Looking
back,
why
did
you
decide
to
become
a
lawyer?
Given
all
the
time,
cost
and
stress,
if
you
think
back,
what
factors
prompted
the
career
choice?
Was
it
intellectual
stimulation?
The
idea
of
helping
people
with
their
problems?
The
potential
for
high
earnings?
The
prestige
of
being
a
professional?
Parental
pressure
and
influence?
Lots
of
things
have
changed
over
my
50-year
career.
What
used
to
be
one
of
the
most
prized
was
prestige,
graduating
from
a
top-tier
law
school
or
being
attached
to
a
Biglaw
firm.
For
many
years,
even
decades,
the
nose
to
the
grindstone
was
soothed
by
high
salaries,
which
many
peeps
did
not
get
to
enjoy
because
they
were
working
24/7
or
close
to
it.
Time
poverty.
One
major
change
today
is
the
desire,
the
need,
for
work-life
balance,
a
term
rarely
used
until
recently.
Now
lawyers
willingly
trade
the
prestige
of
being
in
Biglaw
for
some
work-life
balance.
Even
at
many
non-Biglaw
firms,
lawyers
were
in
the
office
on
Saturday,
whether
for
a
few
hours
or
all
day.
It
was
important
to
be
seen
and
bill
some
hours,
even
on
the
weekend.
Bill,
baby,
bill.
Today,
many
lawyers
no
longer
choose
to
work
all
hours
at
the
bidding
of
some
senior
associates
or
partners;
it’s
been
a
hazing
ritual
for
more
decades
than
one
can
count.
It’s
the
“I
had
to
do
it
so
you
do
too”
mentality
that
doesn’t
sit
well
with
many
of
the
newer
lawyers,
who
seek
more
from
life
than
just
billable
hours.
More
power
to
them.
What
matters
most?
Control
over
time.
No
longer
are
many
lawyers
willing
to
ask
“how
high?”
when
a
senior
lawyer
commands
“jump.”
Flexibility
in
managing
time,
a
nonreplenishable
asset,
now
takes
precedence.
It
has
taken
way
too
long
for
the
pushback
that
firms
are
now
seeing,
for
example,
in
requiring
return-to-office
schedules.
Decades
ago,
we
had
no
choice
but
to
be
in
the
office
for
the
full
day
or
face
potential
consequences,
even
though
we
were
exempt
employees.
We
all
like
to
be
in
control.
We
learned
in
practice
that
sometimes
the
best
way
to
handle
a
bully
opposing
counsel
is
to
not
respond,
which
frustrates
bullies
to
no
end.
Silence
can
be
very
discomforting.
Intimidation
rarely
works.
While
the
client
is
the
ultimate
decision-make,
we
need
to
steer
the
client
in
the
right
direction,
enumerating
the
pros
and
cons
of
a
particular
course
of
action.
Sometimes
the
client
agrees,
sometimes
not;
it’s
the
client’s
call
to
make.
Often,
we
try
to
save
the
client
from
indulging
in
the
worst
impulses.
We
succeed
…
sometimes.
And
if
you’re
keeping
score,
last
week’s
judicial
rulings
were
not
winners
for
the
administration.
Acting
AG
Todd
Blanche
must
have
been
the
messenger
of
the
bad
news.
A
thankless
job
if
ever
there
was
one.
Also
pending:
the
D.C.
Circuit
will
hear
the
DOJ’s
appeal
of
the
lower
court’s
finding
in
favor
of
the
four
Biglaw
firms
who
did
not
bend
a
knee
to
47.
Many
general
counsel
signed
on
to
an
amicus
brief
urging
the
D.C.
Circuit
to
affirm
the
rulings.
Apparently
those
who
signed
the
brief
did
so
anonymously,
as
did
a
brief
filed
by
“Law
Partners
United”
without
identification
of
those
partners.
Standing
up
for
the
rule
of
law
and
the
independence
of
lawyers
is
hollow
without
the
willingness
to
be
identified.
Contrast
that
approach
with
the
more
than
800
self-identified
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers
who
signed
a
separate
amicus
brief.
It’s
now
“women
overboard”
(note
the
plural)
as
the
first
two
women
tossed
out
from
47’s
cabinet
just
happen
to
be
women.
Tulsi
Gabbard
remains
as
director
of
national
intelligence
as
does
Susie
Wiles,
chief
of
staff.
So,
the
beauty
contest
is
on
as
to
whether
47
will
choose
any
of
the
following
to
replace
the
ousted
Bondi.
How
about
the
U.S.
Attorney
for
D.C.,
Jeanine
Pirro?
Alina
Habba,
the
former
short-term
U.S.
attorney
for
New
Jersey?
Harmeet
Dhillon,
the
head
of
the
DOJ
civil
rights
division?
Probably
none
of
them,
given
the
administration’s
hostility
to
DEI.
Trying
to
appease
47’s
thirst
for
revenge
and
retribution,
only
to
come
up
against
judges
who
apply
the
rule
of
law,
is
a
fool’s
game.
But
there
seems
to
be
no
shortage
of
fools.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].