Appellate judges hold some of the most coveted positions in the legal system, and many lawyers would happily abandon their legal practice (whether lucrative or not) in order to become one.  One of the advantages of being an appellate judge is the opportunity to review and "second-guess" the results of trials and motions that have already been decided.  Thus, an appellate judge does not listen to evidence or conduct trials.  Being an appellate judge is more academic and theoretical in that an appellate judge has more time to ponder complex and cutting edge legal issues, and to interpret the law.

In addition, most appellate judges (and federal district court judges) have legal clerks who are able to brief legal issues and/or write initial drafts of legal opinions or decisions.  One of the joys of serving as an appellate judge (and as a federal district court judge) is to be able to pick and choose from among the best and the brightest law students to serve as judicial clerks.  Such clerks usually serve for one year (sometimes two), prior to going on to large law firm practice, government service, academia, or other jobs.  Former clerks from U.S. appellate courts or the U.S. Supreme Court have sometimes been able to receive large signing bonuses from law firms.  Appellate judges are able to discuss legal opinions and outcomes with their clerks.  Although some judges have strictly a business relationship with their clerks, many judges socialize with their clerks and become close friends with them.  For example, some judges periodically invite both current and former law clerks over to their houses for dinner or regularly go out to lunch with them.  In summary, judges generally have professional satisfaction because they do not bill their time, they have interesting work, and they enjoy unparalleled prestige and respect.

In general, judges seem to be among the happiest in the legal profession.  Trial judges are able to apply the law to sets of facts and must make rapid decisions regarding matters of both procedural and substantive law.  With the exception of occasionally or periodically having one of their decisions overturned by an appellate judge, trial judges are able to make binding decisions and control outcomes in a manner that can only be envied by lawyers and lay citizens alike.  Although there have been complaints (some of them valid) that judges do not make enough money, judges generally make more money than many lawyers.  While lawyers in large firms usually make more money than judges, the disparity in pay is surprisingly small in medium-sized cities that are not on the Coasts or in major metropolitan areas in the United States.

I have consistently noticed a difference in the level of general job satisfaction among those in the legal field engaged in different types of jobs.  At or near the top of heap seem to be the judges.  Admittedly, many judges are overworked, and all judges are isolated to an extent from the rest of society.  Further, the caseload for federal and state judges has steadily increased, making judgeships more stressful and demanding than they were in the past. [See Anthony Kronman, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession at 320-21 (1993).]  Regardless of such challenges, judges (both on the trial and appellate levels) enjoy a level of power, responsibility, respect and prestige that is practically unmatched.  Perhaps more significantly, judges also do not have to bill hours or worry about billable hours. 

Whether a member of the legal profession is subject to billable hour requirements can be a significant factor in whether that individual finds satisfaction and fulfillment in her professional life.  According to responses received by the ABA Commission on Billable Hours, many government lawyers, in-house lawyers at corporations, lawyers in academia, public interest lawyers, and lawyers who no longer practice law left the private practice of law because they no longer wanted to be subject to the system of billable hours.  Yet most lawyers in the U.S. bill by the hour.  As a general rule, approximately 75% of U.S. lawyers are in private practice with law firms or in solo practice; about 10% work in private industry; approximately 10% work in government; about 3% are judges; approximately 1% work in academia; and about 1% work in legal aid, as public defenders, or as public interest lawyers.  In my experience from interacting with lawyers and judges, there is generally a continuum of professional contentment that is largely tied both to the fact of, and the number of, billable hours required.  [See ABA Commission on Billable Hours Report, 2001-2002 at 53; Deborah Rhode, In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession at 24 (2000).]

Careers in law don't always live up to new lawyers' initial expectations.  An August 2000 Esquire article explored the issue of why graduates of Harvard Law School's Class of 1990 were quitting the practice of law in droves.  According to the article, Harvard law students in the Class of 1990 initially believed that their law degree would provide them with an enviable lifestyle filled with wealth, professional satisfaction, flexibility, and professional recognition.  Ten years later, however, less than half of the Class of 1990 apparently worked in law firms, and approximately twenty-five percent of those with entries in the class directory were no longer practicing law.  [See Robert Kurson, "Who's Killing the Great Lawyers of Harvard?" Esquire (August 2000) at 84.]

My older brother, a member of Harvard Law School's Class of 1990, learned that life as a litigator at a large firm in New York could be compared to going off to battle each day.  Following graduation, my brother clerked for a judge in Massachusetts for a year.  After approximately seven years of practicing law with two large law firms in New York City, my brother decided to abandon the law and begin a career in finance and investment banking.  He was tired of having to go to "battle" every day as a litigator.  He was also disillusioned witha hierarchical law firm structure that placed huge demands on its junior lawyers, yet provided no guarantee or substantial prospect that even its most productive and promising junior lawyers would become partners.  My brother is not alone in fleeing the law for perceived greener pastures.

General career descriptions for lawyers do not always prepare individuals for the lifestyle challenges many encounter in a large firm environment.  Discontent sometimes causes lawyers to leave the practice of law. The head of an editing department for a charitable organization once told me that he marvels at the number of lawyers who consistently apply for non-legal, editorial jobs with his department.  To many lawyers, the grass often seems greener outside of the legal profession. 

In Law v. Life: What Lawyers Are Afraid to Say about the Legal Profession, Walt Bachman describes the feedback that he received from fellow lawyers when he announced that he was resigning from his partnership with a large law firm in Minneapolis to teach, write, and engage in service.  On numerous occasions, high-powered partners who were at the height of their careers would telephone Bachman or go to his office (generally shutting his door so as to ensure privacy) to tell him that they secretly wanted to escape the practice of law.  With emotion, these lawyers would reveal their dissatisfaction, disillusionment, and unhappiness with the practice of law.  High-income law firm partners would express their fantasies of leaving their firms to teach in inner-city schools, run a symphony orchestra, or operate a bait shop.  Some of these lawyers confided that they were currently saving money to finance such dreams.  Most of these partners, however, believed that they were stuck practicing law and trapped by the lifestyles supported by their large salaries.  [See Walt Bachman, Law v. Life: What Lawyers Are Afraid to Say about The Legal Profession  at 12, (1995).] 

Such sentiments are routine among lawyers in law firms when their colleagues leave the firm to pursue interests outside of the law.  It is common to hear lawyers lament that they are envious of their partners, associates, or colleagues who decide to leave the law in order to become an editor, an entrepreneur, a businessperson, or a professor.  One of the sentiments that many lawyers in law firms feel when their colleagues leave the law firm environment is a sense of jealousy that their colleagues will no longer be subject to the merciless demands of billable hours.

How do young lawyers feel about their careers in law?  In a 1995 survey of lawyers who had been practicing law for less than three years or who were under the age of 36, the American Bar Association found that 27% of the lawyers surveyed were dissatisfied with practicing law.  Approximately a third of young lawyers responded that they would "strongly" consider leaving their current job in the next two years, while approximately another third said they "might" consider leaving  their current job within the same time frame.  In a Texas survey for 1999-2000, 39% of the responding law firm associates indicated that they wanted to change jobs within two years, 22% stated that they wanted to leave the practice of law, and 37% reported that they wanted to become an in-house lawyer.  Thus, most of the responding Texas associates no longer wanted to practice law with a law firm.  In general, many young lawyers seem to have significant levels of discontent with the legal profession.   [See Patrick J. Schiltz, "Lawyer Well-Being in Large Firms: Choices Facing Young Lawyers: On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession," 52 Vand. L. Rev. at 881 (May 1999); Susan Saab Fortney, "Soul for Sale: An Empirical Study of Associate Satisfaction, Law Firm Culture, and the Effects of Billable Hour Requirements," 69 UMKC L. Rev. 239, 285-88 (Winter, 2000).]

How do lawyers feel about their careers in law?  A study of graduates of the University of Michigan Law School (the "Michigan Study") revealed a strikingly widespread and increasing career dissatisfaction among lawyers in private practice.  The Michigan Study also found that for members of the class of 1991, those who were no longer practicing law within five years after graduation were much happier with their careers than those who worked for law firms.  One study from the Maryland Bar Association revealed that approximately a third of the responding lawyers were not certain that they wanted to continue practicing law.  [See Patrick J. Schiltz, "Lawyer Well-Being in Large Firms: Choices Facing Young Lawyers: On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession," 52 Vand. L. Rev. 882, n. 78 (May 1999); Mary Ann Glendon, "A Nation Under Lawyers: How the Crisis in the Legal Profession Is Transforming American Society" at 85 (1994).]

Coming soon…