More Lawyers....

By now I’ve been to court dozens of times and seen dozens of lawyers.

 Standard Issue.  Myself and 95% of the other lawyers: we wear the “uniform” of a conservative suit – not too old or worn, not too fancy – with a standard tie and standard shoes.  Black, dark blue, dark grey, brown, grey, light grey, or camel.  We’re indistinguishable from each other – perhaps we should wear names and numbers like athletes.

 Slob.  Every now and then you see this type, more often than not overweight.  His tie is loose, he may be wearing sneakers with his suit, or just a blazer and Dockers.  He has an arrogant casualness, but that doesn’t mean he necessarily knows what he’s doing.  Most of us have a healthy concern for messing with things we don’t understand: we don’t pull our carburetor apart, we don’t try our hand at surgery, and we don’t try to fix the sink – in each case we call the professional.  But even some of these professionals aren’t necessarily experts in their field, they’re simply people who lack this idea of only doing things we know how to do.  This is why you find cab drivers from God-knows-where, who barely speak English and know the roads less than you do, who somehow decided that this was an appropriate job and simply had the shameless moxie to get behind the wheel of a cab and go at it.  There are clueless mechanics who are the same (and are also often from the Middle East).  And unfortunately there are lawyers who fit this description.  Usually, but not always, their disheveled appearance is a warning that they are as careless and sloppy as lawyers as they are when it comes to dressing themselves before going out in public – and into a courtroom.

 CSA/General Lee.  This type is probably less common in New York and L.A. than he is in Virginia and other southern states.  He affects either seersucker suits, bow ties, or string ties and cowboy boots.  He may have a beard/goatee and try to emulate Nathaniel Bedford Forrest (the KKK founder and namesake of Forrest Gump) – had Forrest himself been a lawyer and not a Confederate cavalry general.  His office motif is Civil War prints.  I’ve also noticed that 2/3 of “Civil War” buffs tend to be of the Confederate persuasion.  Given that, even in Virginia, blacks are well represented not only among the bar, but also on the bench, the CSA theme is not particularly calculated to win the hearts and minds of these other lawyers and judges.

 L.A. Law.  I haven’t practiced law in L.A., so I can’t say for certain how lawyers there dress, aside from having watched that show.  Every now and then you see lawyers here who affect the egregiously expensive suits and GQ style.  They’re thin on the ground, mostly because there is a perception here in Virginia that both the judges and the juries are turned off by ostentatious displays of wealth by attorneys and that any such appearance will doom the client’s case: plaintiffs with such attorneys will be deemed “already have more than enough, if he can afford Mr. Cochran here,” and defendants will be deemed to have “deep pockets” and subject to a higher plaintiff’s award than if they simply had a less fancy attorney. 

 Female Lawyers.  Funny, I could have sworn that half the students at George Mason law school when I went back in ’90-93 were female, yet when I go to court it seems that only 25-33% of the attorneys are female.  That number only jumps to 50% if we’re talking about domestic or juvenile cases – though I’ve seen wives represented by male attorneys opposed by their husbands with female attorneys, so the sex of the client has no bearing on the sex of the lawyer representing him/her.

 Since we have no reason to believe that female attorneys have substantially less inclination than their non-lawyer sisters to marry and have families, and the stay-at-home parent is usually (though not always) the mother, a likely explanation for the under-representation of female lawyers among the active trial bar is this very phenomenon.  I know at least two of my GMUSL alumni who stopped practicing law in order to stay at home with the kids, so it’s probably more common than I see. 

 I have found, though, that female attorneys tend to be well-dressed and are never slobs – nor do any of them affect the Scarlett O’Hara look (no CSA equivalent for women).  They can probably get away with overdressing – unlike the male “L.A.” type attorneys mentioned above – as we naturally expect women to pay more attention to fashion and appearance, so it doesn’t count against them the way it would for male attorneys.  For the most part they’re just as competent and skillful as male attorneys.  I haven’t met any who appear to be intimidated by the environment, and I have found a few who are even more arrogant and aggressive than most male attorneys, myself included.

 Judges.  Justice-o-Tron 2000.  Fortunately this type of judge is rare: the one who believes that a rigid adherence to legal principles, beyond all compassion and logic, is the most important standard a judge can have.  I can’t recall encountering any judge who appeared to not take the job seriously, although some judges are more laid back and casual than others – Maryland judges seem to be far more casual than Virginia judges, and Federal judges tend to be more serious than state judges.   Generally, the lower court traffic docket, where most of the defendants are pro se (not represented by attorneys) tend to be the most casual – guilty, minimum sentence, move on – NEXT!  Again, I find that most judges are capable of “seeing the forest for the trees” and recognizing the spirit, rather than simply the letter of the law, and acting accordingly.  I can’t say I always agree with their decisions, but I can respect their reasoning.

 Hurry Up And Wait.  One thing you’ll never see in “Boston Legal”, “L.A. Law”, or any other lawyer show or movie is what 80% of lawyering seems to be: waiting.  Even more so than legal research – which I do for briefs and the rare appeal – waiting is that unglamorous, boring, but ubiquitous part of being a lawyer.  You hurry up to make it to court on time, only to wait while the docket is called – because if your case is first, damn well that will be the day you get there late.  You wait for your client to be processed into the jail so you can see him – or to be processed out when you get him released.  You wait for the prosecutor to talk to the cop, then wait to talk to the prosecutor, to plead bargain on a traffic or criminal case.  You wait for the judge’s law clerks to approve your divorce decrees, and for judges to sign them in publication cases.  Immigration cases are the worst, with such a huge backlog the INS has a bulletin which tells you how far behind they are.

 Paper pushing.  Real estate lawyers, who do closings and settlements, practically never see a courtroom.  Government attorneys are more likely to draft memos and advise bureaucrats than spend time in court.  Junior associates at major law firms are more likely to be stuffed in law libraries than off to court – except for status hearings and collections return dates, the most basic, routine, and uncontested matters.  Even personal injury lawyers, who are supposedly the most visible of trial lawyers – and I should know, because I am one – spend far more time settling cases on the phone with insurance companies, without ever leaving the office, than in court.  And many court appearances are routine: return dates on Warrants in Debt, scheduling conferences, Master Calendar hearings for immigration attorneys, term dates, etc. where all you’re really doing is setting a trial date or informing the court of the current status of a case.  Hardly anything dramatic or exciting which would lend itself to TV or movies.

 Even trials can be quite dull.  We have to put on evidence, certify exhibits and witnesses, make arcane and obtuse objections on minor points of law, and methodically extract testimony from various witnesses which may be dull and repetitive – but necessary.  As dull as it gets sometimes, you have to stay awake and alert, object when necessary, take notes for cross examination or to rehabilitate your own witnesses on redirect, and know when to shut up, because asking the wrong question can sometimes be more harmful than simply saying nothing at all.  On the other hand, witnesses can be difficult, forgetful, argumentative, evasive, arrogant, sarcastic, emotional, long-winded, angry, burst out in tears, contradict earlier testimony, blurt out amazingly harmful, surprising, or idiotic statements, shoot themselves in the foot, or come up with something brilliant on their own.  You never know what’s going to happen. 

 On the other hand, it always feels good to win a case, even if all you did is what I call “judicial discretion management” – avoiding mistakes and guiding the judge to a favorable decision.  Of course the jackpot is winning a case which was almost unwinnable, but that is rare.  Usually you win the cases you should win, lose the cases where you really didn’t have a chance, and break even.