental muscles: tax law and ERISA law, for example, may not flex the same mental muscles as appellate practice does, for example, but they're awash in esoterica. And trial litigation is yet a different sort of intellectual challenge.

But there are some law jobs that are just utterly stultifying and dull. Or at least some people would find them to be that way. I'm not going to name any, because I'm sure practitioners in those areas would show up and argue that I'm wrong. But some law practice is about fairly routine application of a narrow set of law to essentially the same facts over and over.

Basically, "being an attorney" covers a wide range of jobs. Some of them are really challenging. Others, not so much.

Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that appellate law is really intellectual (and more solitary), like you said. What makes it so?

I don't think it is. Might just be a skill set thing, but writing appeals is one of the easier things I do. But, then, I hate discovery. When you get to the appeal, the discovery is already done. You just have to mesh the record with the case law and write a good story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that appellate law is really intellectual (and more solitary), like you said. What makes it so?

I think part of it is that appellate argument focuses on the law more than the facts. And a civil case that goes to appeal is likely to have some interesting issues that don't have obvious answers. That's especially true at the higher levels of appeal (U.S. and state supreme courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, etc.).