The Firm as a Vehicle for Self-Fulfillment

As opposed to doing “well”, charting a path to doing “good” proves a bit more difficult and uncertain. Starting from the destination, in my opinion, the best path to bringing about positive (dramatic) change in Haiti is through economic development. This belief is based principally on my economics studies as an undergrad, and my academic and personal experiences in Singapore (A country that went from third world to first world over the course of a lifetime). While there are a plethora of differences between Haiti and Singapore, the two countries are similar in one key respect…they both lack (lacked in the case of Singapore) a globally desirable natural resources (Singapore was able to build a natural resource in the form of a educated work force). Given this dearth of resources, Foreign Direct Investment must drive economic development.

At first blush, it’s hard to see how a firm would directly contribute to my goal of doing “good”; no firm is going to invest in Haiti. In the end, a firm’s truly invaluable contribution to my doing “good” is its name. Being able to put a prestigious NY firm on my resume would serve as a great indicator of my work ethic, and would easily build trust and confidence in my abilities; after all, “if I could survive a major NY law firm, what can’t I survive?” (Death). (Step 1: Screen out for a prestigious NY firm; do what I need to do to get there)

As a name is the only unique thing a firm could offer me (and it would have to be a truly prestigious firm at that), such an environment seems somewhat antithetical to my goal of doing “good”. Agreeably, spending my entire career at a firm would contribute very little, if any, to my goal of doing “good”; for that reason, I plan on jumping ship.

As opposed to some of my other options upon graduation, whether that be consulting or a solo practice, a firm would offer great exit opportunities to the client side. Despite the fact that I have enjoyed law school thus far, I am not "in love" with the law (this might have turned out to be a good thing, as it turns out that the law might be the weakest form of social control). Unlike most(?) of my peers, I don’t have an incessant desire to have an impact through the law. In a sense, I’m sort of like the bad man, I had a goal, and as it stood during my senior year, law school was the best way to get there.

Given the exit opportunities presented by some firm, my goal is to transition (as quickly as possible) to a company where I can thrive financially, building a network of friends and colleagues that I trust, and most importantly that trust me (preferably a Bank, PE firm or other financial institution). (Step 2: Make sure the firm has the type of clients I want to work for; Step 3: Make sure I get on any business matter that the firm works on for that client, learning their business in and out; Step 4: Keep my eyes open for the exit)

Upon building a successful network, I would then transition to Haiti, starting my own PE firm. Using my expertise and connections (both political and financial), I would invest in the country, hopefully doing “good” and “well”. (Step 5: Take the exit when it comes, and make the best of it; Step 6: Get off the highway and start building).

I will be the first to recognize that this is a somewhat oversimplified representation of what will no doubt be a very arduous process. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe that the general framework can and will work.

Why is that the introduction? It may be relevant context for you, but it doesn't help to communicate your idea to a reader who wants to know what you think, not who you were walking with when you thought it.

Not merely. Mostly. As a consequence of the predictable incentives created by pawning your license to an organization in return for a fixed annuity.

No. My "solution" (actually merely an observation) is that from the moment you get your license you have a practice, which you can decide to foster and encourage, or destroy. Deciding how to develop the value of your license involves choices. Choosing to eliminate your autonomy in the development of the practice in return for a fixed payment from someone else who will entirely control it raises questions about the compatibility of your incentives which, in the case of large-firm employment, will rarely stand scrutiny.

As far as I understood it, the positives of this course of action would be that we would be able to dictate the terms of our learning. By taking this path, we wouldn’t be firm X lawyers who know how to do thing Y, we would be “true” lawyers who could do whatever our clients needed us to do, or at least whatever we wanted to do.

That's hardly a full summary of the advantages. (Why call them "positives," which is an ugly back-formation, when good words already exist?) Surely you can see some other advantages in controlling your workflow, so that the proportion of your life taken up by your job is under your management, rather than that of someone who has an overriding incentive to use up as much of your energy and brain-power as possible, because he buys it all at a fixed price, prohibits you from using it professionally in any other context, and sells it retail, by the hour if possible? Surely there is an advantage in deciding how to balance current employment of past learning with investments in new learning? Surely there is an advantage in not being subject to instant firing?

And, depending on what constitutes "success," may lead towards or away from it, depending on circumstances not under your control? Hadn't you better consider what constitutes success for yourself? Deciding on paths without deciding on destinations means putting tactics before strategy, which is not a good idea in any social situation.

Do you really think that the way to make more adult choices is to regress to less adult thinking? Even supposing this particular version of "the inner child" story were correct, why would regressive development be the answer to the accumulation of adult experience in a more mature mind?

Spellchecking isn't proofreading. Don't ever confuse them.

But the thing about not following a path is that you never truly know. As it stands, while the path does seem likely to lead to disaster, we (I) at least know what that disaster is. As with stories, knowing the ending (or at least the possibility of endings) seems far better than not.

Why is this metaphor appropriate here? This should be the conclusion of an idea's explication, not the opportunity to quote a piece of back-of-the-book fluff from an obsolete weekly newsmagazine.

The Path Much Traveled

-- By JonathanBrice - 16 Feb 2012

Introduction

Problem: There’s no substitute for time

Solution: Find your inner child

Despite the many positives of this course of action, there are also several major negatives (at least for me). The key negative is the uncertainty that comes with getting off the path so "perfectly" laid out for us. While hearing stories of people who found success by making their own paths always fills us with a sense of pleasure and admiration, actually mustering up the strength and accepting the uncertainty and going against the grain is extremely difficult. At least for me, the key point of uncertainty is “success”--Will I succeed? But instead of attempting to answer that question, we should also recognize the fact that following the path doesn’t guarantee us success, it merely provides us a path.

So in the end, how do we muster up the strength to go against the grain? Find your inner child. At some point (around 6 years old), we stopped thinking about “me” and we started "sharing" and thinking about others. This transition is what essentially makes us do thing like come to/stay in law school when we really don't want to, or follow a path that is clearly bad for us. If we can somehow rekindle our youthful selfishness, and just do what we feel/know is probably best for us, we would be able to easily disregard the path.

Conclusion: We don’t know what we don’t know

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JonathanBrice
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.