Difficulties in being a trial lawyer

[accountofapro]

I started practicing general practice law about 10 years ago and quickly opened up my law firm. When I opened up the firm, I was mostly taking on a very small number of clients and doing a lot of free and discount work and I was happy because I could explore issues and cases that I enjoyed. As time went on and the economy and inflation became worse and needs for living increased, I had to take on more clients. I would note that I have a more severe form of ADHD which makes me come off a little "neurodiverse". After COVID-19 clients became more abrasive and eventually escalated into the following issues:

1. Clients are not usually very friendly typically. They tend to be unappreciative and often look for ways to screw the lawyer (including by lying and otherwise) to further their interests. Clients often times are abrasive and scream. If someone is in jail, the whole family calls daily and screams things like "we paid $2000 and you only saw our relative once in the last week. If you dont get the bond hearing moved up we will be asking for money back" (when for instance I have 0 control and if I approach the prosecutor or judge about moving the case, I will probably just get yelled out; and me offering a massive discount compared to what other lawyers charge for a similar case). Many clients are uneducated and get ticked off by for instance typos made by government agencies and call and scream at my office before even asking questions. Clients often do not care about their case unless their life is about to fall apart or they are in jail (and when that happens they care too much and become obnoxiously loud). Sometimes I am forced to raise my voice at clients to actually cooperate on their own cases because otherwise they wont care to think about long-term legal interests. There is a relatively small amount of decent clients in the law field and a small set of classier lawyers (that I am not part) of take them up leaving the rest competing for problematic/uneducated/abrasive clients (not all of them are obnoxious but it is a decent percent of them). Sometimes a client would scream at you cause you were in a bathroom and didnt answer a phone call. Clients are quick to falsely accuse lawyers of being a crook etc. Sometimes clients will not come to court, to appointments, and will refuse to bring essential documents (or simply not care). If confronted, they will blame you and say you are a lawyer, they paid you money, and argue about bringing anything or doing any step of the case themselves. I often do not have the option in this economy to withdraw from cases where client is being abusive because they will demand refunds and it will strain the firm.

2. Since I offer sort of discount services, I started getting crap from other lawyers like jokes: "we clients we dont want we send them to you". When I go to bars and tell people what kind of work I do, I get ridiculed for types of cases I take on and get comments like "go program computers instead". The fact that I offer cheaper services does not mean that the clients like me more. It instead causes clients to make comments like "if I hired a more expensive lawyer, I would have gotten a better result" (despite them likely getting the best result they could and that being undisputed in the field).

3. Clients often times come with very weak cases and clients often do not see them as such and get angry if you dont want to file weak cases (and in some cases even push you to lie for them which is not allowed). Judges often times get mad over these cases. Regardless of whether I file or not file a weaker claim, someone screams at me.

4. Family law is particularly brutal. The clients tend to be assholes, call every night and dont respect boundaries or have any consideration of your life, and if you dont want to listen to them or try to suggest in any way that their irrational way of thinking is incorrect (that got them into the familial problems they are fact), they get mad and make threats or escalate tension. You cant really change the clients and a lot of times you become forced to present their absurd ideas to court and they will have a hostile relationship with you too. Opposing lawyers are not in any better. They for instance will make statements to purposefully make you feel bad or to provoke you to gain a tactical advantage in their cases. Sometimes you run into a situation where a lawyer is acting unethically but you cant do anything because they have connections with the court they are practicing in.

Does anyone here know anything about the issues I am facing or have any suggestions? I am thinking about shifting to areas of law that involve working with people less but the human aspect of my job as it stands doesnt seem too pleasant.

 

[accountofapro]

One more thing. I craved novelty in the profession and now cases are becoming more repetitive and its also not as exciting for me. Many of my novel legal theories were dismissed by other colleagues who wanted more efficiency, routine, and predictability.

 

[accountofapro]

Two major issues I faced in my career so far were: (1) clients judge me based on dress, cost, lack of fancy office, being a bit "neurodivergent" etc. vs. the work I actually do and what I know; and (2) many cases I saw were decided based on relational and unwritten forces rather than the law and facts in a textual fashion as I wanted them to be decided.

 

[Judge]

I just asked a friend here if she could look at your questions. Though she's three hours ahead of me. Probably the only actual attorney at law in our ranks, although she's now retired. An NT, but someone who certainly understands many of our issues neurologically speaking apart from the law itself.

Part of me says, WELL DONE! to get this far to actually try cases. But on the other hand, I thought just being an insurance underwriter had an unhealthy amount of routine interactions with other people. But in the case of your job, I just can't think of any aspect of law that doesn't have a great deal of personal interactions.

I loved studying constitutional law, however that's a very different thing from being in court. Though I enjoyed my experience as a juror a few times. I think everyone should do it, though I know any number of us are stressed out at the prospects of jury duty.

Ironically I once thought of becoming a paralegal, presuming that I wouldn't have serious interactions with clients in or out of court. Just a lot of "behind-the-scenes" work...but it even that true?

 

[accountofapro]

I just asked a friend here if she could look at your questions. Though she's three hours ahead of me. Probably the only actual attorney at law in our ranks, although she's now retired. An NT, but someone who certainly understands many of our issues neurologically speaking apart from the law itself.

Part of me says, WELL DONE! to get this far to actually try cases. But on the other hand, I thought just being an insurance underwriter had an unhealthy amount of routine interactions with other people. But in the case of your job, I just can't think of any aspect of law that doesn't have a great deal of personal interactions.

I loved studying constitutional law, however that's a very different thing from being in court. Though I enjoyed my experience as a juror a few times. I think everyone should do it, though I know any number of us are stressed out at the prospects of jury duty.

Ironically I once thought of becoming a paralegal, presuming that I wouldn't have serious interactions with clients in or out of court. Just a lot of "behind-the-scenes" work...but it even that true?

I am more ADHD-esque though. I am not diagnosed with any full blown autism spectrum if that makes any difference. Some have suggested my ADHD involves "autistic traits". I dont know if you are familiar with this. I still havent read up on it a lot.

 

[Judge]

I am more ADHD-esque though. I am not diagnosed with any full blown autism spectrum if that makes any difference. Some have suggested my ADHD involves "autistic traits". I dont know if you are familiar with this. I still havent read up on it a lot.

I have not been formally diagnosed with ASD either, though I have with OCD. Another comorbid condition I could see as being problematic as an attorney and perhaps other officers of the court.

I'm still pondering after years whether or not I might have ADHD given select difficulties with learning certain things at different rates. Very confusing and upsetting at times.

On occasion we have had discussions in how comorbid conditions "intertwine" with autism, sometimes making it difficult to understand one from the other.

 

[stevens]

Does anyone here know anything about the issues I am facing or have any suggestions? I am thinking about shifting to areas of law that involve working with people less but the human aspect of my job as it stands doesnt seem too pleasant.

The type of cases you are doing are people-heavy. Criminal law and family law are difficult even for someone with high social skills. Lawyers and engineers often approach things from a similar mind set. I've been an engineer for decades, and discussing the law with attorneys has been enjoyable over the years. I've also done some expert witness work and I found that to be very interesting as well.

May I suggest you consider appellate work? Such cases are decided on technical metrics and do not require that you possess exceptional people skills to do the day to day work. It's also very technically interesting as well. Consider that you may be overtaxing your social capabilities, even if you are a top-notch lawyer.

I think law is a potentially great choice for a lot of aspies, but there can be a social side to it that becomes impossible.

 

[Mary Terry]

You have a lot going on. I'm a retired lawyer and have vented at some point or the other about almost everything that you posted. I've both hated and loved what I did for living.

The most important thing is to know and understand the ethics rules that govern you. If you always follow the ethics rules, you'll sleep better at night. As you know, the rules govern everything - client relationships, handling client funds, relationships with other attorneys, acting in good faith, conflicts of interest, etc.

If you're so overwhelmed that you're starting to make legal mistakes, miss deadlines, etc., then find out if your state bar association will provide support. It's supposed to be strictly confidential and discrete. Don't tell the bar anything specific about your cases, of course. My state bar association provides resources for attorneys struggling with many mental and physical conditions.

Attorneys are called hired guns, but we mostly dodge bullets for a living. We're always under attack on three sides by opposing counsel, the judges, and our own clients, while ethically bound to zealously represent our clients within the bounds of the law. It's a stressful, hard way to earn a living. It took years of higher education to get a law degree and a license. And you deserve to get paid for your work.

Client relationships can be tricky. Always vet your potential clients and turn away those that appear problematic from the start, such as clients who have already used several other attorneys before they contact you. I avoided family law and criminal cases. I've never seen a happy divorce client and most criminal defendants are (gasp!) guilty but expect you to get them off the hook.

You have the right to pick and choose who you will accept as a client. Always require a written, signed and countersigned retainer or employment contract with the client that spells out every single detail of your representation. If you accept representation of a client with a weak case, document that in a letter to them. A wise old attorney told me when I was just starting out to always tell clients that their case is weak because if you win for them, they think you're a hero, and if you lose the case, then you tell them that you forewarned them that losing was the likely outcome.

Clients do lie to their attorneys. I always tried to independently verify everything the client told me, and that nothing was being concealed from me. Nothing worse than looking incompetent or like you're suborning perjury because you didn't independently collect the evidence and verify alleged facts before you presented that to the court.

Pursuing novel legal theories usually is a waste of time. The courts and co-counsel want to move cases forward, not get bogged down in esoteric theories. Your job as an attorney is to competently conclude/resolve your client's issues. If you have a penchant for exploring novel ideas, consider writing a law review article and submit it to an entity that publishes such articles. That same old wise attorney who mentored me said to always use the KISS principle when dealing with the courts - keep it simple, stupid - because judges are overworked, have little time to spend on each case, lack law clerks to do research for them and want to clear their dockets as fast as possible. Give the judge the law and facts to "hang his hat on". Let opposing counsel get lost in the legal weeds and overcomplicate matters, drag out and delay litigation, and risk the judge's displeasure. You just need to give the judge a solid legal basis to rule in your favor.

I could go on and on with comments, but I'll stop for now.

 

[AprilR]

I am a lawyer as well, though i have always worked for offices and never independent precisely bc of the issues you mentioned.

And even as a office worker, i had to deal with ignorant and aggressive People a lot. It is def.not easy, and i think my best chance is working for a company with their own law department