The Game Changer

Deciding to go to law school, a career as an attorney, and all that goes into working in the field of law can be a complex and difficult process for some.  For others, the decision to be an attorney was always second nature and they knew from their freshman year as an undergraduate they were destined to take the bar and be a lawyer.  In previous posts I have discussed the perils of student loans and interviewed a current attorney about the changes within the industry, however, my decision to go to law school was not really a conventional path, but it is a story I wanted to share.

Early in my collegiate career I had the opportunity to intern for a Congressman in Washington, D.C., and work in the exciting atmosphere of our nation's capitol.  At the time, I was extremely interested in politics and government, and set my sights on law school in hopes of returning to Washington one day soon.  I loved everything about the D.C. and the rich sense of history invoked a passion and drive to one day contribute to my government, that is, until I actually stepped foot on Capitol Hill.  I was young and naive, but my eyes were quickly opened to the reality of the methods of our elected officials.  When I arrived in Washington for my internship I already had my heart set on law school, but my reasoning was based around the strong desire to make a life and career working for my government.  While I wasn't necessarily driven to become a politician, I thought a career in a government agency, the Justice Department, or with a private firm would be my chosen course.  My first few days were a whirlwind of excitement, intrigue, and passion, yet this fire would soon be extinguished.

I saw law school as my ticket to a career and life in Washington, D.C., and even found myself daydreaming about the future as I walked to work those first few days.  I showed up with an energy to absorb as much as possible, participate as much as possible, and lay a foundation for my future.  However, it did not take long for the reality to sink in.  The public, interns, and anyone with interest is able to sit in on congressional hearings which are constantly in progress on a wide range of topics.  One Monday morning I got a ticket to sit in on a transportation hearing, and I know to many it sounds mundane and far from interesting, but I was filled with excitement to see a real hearing and the constitution at work!  Instead of a bustling and energetic debate, what I saw caused the first crack in my foundation of hope in our government and drive for law school.  Not a single congressman from either party even bothered to show up, instead they left the individuals testifying to speak to a semi-circle of empty seats.  I kept waiting for the members to show up at any moment, so I sat there for nearly two hours as transportation experts, scientists, and community leaders testified to empty chairs.

Now my naivety had not fully been exposed or accepted by my logical mind, so I set myself up for additional heartbreak. I remember walking home to my rented room and justifying the zero attendance by telling myself, "Oh a major meeting must have come up" or "Perhaps a national security issue was going on simultaneously", along with a flurry of other excuses all in an effort to keep my passion untarnished.  I had already based my decision to attend law school on my innate passion for the system of government set up by the founding fathers.  To have my faith broken would leave my basis for law school shattered.  The very same week, I waited in line to be one of a few hundred citizens to receive tickets to watch the House of Representatives vote on a number of bills before a week-long recess.  While my disappointment in the empty hearing meeting was still fresh, the excitement of witnessing our elected officials vote on tangible bills was going to be more than enough to reinvigorate my passion.  As the procedural technicalities began, I wondered when the congressional members were going to file in for voting and debate.  After a little while, a lone congressman came through a backdoor and walked up to the podium.  As he was officially recognized and given the floor and time allotment to speak, he began his prepared remarks to an empty chamber.  He stood there and gave, at times, a passionate speech to literally no one.  Almost every single desk and chair were empty, with the only people present the tourists up in the gallery with me or a few staffers pushing papers up front.  This is what his impassioned speech looked like:
 

I sat through the congressman's entire speech to an empty House chamber.  As he walked away from the podium, the voting and roll call commenced.  Perhaps a few other congressmen and congresswomen slipped in to cast their vote, but they were nearly impossible to pick out among the staffers and interns.  After the 15 minutes of voting, NV (not vote) and PRES (present) easily received more voted than YAY and NAY combined.  I walked out of the Capitol and finally accepted reality.  Regardless of political party, our elected leaders do not debate one another, listen to their colleagues speeches, or even hardly show up for votes.  I saw more congressmen on the cable news rounds in the hour following the pathetic vote, and I finally grasped what our legislative branch had devolved to.  The rest of my internship was only one disappointing experience after another, and it became abundantly clear our congressional leaders put raising campaign money and television sound bites vastly ahead of their actual congressional duties.  I saw no debates, conversations or impassioned deliberations, rather only empty chairs, empty chambers and empty promises.

I tell this story not to complain or harp on the already known fact of congressional ineptitude, but to illustrate the revaluation of myself that ensued.  I had based my entire reasoning for law school on wanting to work in the government and the amazing city of our nation's capitol.  While I still love D.C. and all the history, I eventually realized my desire for law school and my future cannot hinge on factors outside of my control.  I now want to attend law school to further my education and to gain a legal focus where I can contribute to society in a beneficial and positive manner.  I am a passionate individual and I know I can channel my passion for law into a focus where I hopefully can contribute to a discussion and environment which is literally the exact opposite from that on Capitol Hill.  I simply understand that I will be most effective and influential by helping others, rather than only myself. 

Passport Proclivity

A United States passport is an American citizen's ticket to the world, and is one of the most important documents and individual can possess.  U.S. passports are one of only a handful of documents that can be used as an irrefutable proof of United States citizenship, but most are used primarily to travel abroad. When I saw a headline today about a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling pertaining to U.S. passports I was curious, mostly because I couldn't think of any major legal issue that would be relevant.  However, the Court of Appeals ruling today was interesting and highlights the important constitutional distinction between the three branches of our government.

The Facts:  The facts of the case the Court of Appeals was considering pertains to a 2002 law passed by Congress which required the State Department to list "Israel" as the birthplace for Jerusalem-born U.S. citizens.  This law was passed despite the long standing position of the executive branch of neutrality toward the sovereignty of the city of Jerusalem.  The United States has recognized Israel since it's inception in 1948, but no executive branch has ever veered from the neutrality stance on Jerusalem because both Israel and Palestine claim the city as a political and/or spiritual capital.

However, the real issue under consideration was the fact that Congress passed a law with the sole purpose of forcing the State Department to recognize Israel's singular sovereignty over Jerusalem.  Instead of just listing "Jerusalem" as the place of birth, the law required passports to be issued as "Jerusalem, Israel" and thereby dictating U.S. foreign policy.  The case centers around the Zivotofsky family, whose son was born in Jerusalem.  When Mrs. Zivotofsky applied to have her son's passport list his place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel" immediately after Congress passed their 2002 law, the consulate only listed Jerusalem.  This sparked litigation and the constitutional conflict around whether the President and executive branch (which the State Department is under) has the sole power to recognize foreign nations and dictate U.S. foreign policy. 

The Ruling:  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously found the 2002 law to be unconstitutional and a direct violation of the enumerated powers to the executive branch.  Judge Henderson wrote:

Congress plainly intended to force the State Department to deviate from its decades-long position of neutrality on what nation or government, if any, is sovereign over Jerusalem.

Henderson was joined by two other judges, making it a unanimous ruling from appointees of Republican and Democratic presidents.  Presidents since Harry Truman have strictly adhered to the notion of neutrality for Jerusalem in order to avoid damaging prospects for a potential peace deal.  However, the real issue before the court was the effort by the legislative branch to dictate U.S. foreign policy, which is almost exclusively a privilege of the executive branch.  The court went on to note that "While the president's foreign affairs powers are not precisely defined, the courts have long recognized the president's presumptive dominance in matters abroad".  The issue of legislative versus executive authority in dictating foreign policy has always been a constitutional issue throughout our country's history, but from the Supreme Court down, the judiciary have almost always ruled exclusively in favor of the executive branch.  If you have any thoughts please feel free to share!

Finding Your Niche: An Interview From The Top

If you take a quick glance at the landscape for law school today the numbers undoubtedly paint a bleak picture.  Applications for the 2013 school year fell 13.4 percent from 2012, while first year attendance had fallen 7 percent from 2010-2011 (last year of updated data).  Not to mention, the number of LSAT's being taken has fallen for three years in a row and is down over 34 percent from the 2009-2010 peak.  All of these stats seem to indicate an increasingly ominous landscape for potential law school applicants and graduates, especially considering the enormous financial burden that usually comes with three years of law school.  However, if you are able to read between the lines there are glimmers of hope and one can find a silver lining.  As someone who is taking the LSAT in December these headlines are concerning, so I decided to interview someone who is on the front lines in the field of law.  My current supervisor does a lot of work with different law firms across the country and I decided to pose a few questions to Craig Killen, Partner of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.  I wanted to frame my questions to address specifically the changing landscape in the field of law and new law school graduates.  As you might assume, Mr. Killen is extremely busy so I kept my interview to a formal email.  Here were his responses to a few of my questions.

Q1: I wanted to start out by asking about the overall changing landscape in the field of law.  What general changes have you noticed in the past few years and what has been the effect? 

A1: Well you know, the whole landscape was really jolted in 2008.  Many law firms were insulated and didn't feel the full effect of the recession until 2010 or later, that's when major clients began drying up as people began cutting personal expenses across the board.  But it wasn't just a decrease in clients.  When the major lenders restricted credit you saw the ripple effect across multiple legal specialties.  The attorneys with a focus on real estate, financing and acquisition, loan underwriting, wealth management, etc. all felt the impact from the 2008 recession.  The result has been widespread and you saw some major firms shut their doors as a result.  The reality is, the market was saturated with a large number of people holding law degrees and when firms have to tighten their belts, everyone is affected.

Q2:  What effect has the recent downturn had on hiring new law school graduates?

A2: The most immediate impact from the recession and past few years is that individuals who have just graduated are finding themselves in a market where the demand for young attorney's just is not there.  A degree that used to be a one way ticket for a six figure salary right after taking the bar, is not enough on its own.  We get applications for top notch graduates who have been working as paralegals or clerks simply because that is all there is available right now.  The reverse is also true.  I see on a daily basis attorneys who maybe haven't been practicing or have been doing other legal advising unable to get back to where they were pre-2008.  Guys who have been working in their industry for 20 plus years, are suddenly finding themselves in a situation where they are just trying to beat out the new graduate.  Overall I would say that hiring has slowed, but since 2012 there has been a general trend toward the positive.

Q3: In your opinion, is a law degree worth it in 2013?  And if so, what advice would you give to succeed in this tougher job market?

A3: A law degree is still worth it, absolutely.  It's all about finding your niche.  I can't stress that enough.  Many envision themselves in the courtroom as the bigshot attorney, but you have to be flexible now.  I fully understand the debate of whether $100,000 in student loans is worth it, especially if your only prospect is a court clerk right after graduation, but law school is an investment in yourself and one you should be willing to take.  Understanding that there are certain legal focuses that are growing and have potential for enormous growth in the future is key to being a successful attorney today.  The areas of intellectual property, health care, real estate (only recent) and international business are all specific areas that are experiencing exponential growth.  If you can find a focus that you enjoy, and which is growing in the future, you will be positioning yourself nicely.  Find your niche!

Q4: What is law school like in 2013, and what differences are there now compared to when you were getting your J.D.?

A4: Ha! Now I graduated from law school a while back and it's a little scary to think about it.  But I have a nephew who just graduated from Harvard Law and he's given me some recent insight.  For the most part, much of law school hasn't changed (which is part of the problem with dwindling enrollment, etc.), but one of the key things is to approach law school as a job.  One of the main purposes of your first year is to weed out the students who can't keep up.  You really have to approach your semester classes collectively as your full-time employment.  But like anything else, you will get out of it what you put into it.  I remember putting in a solid 40 or 50 hours a week in reading alone, and when it was closer to the end of the semester there were some in my class who would be putting in almost 80 hours a week, not myself, but it happened!  But from what I gather from my nephew, much is the same.  If you are willing to put in the time the results should speak for themselves.  Also, don't forget that your professors are an asset, and while many may seem too busy, a vast majority are extremely experienced in their respective fields and will be more than happy to help you outside of class.  Finally, I can't stress enough the importance of internship and work experience.  If you're a recent graduate with top notch grades, that's great, you made yourself competitive.  However, if you're a recent graduate with top notch grades and has internship and work experience, you have set yourself above the pool of graduates you are competing against.

My interview was extremely interesting and revealing about the actual state of things in the legal field.  While many headlines spell out doom and gloom for law school applicants and graduates, Mr. Killen provides great advice on how to succeed.  I found his point about "you get out of it what you put into it" simple but very significant.  Like one's undergraduate studies, a job or any relationship, expect to get out of it what you put into it.  If you walk into law school your freshman year with the attitude of "coasting", the likely result is a quick exit by the end of the fall semester.  Also his point about finding your niche is really telling, because that seems to be a theme I've heard since working at my current firm and among current law school students I have spoken to.  Overall, I really enjoyed getting to ask the personal and important questions, and I cannot thank Mr. Killen enough!