Tedium and Fulfillment
| Publication year | 2013 |
| Pages | 61 |
| Citation | Vol. 42 No. 3 Pg. 61 |
Departments A Dialogue Between Generations
Ron: One fairly new lawyer I spoke to, a 2010 grad who wishes to remain anonymous for this article, told me about her visit to the "dark side" during her first years of practice at a national law firm.
Anon: Has any aspect of my firm’s practice been tedious or boring? In short: document review. Two words they seldom mention in law school that define the vast majority of work performed by young associates in firms that handle complex cases and transactions. With the advent of e-discovery, document review has become an even more pernicious beast that sucks your creativity, turns humans to machines, and deadens the senses. It is the legal version of the frontal lobotomy, leaving once doughy-eyed youngsters drooling out of the corner of their mouth. I’ll be honest; it has been difficult to deal with large document review projects.
Ron: All I can say is: been there, done that.
Anon: There is something gut-wrenching about sitting there, reviewing documents, day after day, with little to no human interaction. It’s an awful thing to subject human beings to; it is, by its very nature, inhumane. The only way I have been able to deal with it is to find solace in the camaraderie of my co-workers, or, when I've been solo, to keep telling myself to find meaning in doing good work. Abe Lincoln said whatever you are, be a good one. I've taken that saying personally throughout my life. I've waited tables and cleaned toilets in my first jobs, yet I was able to find meaning and satisfaction by doing good work. However, I've never felt more degraded or less of a human being than when I've been tasked with document review. It's a soul-sucking experience where you are literally forced to shut off that portion of you that is human. The only way I could get through it is to find meaning by doing a good job, and that wasn't easy. It helps to follow a good day's work with some wine with my girlfriends, and then later a hot bath when I get home.
Ron: My law partner, a very accomplished trial attorney in my view, has said that he may not be nearly as smart as opposing counsel, but he believes he can always outwork him or her. He seems to relish digging through piles of paper and finding the diamond in the rough that can turn a case around. Last year, he and another lawyer from our firm secured and collected an $18 million judgment in a construction defect 'Qase, a result due in part to their willingness to dig through hundreds of pages of SEC filings so as to establish the personal liability of the director of a publicly traded company that owned a subsidiary, which owned the impecunious property developer. Time and again, he and I have seen the extensive labors and drudgery of the Great Paper Shuffle pay huge dividends.
In practice, some experienced lawyers rely almost 100% on others culling through the document heap and bringing to their attention what is most important. Others insist on reviewing the bulk of the documents, believing that allowing lesser skilled or experienced persons to do this task on their own, even with careful direction and training, does a disservice to the client. Which camp to you think you will fall in ten years from now? Why?
Anon: I would argue that the latter camp is outdated, given the development of e-discovery and the proliferation of e-mail communication. For most medium to large cases, it is physically impossible for one person to review all of the documents and make a determination as to their relevance. By way of example, one case I worked on in the past had the equivalent of approximately 2.5 billion pages of single-spaced typewritten pages. Given the vast amount of data involved, at least in regard to large-scale litigation, the only alternatives are to: (1) have hundreds of attorneys perform a linear review of the documents, which has its own shortcomings; or (2) have a coordinated search strategy to target responsive documents, be it through text searches, predictive coding, or algorithms to identity and group potentially responsive documents. In any event, it is impossible in most medium to large cases for a single attorney, or even a core group of attorneys, to review all of the documents and make an informed decision as to relevance.
Ron: Given all we've discussed, how do you expect to find fulfillment as a lawyer?
Anon: I believe the key is finding a job that allows you to employ the gifts you've been given in a way you find meaningful. Some people are fully contented applying their gifts to amass fortunes, and treat their economic success as a gold star on their report card of life. Others need more than dollar signs, and I'd argue that these people need to work extra hard to find fulfillment in the practice of law. To be fair, there are certainly many avenues for attorneys to apply their skills and still lead balanced, fulfilling lives. It is getting more and more difficult...
To continue reading
Request your trial