December 22

Gini Nelson (Engaging Conflicts): Lawyers appreciate justice.

December 23

Sheryl Sisk Shelin (The Inspired Solo): Lawyers appreciate their friends.

PT-Law Mom: Lawyers (to be) appreciate support staff, clients, realistic deadlines and fair co-counsel, legal bloggers, and their families.

Victoria Pynchon (Settle It Now Negotiation blog): Lawyers appreciate year-end appreciation memes.

Chuck Newton (Spare Room Tycoon): Lawyers appreciate in rhyme, with special appreciation for his son.

Susan Carter Liebel (Build a Solo Practice): Lawyers appreciate photography, sunrises, and colleagues.

December 24

Carolyn Elefant (My Shingle): Lawyers appreciate passion.

Scott Greenfield (Simple Justice): Lawyers appreciate integrity.

Shelly Mactyre (The Menagerie): Lawyers appreciate honesty, articulate opposing counsel, civil opposing counsel, non-attorney friends, and doctor jokes.

Gideon (a public defendender): Lawyers appreciate a good fight.

Karl (Capital Defense Weekly): Lawyers appreciate blog traffic and “the guts to get in the ring going full-throttle knowing you might get bloodied but will remain unbroken.”

December 26

Brain J. Ritchey (More Partner Income): Lawyers appreciate those who enable them to focus on the practice of law.

Malum, a public defender (Malum In Se): Lawyers appreciate phone calls timely returned.

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (Best Practices for Legal Education): Lawyers appreciate the rule of law. 

Nathan Dosch (The Dreams of a Solo): Lawyers appreciate family.

December 27

Shawn Matlock (The Matlock Blog): Lawyers appreciate a good bottle of scotch.

Mark Bennett (Defending People: The Art and Science of Criminal Defense Trial Lawyering): Lawyers (at least, some lawyers) appreciate the Constitution.

Robert Ambrogi (Legal Blog Watch): A recap of 2007 and summary of the 2008 Lawyers Appreciate… meme results.

December 29

Diane Levin (Online Guide to Mediation): Lawyers appreciate democracy.   (Be sure to visit Diane’s November post reflecting on the Pakistani lawyers’ protests and why the rule of law matters, and supporting the call for a Nobel Prize in Law.)

December 31

Skelly (Arbitrary and Capricious): Lawyers appreciate words.

A few weeks ago, I asked Stephanie what she thought about launching a second annual Lawyers Appreciate… And she responded with an enthusiastic thumbs up!

Last year’s campaign ran from December 22 to December 31, with some appreciation coming in even into the new year — which, it has to be said, Stephanie and I both appreciated.  There’s no statute of limitations on this!  Since the 22nd is a Saturday this year (and I will be making extra-merry, since the 22nd is also my birthday) I thought I’d announce a day early, so resourceful bloggers can begin reflecting.  And, of course, anyone without a blog is welcome to participate as well by posting a comment.

Here’s how it works: tomorrow, we’ll invite 3 bloggers to join us in our appreciative countdown.  We’re asking them to post a blog entry that begins with the words, “Lawyers Appreciate…” and then to invite 3 more bloggers of their choice to do the same.  We’ll keep this up for 10 days, until (at least) December 31.  And we’ll kick off 2008 with conscious appreciation for what might otherwise go overlooked.

Get ready…… Get set………………….

Edited to add: from Stephanie’s announcement:

For those of you who posted your “LA . . .” list last year, what additions (and maybe subtractions) will you make in 2007? And to those new to the “Lawyers Appreciate . . .” countdown, we look forward to reading your posts of appreciation.

�

Interestingly, I’ve recently debriefed the DISC with a handful of clients who, after learning about their natural tendencies, feel that they’re unsuited for law firm life.  (And such a reaction is one reason why I always provide an oral debrief of the DISC, even though each client receives a detailed written report as soon as the assessment is completed.)  The reasons for these feelings varies; some feel they aren’t “dominant” enough, some feel that their preference for a slow and steady pace at work conflicts with the realities of practice, and some feel that they’re too “people oriented” to do well in a setting that requires a lot of solo reading, analyzing, and writing.  After discussion, though, each client has discovered a different interpretation.

You probably glanced at the photo I selected for this post.  Go back and look at it.  Really. 

You’ll notice that the proverbial square peg has been altered to fit into the round hole — and that the alteration wasn’t easy, that it permanently changed the square peg, and that (by virtue of the hammer lying nearby) the process probably wasn’t all that easy.  But you’ll also notice that the square peg is still square above the hole.  And the percentage of peg above the hole appears to be more than that in or below the hole; in other words, although part of the peg was changed irreparably, most of it remains in its native state. 

When I work with clients who feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole, this imagery comes to mind in two respects.  The first is: ok, you can make yourself fit by smoothing down some corners, shaving off bits and pieces, and adapting until you conform to the mold.  That’s what some clients choose.  And frankly, those clients usually choose not to work with me, because that process isn’t one that I wholeheartedly embrace and a client who’s decided to take that route usually requires the assistance of someone who agrees that the proper approach is to pound away at the “offending corners” until they’re gone.  Fair choice, but not mine.

The second approach is a quite different.  It calls for examining the discrepancy between the mold and the client, deciding whether it really exists or whether it exists only in the client’s perception, and then determining whether the client must change, whether the mold can stretch, or whether the client can change and the mold can stretch.  For instance, if a client is a nonconformist who enjoys marching to the beat of her own drummer — not always a popular path in law firms – we might examine whether her beat can coincide with her firm’s culture and goals (perhaps even putting her into some type of leadership role since her beat might inspire others to dance along) or whether she’d prefer to create her own rhythm elsewhere. 

Few easy answers exist in this area.  However, I’ve found that lawyers who enjoy significant aspects of practicing law are generally able to find ways to adapt themselves and/or their circumstances so they can get more of what they enjoy and lead from their strengths, even when those strengths may not be the first that come to mind when envisioning law firm culture. 

If you feel like a square peg, ask yourself questions along these lines:

*  What are the areas of disconnect?
*  What value is in those areas?
*  Do I want to create change, in myself or in my environment?
*  What can I do to develop a fit?  What support do I need?
*  How can I use my strengths in a way that serves me and my environment?

Sometimes the answer is to leave the “round hole culture.”  And sometimes the answer is that the gap isn’t as broad as it may appear to be, that relatively small adaptations create a more multifaceted and thus stronger set of skills, and that the fit may be imperfect but nonetheless good.  That’s the secret that happy lawyers often discover. �

Is this really true for the searcher?

Maybe it is.  If so, I empathize.  Although I’ve never hated practicing law, I’ve (briefly) had jobs I hated and sometimes had to do tasks I hated even in jobs I loved.  It’s painful to hate something that consumes the bulk of one’s conscious hours, and change is in order — pronto.

More likely, though, it’s not entirely true, though there’s some part of the statement that is true.  So, the key is to determine which of two aspects (and perhaps more) is untrue.  (And for here on out, I’m addressing the “you” who agree with the search statement.)

1.  “I hate being a lawyer.“  What does it mean to you to “be a lawyer?”  How do you interpret that identity, and what do you dislike about it?  Is there a way to reshape “being a lawyer” so that it’s more acceptable?  Is it different to “be someone who practices law” than to “be a lawyer”?  This is a rich area for exploration.

2.  “I hate practicing law.”  This is what I suspect the search is really all about.  But again, is this entirely true?  Is there some part of practice you enjoy?  Maybe you really like research and writing but hate dealing with clients — or vice versa.  Maybe you enjoy the puzzle of tax law but not the clients you represent.  Maybe you want to be on your feet and out of the office more than anything.  Finding the parts of practice that you do like is the key step toward a situation that’s a good fit for you.  This is another area rich for investigation.

Although happy lawyers explain the source of their happiness in many different ways, the common denominator seems to be that they connect what they enjoy to what they do on a regular basis in practice.  I don’t imagine that any lawyer or any person likes every single professional task undertaken, but there’s a tipping point, and those who stay above that point tend to self-identify as happy.  I’ve also observed that happy lawyers connect with a sense of fulfillment or a belief that what they’re doing matters.

The bottom line, of course, is that making the statement “I hate being a lawyer” calls for some kind of action.  Maybe the action is a job/career change, or maybe it’s analysis to identify what changes would negate that statement (partly or completely) and making those changes.

So, searcher, you “hate being a lawyer.”  What will you choose to do about it? 

——————————————— 

Please visit this post for information about joining a free teleclass titled Five Foundations of Time Management for Attorneys on Thursday, October 11, 2007.  If you’d prefer, you can also sign up to attend and to receive the recording of the call (as well as a few other reasources, which all together comprise the Life at the Bar Survival Kit) by visiting this page of my website.  I hope you’ll join us!

*  Talk less, listen more.
*  Sharing information with those around you is not a bad thing.
*  Know what your colleagues are working on.
*  Being rigorous doesn’t mean being a jerk.
*  Risk is sometimes necessary to find new opportunities.
*  If you only spend time with lawyers, you won’t know how to talk to juries or clients.
*  Lawyers are frequently smart people — but lots of other people are smart too.
*  Diversity is a fact of life.  If you want a successful and smart organization, hire and promote a diverse work force.
*  Seek opportunities for feedback.
*  No matter what your level in the organization, find a mentor, coach or advisor.
*  Having fun at work isn’t a crime.
*  At the end of your life you probably won’t say — “I wish I had spent more time at the office.”

————————————————

I’m hosting a retreat this weekend for women who want to create a balance between their work and their personal lives and to be fully engaged in each.  I’ve selected a poem to read at the beginning of the retreat, and I thought I’d share part of it here as well.  It’s from When Death Comes, by Mary Oliver.

When it’s over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.

When it’s over, I don’t want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don’t want to find myself sighing and frightened,
or full of argument.

I don’t want to end up simply having visited this world.

—————————————–

Have a good weekend.

Julie Fleming Brown coaches attorneys on professional development, career management, and client development issues. Please visit www.LifeAtTheBar.com for more information, or contact Julie at 800.758.6214.

Stephanie recently requested authorization from Pamela Gail Johnson, the creator of the Secret Society of Happy People, to establish a Secret Society of Happy Lawyers, and permission was gladly granted.  Visit Stephanie’s Idealawg post for further details.

Now, before we introduce The Secret Society of Happy Lawyers, Stephanie and I are curious: what does that name conjure for you?  Does it bring up images, tales, jokes, dreams?  Please share!  Post your comments here, on Stephanie’s blog, or email Stephanie or me.  Or post something on your own blog, and I’ll add a link here.  We’re eager to hear your thoughts and ideas about the new Secret Society of Happy Lawyers.  And stay tuned: there’s lots to share!

Updated:  Visit Victoria Pynchon’s Settle It Now Negotiation Blog for a post on The Secret Society of Happy Lawyers!