Warren Norred

How To Know If Law Is For You?

• Marvin Harvey
• 21.12.2022
• 0
• 12

What experiences do you have? – You don’t need to have legal experience to apply to law school. However, if you’re trying to figure out if the law is for you, getting some firsthand experience is a great way to figure out if you’re interested in the field.

High school or college internships are a great way to figure out if you actually like the work of being a lawyer. Even if you’re not working at a legal internship, there are ways to get experience in the field. Let’s say you think you want to do criminal law, but you have no experience in criminal law.

Try to volunteer for a prison project or find something that gets you tangentially adjacent to that world. Even if it’s not a legal internship, there might be opportunities at a defender’s office or a prosecutor’s office. What can you do? What can you expose yourself to solidify your passion for this area or topic? One thing I really encourage students to do is see what they want to do, see who is doing that, and then look at that person’s LinkedIn profile and work backward.

What kind of person is needed for law?

1) Good communication skills – Lawyers must be orally articulate, have good written communication skills and also be good listeners. In order to argue convincingly in the courtroom before juries and judges, good public speaking skills are essential. Communication and speaking skills can be developed during your studies by taking part in activities such as mooting or general public speaking.

Does it matter where you go to law?

Don’t be afraid to choose a law school in a setting that makes you happy over one with a better rank or more prestigious name. (Getty Images) Lawyers are as ubiquitous in America as yellow school buses and large coffees to go. From small offices near rural courthouses to skyscrapers in major cities, lawyers practice everywhere.

• Law schools, however, are less evenly distributed.
• Most states have three or fewer.
• While law graduates are not bound to stay in state, it can be hard to get clerkships and job openings out of state unless you graduate from a top-ranked law school,
• Studying law near where you plan to build a career makes sense.

Your law school’s clinics, internships and local alumni networks may give you a foot in the door. And law school classes may be geared to the rules and subjects tested on the state bar exam. When choosing a law school based on location, consider four things:

Large legal markets. Nearby industry clusters. Underserved legal markets. Culture and fit.

Should I go to law school if I don’t want to be a lawyer?

It’s true: you can go to law school even if you don’t want to be a lawyer. A JD can turbocharge your career prospects and teach you incredibly versatile and in-demand skills.

Can an introvert become a lawyer?

Suggestions – So how does one go about tackling these problems? First of all, it is very important to know that what is paramount in a law school is competence. If you know the law, if you have critical thinking skills and can rationalize and articulate your ideas, then believe me, people will want to you as their moot teammate, as their debate partner and would lose their left leg to be in your project group!

1. The good news is that research shows introverts tend to be more knowledgeable and have more original and creative ideas.
2. So, it is comforting to know that even though social skills are important, it is knowledge and expertise which matters the most in law school and professional life as a whole.
3. Here are a few practical ways to better tackle the problems faced by an introvert in law school.

Do lawyers have above average IQ?

Artificial Intelligence Will Not Replace Lawyers With IQ And EQ There are three categories of intelligence in the legal vertical-intellectual, emotional, and artificial. Many lawyers have elevated IQ’s, though relatively few seem to possess high EQ’s- commonly called ‘people skills’.

• Only the best lawyers—trusted advisers- have both.
• Artificial intelligence (AI), a recent entrant in the legal vertical, scores high on IQ, but the jury is still out on whether machines can develop comparable EQ.
• What kind of intelligence is required for legal delivery? The simple answer is: it depends upon the task.

Identifying an appropriate division of labor-who does what—now involves not only human resources but also machines. What, then, makes a human lawyer different from a machine version, and what are the core strengths and limitations of each? Lawyers Are Brighter Than Most People Think Lawyers have amongst the highest average IQ’s of all job categories.

• Note: that’s analytical not emotional intelligence.
• They also have significant formal education and professional licensure-neither of which make them practice ready.
• But it does provide a degree of analytical rigor.
• Let’s stipulate that, as a group, the million-plus U.S.
• Lawyers are reasonably intelligent.

How is human intelligence—IQ and EQ- applied to legal practice, and what functions require specialized training and social skills that cannot be performed by machines? Put another way, what are the core functions that lawyers perform, and what attributes differentiate effective human lawyers from machine ones? Short answer: lawyers have analytical skills that enable them to identify client challenges and to apply legal expertise that produces solutions commensurate with client risk tolerance and objectives.

• Great lawyers have a combination of IQ and EQ.
• They combine intellectual agility with an ability to read people.
• And while some of the rote chores that support the work they do—legal research, discovery production review, statistical analysis—can certainly be performed by machines—only human lawyers can synthesize it and communicate it to others in a way that evokes confidence (“I’m sure glad she’s my lawyer!).

This requires EQ as well as IQ. Trial work requires this melding of IQ and EQ, but it applies to other practice areas, too. The Power And Prevalence Of Persuasion In Law Lawyers are in the persuasion business. They must be persuasive to prospective clients, clients, colleagues, opposing counsel, and the arbiters of disputes.

• What makes an attorney persuasive? There are several common elements—legal expertise, command of the facts, knowing the client’s objective and risk tolerance, appreciating the other side’s case, and an ability to present a cogent, convincing synthesis.
• That’s the IQ side.
• Then there’s EQ- the lawyer’s personality and style.

That’s unique to the individual. It might also be at the core of what separates humans from machines. Robots are being programmed to have personalities and moral compasses, but the ability to connect with others is something that only humans have. Machines eclipse humans in their ability to mine data, but humans bring data to life by applying it usefully and persuasively.

Machines cannot instill confidence as a great lawyer can. Consider medicine where machines have been used for decades. Robots sometimes perform surgery, but it’s the doctor that is the ultimate decision maker and the one in whom the patient reposes confidence. That relationship between doctor and patient—as well as attorney and client—is built upon trust and is something that cannot be replaced by machines.

Emotional Intelligence Is More Important Than Ever EQ—the ability to read people, to establish credibility, and to connect with them-is grossly undervalued in the legal industry. Paradoxically, as technology has emerged as a key component in legal delivery, emotional intelligence has become more important than ever.

• That’s because technology has spawned disaggregation and a supply chain.
• Integration of the supply chain requires collaboration between and among different providers, disciplines, and cultures.
• This, in turn, requires EQ-oriented skills that most lawyers have neither been taught at school nor honed on the job.

Collaborative skills are important as the boundaries between law and other professional services become blurred. Lawyers must be able not only to collaborate with other lawyers—inside and outside their organization—but also with staff, paraprofessionals, other disciplines, and even machines.

• Inter-generational collaboration is also essential in today’s marketplace Lawyers must have the ability not only to relate well to younger generations but also to be open to providing them—and the new skill sets and perspective they bring- a seat at the management table.
• Cultural sensitivity and awareness is also important as society and the legal workplace becomes more diverse and global.

EQ has long been regarded by lawyers as ‘squishy’ ‘feminine,’ or largely irrelevant. That’s when the world—and legal delivery—was very different. EQ is a vital form of intelligence-and always has been- the legal industry would do well to prize, teach, promote, reinforce, and reward.

It is the major differentiator between humans and machines. Artificial Intelligence: The New Smart Kid In Class (AI) has emerged as a third form of legal intelligence. It has already been ‘employed’ by a number of in-house legal departments and law firms. Technology is rapidly moving from data collection and the creation of benchmarks to substituting for certain human functions—including those once performed by lawyers.

And if you are skeptical about machines performing legal tasks because of their ‘complexity’, don’t be. Consider that Accenture, provider of high-level strategic services to the Fortune 500, announced in December, 2016 that 5% of its workforce is not human.

And that percentage is certain to grow. It’s understandable that AI evokes dread, fear, and uncertainty. But it also has great potential to improve the delivery of legal services. For example, AI can play an important role ameliorating the access to justice crisis. That’s not to suggest that it will replace lawyers, but it can certainly be leveraged to reduce their price tag that is out of reach for most people requiring ‘retail’ legal services (divorce, housing issues, immigration, etc.).

AI can be used to address important but relatively simple legal problems. Take, for example, DoNotPay, a robotic online service that’s already serviced hundreds of thousands of customers. Its initial application was defending parking tickets— now it also provides Government housing assistance in the UK, deploying bots.

• What’s important here—and equally applicable to the corporate segment of the market—is that AI is another resource to make legal resources more accessible, cost-effective, efficient, and measurable.
• How, when, under whose supervision, and at what cost it is deployed is another issue.
• Will lawyers be working side-by-side with robots? Yes.

Technology is already an integral component of legal delivery, and AI is simply the next phase. The challenge will be for lawyers—or others managing the legal delivery process—to find the right mix and level of supervision for human and humanoid. My friend Ken Grady, an astute observer of the legal industry, envisions the ‘augmented lawyer,’ one made more efficient, effective, and affordable by collaboration with machine.

That sounds right to me. Conclusion Legal expertise remains a lawyer’s core skill, but it takes more than that to thrive in the current marketplace. Today’s lawyers also require – technological proficiency, project management, and financial basics to cite a few. They also need ‘people skills’ to complement professional ones.

Being a lawyer involves earning client confidence and trust. That requires not only technical competence but also an ability to understand, communicate, and manage relationships with others in the legal delivery process-most especially clients. Lawyers that combine IQ, professional skills, and EQ will never be replaced, no matter how smart AI becomes.

Am I smart enough to be a lawyer?

So you want to be a lawyer, huh? I can see why. Lawyers tend to be highly confident, seemingly wealthy people, and you see it as a road to an easy lifestyle. Or maybe you came across one recently and had a negative experience. Their sometimes abrasive demeanor makes them some of society’s least liked people, but in both cases the question remains.

Do you have to be smart to be a lawyer? To become an attorney, you need an extensive and intensive education. There are self taught lawyers who have passed the bar exam, but the majority did it the traditional way through schools. You need good grades in high school so you can get into a good college or university.

Then once you are there, you need a good GPA and good credentials so you can be competitive when you apply for the limited spots reputable law schools have open. So the answer is yes, you do need to be smart to be a lawyer. Sometimes in entertainment, lawyers can be portrayed as scummy.

1. You might even get that impression yourself, and how can you not? Chances are, there are billboards all over your town for some guy with a cute tagline that offers to represent people if they get hurt.
2. Or perhaps you heard that catchy jingle on the radio for the same person.
3. We all see this and roll our eyes.

The overwhelming majority of attorneys are decent, everyday people. Competent lawyers do not come cheap, and they can be some of the most cut throat people we come across. You would not be insane to look at some of these people and think, “I could do that.” And maybe you can, but don’t underestimate the intelligence of attorneys.

Why do so many people quit law?

The Lack of Control – Even worse than the long hours, in many cases, is the lack of control over your work and your schedule as an attorney. When you’re subject to the whims of the court, the partners or other senior lawyers you work for, and client demands, the lack of control can become highly frustrating.

What life is like without law?

Why Are Laws Important? – Laws are important because they provide a structure for society. They tell us what we can and cannot do, and they provide consequences for breaking the law. Without laws, society would be chaotic and people would be able to do whatever they wanted.

Do a lot of people drop out of law?

Lack of value for money among reasons cited by unhappy undergrads Law students are more likely to drop out of their undergraduate degrees than their maths, languages and history-studying counterparts, according to new stats. Data collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reveals that 5.8% of law students fail to finish their course — a higher drop out rate than for mathematical sciences (5%), languages (4.5%), history and philosophy (4.2%).

1. The subject boasting the greatest number of quitters is computer sciences (9.8%), according to the figures, followed by business (7.4%), creative arts and design (7.2%) and engineering and technology (7.2%).
2. By contrast, medics, dentists and vets appear to be the most committed, with a drop out rate of only 1.5%.

You can see a full breakdown of the results below:

How many people fail law school?

You and the Law | How to flunk out of law school Recently accepted by a mid-west law school, “Howard” wrote, “I never really studied much in college, cramming for tests and assume law school will be like that, but my wife tells me I will flunk out if I approach it that way.

What do you say, Mr. Beaver?” I say, “You have a very intelligent wife.” Admission to law school does not guarantee that three years from now Howard will graduate and be admitted to the bar. “The flunk-out rate for law students is in the range of 12-25%” says Lisa Blasser, a Claremont-based attorney, and author of “Nine Steps to Law School Success: A Scientifically Proven Study Process for Success in Law School.” So, what explains someone failing? “They simply are not taught how to study.

Law school is not like undergrad. A very different skill set is required to succeed. When law students don’t study properly, there is a good chance they’ll underperform and unfortunately, fail.” Blasser set out a by-the-numbers list of what a student has to do in order to flunk out of law school: 1.

Apply to law school to make someone besides yourself happy. Consequences: Your heart won’t be in the game. You’ll be immersed in an extraordinarily difficult academic environment, lacking the internal motivation necessary to succeed.2. Lack passion to succeed. Consequences: You’ll lack the innate energy needed to get through that 60th hour of studying.

When studying becomes unbearable, it is critical to rely on the reason you are putting yourself through the trenches. Your passion is the fuel that carries you through those difficult moments.3. Think that studying in law school is similar to studying in college.

• Consequences: Assuming you already know how to study actually limits opportunities for learning in law school.
• It is unlike any other academic experience and you need a linear, systematic study process to succeed.4.
• Think that you don’t need to create a study calendar.
• Consequences: Stress, anxiety, lack of sleep, guilt, no free time, being unaware of what you need to do to succeed every day, then failing your midterms and finals.

Sound fun? 5. Think that you can pull an all-nighter or cram for an exam. Consequences: You won’t have enough time to organize and articulate your thoughts in writing in a meaningful way on the exam. Success in law school does not stem from memorization and regurgitation.

1. Instead, success comes from having a deep understanding of the law and then applying the law to varying facts, all of which you have analyzed in detail prior the exam.6.
2. Make it harder on yourself by not reading commercial outlines and supplements.
3. Consequences: You will get frustrated reading archaic cases/terms and may miss the issue presented in the case.

Acclimate yourself to the facts, issue and outcome of a case by reading a simple overview of the case, that is drafted in layman’s terms, prior to reading the edited version in your textbook. Doing so saves time because you’ll already have an understanding of the main points, making it easier to connect the dots on the second read.7.

Select members of your study group who don’t possess the same passion to succeed that you do. Consequences: Study groups become more of a gossip fest, and waste of time. Associate with students who value their legal education and succeeding in law school just as much as you do.8. Maintain an empty happiness tank by ignoring family, not taking coffee breaks, skipping celebratory dinners, dropping loved ones and ignoring all of the things that make you feel human outside of law school.

Consequences: You’ll burn out quickly and face the possibility of anxiety and depression. Depression among law students is 8-9% prior to matriculation, 27% after one semester, 34% after two semesters, and 40% after three years.9. Set unrealistic goals for yourself.

Consequences: Getting a 4.0 is outside your control on the first day of class. What is within your control is accomplishing the set of tasks you assign yourself every day. The days will ultimately turn into weeks and before you know it, you will be in a place to achieve that 4.0 by completing those smaller, realistic daily goals.

Concluding our interview, she offers this encouraging advice to all law students: “Dig deep into your heart when law school gets tough. Believe that you are 100% capable of learning how to succeed and succeeding. Be kind to yourself when setbacks arise.

What are the disadvantages of studying law?

The Stress – praetorianphoto / Getty Images Deadlines, billing pressures, client demands, long hours, changing laws, and other demands all combine to make the practice of law one of the most stressful jobs out there. Throw in rising business pressures, evolving legal technologies, and climbing law school debt and it’s no wonder lawyers are stressed.

What is the hardest year of law school?

The first year (1L) – Most students consider the first year of law school to be the most difficult. The material is more complex than they’re used to and it must be learned rapidly. What’s more, the way students are taught and tested is very different from high school or undergrad.

Why do people not get a lawyer?

August 18, 2016 By Bob Glaves | CBF Executive Director With children and young people everywhere getting ready to head back to school, I thought I’d start today’s post with a short pop quiz: Name the #1 reason why people don’t use lawyers when they encounter a legal issue: A.

Believe it wouldn’t make any difference B. Too expensive/can’t afford it C. Don’t recognize a need for legal advice D. Don’t know how or where to find one E. Determined to handle it on their own The answer is C, and by a large margin. According to a recent American Bar Foundation study, the number one reason people facing legal issues don’t have a lawyer to help them is that they don’t recognize they have a legal problem.

As I’ve been blogging about the future of our legal profession and the justice system over the course of this year, I’ve focused on the many issues that arise when someone knows they have a legal problem and is trying to navigate the legal system from there.

As often noted, we’re a long way from being able to provide meaningful access to justice even for the people in our community who recognize they have a legal problem. That gap in access results from a shortage of pro bono and legal aid resources, what may be an even greater shortage of affordable legal help, and a justice system that is more complicated and inaccessible for regular people than it should be.

Given the reality that there already is much greater demand for legal help than the existing system is currently able to serve, it’s tempting to put off the quest for trying to reach out to the even larger segment of people who don’t even recognize that they need legal help when facing legal issues.

1. That would be a shortsighted move for a number of reasons though, not least because a large segment of these people could afford to pay something if they recognized the value a good lawyer could bring to their situation and had more affordable options to access that value.
2. Another recent study from our neighbors to the north identified additional reasons that people don’t use lawyers even when they are in court and aware that they have a legal issue.

The combined lessons from these studies illuminate some important challenges for our profession that have serious repercussions for the justice system. At the same time, these studies point the way forward for our profession to do things differently and better connect with a potentially huge pool of clients, which would be to everyone’s benefit.

The American Bar Foundation Study The American Bar Foundation study referenced above was done in an unnamed mid-sized Midwestern city, underscoring once again that even trained researchers agree that the most normal mix of people in the country resides right here in the Heartland. The study focused on civil issues, and about two-thirds of the people surveyed reported an issue that could be considered a civil justice problem.

These were usually bread and butter issues like employment, money and debt, insurance and government benefits, and housing, and about half of these problems had significant adverse effects or consequences. The study found that almost 80% of the time people handled the problem on their own, usually because they did not even recognize a need for legal help.

For the 22% who sought help outside of their family/social network, it often was not from a lawyer but an elected official, government agency, social worker or religious leader.42% of them did seek help from a lawyer when court was involved, but only 5% in other situations. Why did so many people not even try to consult a lawyer? Cost was cited as the issue only 17% of the time; far greater percentages of people identified the top reasons as feeling they don’t need legal advice or that it wouldn’t make any difference.

The Canadian Study on Self-Represented Litigants The 2013 Canadian study focused on self-represented litigants from Canada. The study looked at a number of issues facing people without lawyers in the courts, and the findings are equally insightful for us here.

1. Why were the people who were interviewed for the study representing themselves? Just about 20% expressed a determination to handle the issue themselves, but 90% of them mentioned finances as at least part of the reason.
2. Many of the people in this study had a lawyer at some point earlier in the process and were asked why that was no longer the case.

The overarching reason was that they did not see commensurate value for the money they paid for the legal services. Other responses included that counsel was not listening to their goals or expectations or was not explaining what was happening, and that counsel was perceived to be doing nothing to advance their case to a realistic outcome or dragging out the case.

1. Another common response was that unbundled service options were lacking.
2. The study found that people who represented themselves clearly could benefit from and might pay for unbundled options (i.e., where the lawyer would only provide representation for part of the case), particularly for coaching and preparation.

However, they had difficulty finding and connecting to unbundled service options, a finding that would surely be repeated here in Illinois if a similar study were done today. A more recent study by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) focused specifically on family courts in the U.S.

• And noted similar findings.
• Most people who are self-represented in family court would like to have legal assistance or representation, but 90% cited cost and affordability as major barriers.
• In addition to affordability issues, awareness of how to find good legal help and questions about the value legal assistance would provide again were raised as well.

Takeaways for Our Profession and Access to Justice The findings from these studies show that there are some significant challenges for access to justice that go well beyond the obvious ones of not enough investment in pro bono and legal aid services.

These findings also point to a lot of opportunities for our profession, particularly for lawyers in private practice who are serving people in the middle income market. All of us can think more creatively about how we can better connect to the large numbers of people who have legal issues and don’t even recognize them.

Looking carefully at the findings in the American Bar Foundation study about where people are turning for help gives us a good roadmap about the many community intermediaries who can be connectors to this latent market. Legal health checks, already in use in Canada today, are another way to help people identify legal issues that may impact them but otherwise might not be on their radar.

1. The concept is similar to routine checkups with doctors and dentists, which often identify issues we would not otherwise have known were problems and can be more cost-effectively treated when spotted early.
2. For lawyers in private practice in particular, it is really critical to understand that when people do recognize they have a legal problem, it is not always obvious to them what value a lawyer would bring to the situation or whether they can afford the services.

All lawyers can think about ways to better explain the value they are delivering for their clients and potential clients, offer unbundled service options whenever possible, more clearly link their pricing to the value they are providing for clients, and make their pricing options more transparent and predictable.

Is it financially worth it to become a lawyer?

Private Practice Lawyers – If you choose to work for a law firm or corporation, your earning potential is significantly higher than if you went into public service. The median salary for first-year law firm associates was $165,000 in 2021. Fourth-year attorneys earned an average of $192,075, and attorneys in their eighth year earned $225,000.