<p>Bear with me hear, I’d like to hear real opinions on this. A lot of discussion on this board is about how lawyers have to constantly please clients and how they are subsceptible to other people’s demands.</p>
<p>If you are a good enough lawyer–in terms of win percentage or being the best in a new, up and coming field (patent law comes into mind)–can you be a jerk and still field the big bucks and attract clients? An analagous situation would be a top surgeon in the medical field.</p>
<p>If certain lawyers can be good enough to be this, what fields are they in and how good do they have to be (i.e. rarity and how long does it take to get in such a position). </p>
<p>I ask because I’m curious in general and am a bit of a perfectionist and don’t like dealing with people that I don’t feel try as hard and do as well.</p>
<p>You can be a jerk to your CO-WORKERS and UNDERLINGS and still be very successful in some firms. A partner who’s a jackass to CLIENTS is going to be taken down by the rest of the partnership before he knows what hit him.</p>
<p>I’ve actually known of law firm associates who are asked to leave the firm or not promoted to partnership specifically because of their treatment of the support staff.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that law schools are particularly hesitant to admit some qualified candidates if they feel they will be a “lone gunslinger” litigator.</p>
<p>Let’s not forget, too, that much of being a lawyer is about facilitating compromise. Even in litigation, settlement is common and pre-trial settlement conferences are often mandatory. You need to have a conciliatory streak in you in many cases to make things happen in the manner best suited to your clients needs.</p>
<p>A lawyer can only be a jerk if it does not affect his client’s case, and that’s pretty rare. Otherwise the lawyer is putting him/herself (yes, there are jerkettes!) in a position of actual conflict of interest between his/her own interest in acting like a jerk and his client’s best interests (which may include needing to reach an agreement with the other side). Such a conflict can lead to ethical problems as well as to complaints filed with the bar association. </p>
<p>Somone who is a perfectionist (a) had better be truly excellent at what he/she does in order to be in any position to criticize the work of others and (b) had better learn how to work with others even if (a) is true. Unfortunately there are a number of people whose actual ability or work turns out to not measure up to the high standards they supposedly have for others. They are in for a very rude awakening and, the world being what it is, there is always someone ready to give it to them.</p>
<p>I honestly can’t believe this thread got any responses. Personally, I didn’t feel it even deserved a response.</p>
<p>OP: you seriously should re-examine your goals and, possibly, your outlook of life. Making money is fine, as is being the best attorney you can be; thinking yourself superior and consequently assuming that you can disrespect those around you, well, it’s just sad --especially for a person typing “hear”, instead of “here.”</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I hope you don’t write a personal statement with that title – actually, maybe I do:).</p>
<p>Then again, maybe you wrote this thread in the same spirit as Chief Justice Roberts, when he said during his commencement speech at G-Town Law: my mom told me, don’t be humble – you are not that great.</p>
<p>OP, it looks like the general consensus is: if you’re really, really, really good, you might be able to afford to be a jerk; but it won’t ever pay.</p>
<p>Why can’t I be a jerk at my own discretion? Not everyone likes being politically correct all the time or dealing with people with inflated egos.</p>
<p>I just want to be in a job where I can do the best job possible and expect the same from my colleagues and have the option to have amiable clients.</p>
<p>If a colleague is lazy or a client is pretentious, who wouldn’t want the option of putting them in their place verbally if not outright rejecting them? </p>
<p>It doesn’t seem like good lawyers are rare enough that you can have much control over your clients or work environment the way a good surgeon can.</p>
<p>Let’s take a more philosophical approach to this.</p>
<p>What is a jerk? What justifies one’s behaviour? In what circumstances?</p>
<p>Frankly, nobody wants to employ lazy, incompetent people. If that’s the case, being a “jerk” may be justified – and a lot more work! You might as well get rid of that person (assuming you had the power). </p>
<p>In the case of Clients (read $$$), it may be a different story. It also depends on what’s important to you – and, more importantly, your firm.</p>
<p>From your posts, I get the feeling that, assuming you are an excellent lawyer, you’d be happy in a small firm setting, where you would have a say in most decisions. Big law may not be for you. </p>
<p>If you go into “big law” (and people correct me if I am wrong), you’ll probably not have the time, energy and/or inclination (given the possible consequences, to be a “jerk.” Being confident and demanding is one thing, being a jerk is another. </p>
<p>It’s true, OP, they’re not. Because everybody and their brother is going to law school.</p>
<p>It’s not about being politically correct. As other posters (some of them practicing lawyers themselves) have indicated, it is simply in your best interest to be as diplomatic as possible.</p>
<p>There are a lot of lawyers who are jerks, just as there are jerks in every walk of life. The problem I see with jerks is that they never ask the question: why should there be any jerks? Only a jerk seems to believe that there is some right to being one, and I have generally found that jerks are beyond reformation. Jerks believe that God loves jerks – He must because he made so many of them.</p>