How intellectually hard is it to be an attorney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

I think this goes the other way. Lots of DCUMers only know lawyers like them, who skew more intelligent.

[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?

It's you with a case file and a body of legal precedent. It's very analytical and creative, in addition to being very solitary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Respectfully disagree about the quality of an average brief, I mean

[Anonymous]

In general, you need to understand logical reasoning. You need to be able to process sometimes complex rules and precedent and be able to distinguish facts in ways that make sense. In many practices, you need to be able to properly assess risk, which is not easy and often requires a great deal of background knowledge in a subject matter. And you need to be fairly detail oriented because even seemingly small mistakes can have serious consequences.

That said, I know a lot of dumb lawyers. And some areas are easier than others. But the dumb lawyers are pretty widely recognized as dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, you need to understand logical reasoning. You need to be able to process sometimes complex rules and precedent and be able to distinguish facts in ways that make sense. In many practices, you need to be able to properly assess risk, which is not easy and often requires a great deal of background knowledge in a subject matter. And you need to be fairly detail oriented because even seemingly small mistakes can have serious consequences.

That said, I know a lot of dumb lawyers. And some areas are easier than others. But the dumb lawyers are pretty widely recognized as dumb.

What are the easier areas and what makes the dummies dumb?

[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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

[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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

Most people could probably get into some law school with low standards. But could they pass the Bar exam? Without that, it's a no go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Judging by some I know, absolutely not

+1 but it definitely depends on what kind.

[Anonymous]

I think it depends on their practice area. Tax law is intellectually challenging - all the tax attorneys I know are smart, professor types. Structured finance is difficult too - or at least learning curve is high initially. General corporate, real estate is not difficult - this is what I do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

Most people could probably get into some law school with low standards. But could they pass the Bar exam? Without that, it's a no go.

There's a growing movement to abolish the bar exam, as some view the bar exam as racist. While I disagree with this movement, I predict that within a few years, no one will be required to pass a bar exam to become an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

Most people could probably get into some law school with low standards. But could they pass the Bar exam? Without that, it's a no go.

If you work hard and are of average intelligence you can pass the bar. Some states have relatively easy bar exams.

[Anonymous]

The intellectually challenging part is getting into and through law school and passing the Bar exam. Being a lawyer is not that intellectually challenging after you have done all that, IMO. As a litigator, sometimes concepts may be difficult to understand - for example, specialties and concepts you know nothing about that have nothing to do with law. You have to learn those concepts well enough to be able to litigate the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

Most people could probably get into some law school with low standards. But could they pass the Bar exam? Without that, it's a no go.

But you don't need a high IQ, just an above average one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. I haven't read all of the replies, but it seems like most are saying no, attorneys can be dumb; I know dumb attorneys. I've read that you need to be above average to pass the Bar exam. Do you need to be a rocket scientist? No. But law school entails a lot of reading and writing. Intellectual rigor differs among practice areas and concepts.

Most people could probably get into some law school with low standards. But could they pass the Bar exam? Without that, it's a no go.

But you don't need a high IQ, just an above average one.

Well, according to this thread, you only need average, not above average, IQ. I tend to disagree, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on their practice area. Tax law is intellectually challenging - all the tax attorneys I know are smart, professor types. Structured finance is difficult too - or at least learning curve is high initially. General corporate, real estate is not difficult - this is what I do

Most impressive attorney I know does wills, trusts & estates.

-A Tax Attorney