In my niche, we have a joke: "Criminal lawyers treat each other civilly, but the way civil lawyers treat each other is criminal."
It's a joke, but it contains a kernel of truth. I think the problem relates to the objectives. In civil law, they squabble over money. The larger the sums of money involved, the more petty the squabbling can be. But we're talking about humanity here. There are always exceptions.
Why do lawyers have such huge egos? Necessity. It's a reflection of their clients' needs. Litigation is a high-stakes contest in which the other side will seek to capitalize on your weaknesses. To survive emotionally, one must have great confidence in one's cause, and one's ability to present it. The client needs someone with massive self-confidence.
Why do lawyers behave like jerks to their staff? Insecurity is one. The constant fear of failure just makes it worse. And it's a terrible shame. Being rude to your staff adds to your risk of failure. I find that happy staff go the extra mile for me. When the stakes are high, that matters.
If your wife worked as a legal temp, then she naturally wound up at the places that couldn't keep their staff. The ones where the lawyers were jerks. If she worked in the biggest towers downtown, then she worked where the competition between lawyers is most fierce, where the egos and the insecurity play the worst mischief. I feel for her.
I successfully avoided that rat-race. I started prosecuting in a remote northern town ("I'm just a simple country lawyer..."). My role is also a bit different. We have another saying here: "The Crown never wins nor loses." If the evidence doesn't prove the guilt of the accused, then the prosecutor is not to blame. So my stress levels are different.
If she needed to work with lawyers again, she should find a small office where the staff don't change much. After the lawyers interview her, she should interview the staff. Privately. Some law firms are families that stick together through good times and bad. My father's staff were like that. They really loved him.
I can tell you why he did: he sold his soul to Satan and turned evil.
I guess you didn't notice in my original post. I'm a prosecutor. I spend my time proving the guilt of people accused of crime.
Most of the folks who say lawyers are evil make an exception for us prosecutors. And it's true that I do accept somewhat lower wages in return for the satisfaction of helping victims.
I'll admit that this profession does attract more than the average number of unethical people, but the perception is worse than the reality. I know a many defence lawyers who are honest generous people. (But most of their clients aren't.)
I won't ask you to change your fiancee's mind. but please keep yours open.
I'll offer this tip for everyone: If you need a good lawyer, don't the clients if their lawyer was good. It's easy for any lawyer to look good to the client. Instead, ask other lawyers. They'll know by painful experience who's effective, and who's all show.
I got my CS degree in 1984. It's still useful, because they taught me theory, The languages they used (Pascal, PL/1 and LISP primarily) aren't.
My enthusiasm got me jobs. The degree only helped.
When I went to law school, almost everything I learned was theory. When I started the practice of law, I knew virtually nothing about actually running a trial. Now, I'm writing the book, and a publisher pays me for it.
Much of what I learned from the practice of CS and of law could have been taught at a trade school. 95% of the time, my work would be competent.
But that remaining 5% distinguishes between a tradesman and a professional. As a prosecutor, cross-examining the defence's psychologist or engineer, I have the advantage of knowing the basic theory behind their disciplines, because of the courses I took at university. I only tinker with writing software now, but I grok the new languages fast enough (when I get the chance to turn my mind to them).
I don't knock the trade schools. Enthusiasm to learn takes some people all the way through the theory they need to be pros. They don't need a university degree to be good.
And uninspired university graduates are so useless that should not be permitted to do anything important. I wouldn't hire them.
I remember that IBM used to hire only people with university degrees. Not just CS. Any degrees. IBM wasn't interested in what they learned at university. They wanted people who had the the enthusiasm/fortitude to slug their way through dry theory. A degree proved that the kid could work. Isn't that what an employer wants?
So what do you want? A job or a career? How much do you want it?
I am a Canadian lawyer. I don't practise in the field of wrongful dismissal, but that's the area that applies. I do know that most of the advice you got is inaccurate. The best advice is see a lawyer.
The most important question for you is "How do I find the right lawyer?" The answer is ask a lawyer. Several lawyers. "Which lawyers do you know of that are good at wrongful dismissal claims?" If several lawyers name the same name(s), you've got your expert.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in Canada, actually.
Your reply explains a great deal.
In my niche, we have a joke: "Criminal lawyers treat each other civilly, but the way civil lawyers treat each other is criminal."
It's a joke, but it contains a kernel of truth. I think the problem relates to the objectives. In civil law, they squabble over money. The larger the sums of money involved, the more petty the squabbling can be. But we're talking about humanity here. There are always exceptions.
Why do lawyers have such huge egos? Necessity. It's a reflection of their clients' needs. Litigation is a high-stakes contest in which the other side will seek to capitalize on your weaknesses. To survive emotionally, one must have great confidence in one's cause, and one's ability to present it. The client needs someone with massive self-confidence.
Why do lawyers behave like jerks to their staff? Insecurity is one. The constant fear of failure just makes it worse. And it's a terrible shame. Being rude to your staff adds to your risk of failure. I find that happy staff go the extra mile for me. When the stakes are high, that matters.
If your wife worked as a legal temp, then she naturally wound up at the places that couldn't keep their staff. The ones where the lawyers were jerks. If she worked in the biggest towers downtown, then she worked where the competition between lawyers is most fierce, where the egos and the insecurity play the worst mischief. I feel for her.
I successfully avoided that rat-race. I started prosecuting in a remote northern town ("I'm just a simple country lawyer..."). My role is also a bit different. We have another saying here: "The Crown never wins nor loses." If the evidence doesn't prove the guilt of the accused, then the prosecutor is not to blame. So my stress levels are different.
If she needed to work with lawyers again, she should find a small office where the staff don't change much. After the lawyers interview her, she should interview the staff. Privately. Some law firms are families that stick together through good times and bad. My father's staff were like that. They really loved him.
I can tell you why he did: he sold his soul to Satan and turned evil.
I guess you didn't notice in my original post. I'm a prosecutor. I spend my time proving the guilt of people accused of crime.
Most of the folks who say lawyers are evil make an exception for us prosecutors. And it's true that I do accept somewhat lower wages in return for the satisfaction of helping victims.
I'll admit that this profession does attract more than the average number of unethical people, but the perception is worse than the reality. I know a many defence lawyers who are honest generous people. (But most of their clients aren't.)
I won't ask you to change your fiancee's mind. but please keep yours open.
I'll offer this tip for everyone: If you need a good lawyer, don't the clients if their lawyer was good. It's easy for any lawyer to look good to the client. Instead, ask other lawyers. They'll know by painful experience who's effective, and who's all show.
I got my CS degree in 1984. It's still useful, because they taught me theory, The languages they used (Pascal, PL/1 and LISP primarily) aren't.
My enthusiasm got me jobs. The degree only helped.
When I went to law school, almost everything I learned was theory. When I started the practice of law, I knew virtually nothing about actually running a trial. Now, I'm writing the book, and a publisher pays me for it.
Much of what I learned from the practice of CS and of law could have been taught at a trade school. 95% of the time, my work would be competent.
But that remaining 5% distinguishes between a tradesman and a professional. As a prosecutor, cross-examining the defence's psychologist or engineer, I have the advantage of knowing the basic theory behind their disciplines, because of the courses I took at university. I only tinker with writing software now, but I grok the new languages fast enough (when I get the chance to turn my mind to them).
I don't knock the trade schools. Enthusiasm to learn takes some people all the way through the theory they need to be pros. They don't need a university degree to be good.
And uninspired university graduates are so useless that should not be permitted to do anything important. I wouldn't hire them.
I remember that IBM used to hire only people with university degrees. Not just CS. Any degrees. IBM wasn't interested in what they learned at university. They wanted people who had the the enthusiasm/fortitude to slug their way through dry theory. A degree proved that the kid could work. Isn't that what an employer wants?
So what do you want? A job or a career? How much do you want it?
I am a Canadian lawyer. I don't practise in the field of wrongful dismissal, but that's the area that applies. I do know that most of the advice you got is inaccurate. The best advice is see a lawyer. The most important question for you is "How do I find the right lawyer?" The answer is ask a lawyer. Several lawyers. "Which lawyers do you know of that are good at wrongful dismissal claims?" If several lawyers name the same name(s), you've got your expert.