What an Attorney at Fisher Phillips Wishes They Knew Before a Law Career
Ryan, an attorney at Fisher Phillips, was surprised to find that, unlike the "gladiators in suits" portrayed on TV, opposing counsel are sometimes incompetent, producing "sloppy" work with unclear arguments. This means a significant part of the job involves unraveling subpar work to effectively respond, rather than engaging in a battle of wits with equally skilled opponents.
Legal Practice, Litigation, Professional Competency, Communication Skills, Problem Solving
Advizer Information
Name
Job Title
Company
Undergrad
Grad Programs
Majors
Industries
Job Functions
Traits
Ryan Harrison, Sr.
Attorney
Fisher Phillips
UC Davis
CSUS - MS Criminal Justice; UC Law SF - Juris Doctor
Anthropology, Sociology
Law
Legal
Took Out Loans, Worked 20+ Hours in School, Greek Life Member
Video Highlights
1. Reality vs. Expectation: The legal profession isn't always the 'gladiators in suits' scenario portrayed in media. Sometimes opposing counsel may not be highly competent, requiring extra effort to understand and address unclear or sloppy work.
2. Dealing with Incompetence: A significant part of the job involves deciphering and responding to subpar work from opposing counsel, which can be time-consuming and challenging.
3. Unraveling Arguments: Attorneys must be able to dissect and understand the arguments of their opponents, even when those arguments are poorly presented or unclear, in order to effectively respond.
Transcript
Q9: Wish known before - industry
One of the biggest surprises I had when I started this work was how shocking it was. In law school, you learn about the law, how to research, and how to write. Even before law school, on TV, you see attorneys in the courtroom making their best arguments, like gladiators in suits bringing their A-game to win for their client.
But in reality, when you're dealing with opposing counsel, sometimes they're not competent. Sometimes the work they submit is sloppy, and the issues they argue are unclear. You have to try to understand what they're doing and saying so you can argue against it.
This can take a lot of time because the person you're arguing against isn't producing work you can easily respond to. I found it surprising that it's not always two gladiators at their best. It might be one gladiator dealing with someone who isn't interested in their case and is just barely meeting requirements.
Or perhaps they're just not a good attorney and don't realize their work is subpar. You have to unravel what they're doing to respond to it, and it can be difficult at times.
Advizer Personal Links
Human Resources; Employment Law; Advice and Counsel; Litigation; Trials