Publications: A full perspective

Financial Services Group Chair Alton B. Harris authored the "Closing Argument” column in the May issue of Chicago Lawyer magazine.

Titled "A full perspective," the column discusses about how the legal profession has changed in the years that Mr. Harris has been a lawyer.

To view the article in its original form, please click the Related Files link.

As I enter my fifth decade as a lawyer, I am often asked about the changes I have watched in the practice of law. Interest in the “good old days” generally masks an unspoken nostalgia for lost professional ideals and a disdain for the mores of the all too gritty business the law has become. But I do not recall “good old days,” at least not ones with the burnished luster they so often take on at law school reunions. When I tally the practice’s gains and losses over the past 40 years I come up with a decidedly mixed bag.

The most disturbing change has been the loss by too many lawyers of what I regard as their ethical compass. In the past 10 years, I have been in at least a half dozen situations— both contested and transactional — in which opposing counsel has outright lied or grossly misrepresented the facts or the law. Earlier in my career, I often encountered tough advocacy, hardball negotiation, “careful” framing of issues, and persistent emphasis on the strengths of a client’s position and scrupulous avoidance of its weaknesses. Never, never, however, did I encounter straight-faced misrepresentations or shameless lying.

I have come to an unhappy conclusion: lawyers are just as subject to the temptation “to do whatever it takes to win” as those in the financial, political and corporate spheres.

Second, the transformation of the practice of law from a “profession” to a “business” has been much commented on and widely deplored. The rise of the almighty billable hour, the decline in training and mentoring, the loss of “well-roundedness” as a result of too early specialization, the depreciation of activities outside of the law, the weakening of the bonds of professional loyalty, and the ascendancy of naked economic self-interest are all sufficiently in evidence to require no further elaboration. The often-reported low job satisfaction among lawyers at all income levels and the high number of departures from the practice are undoubtedly a direct reflection of the shift in the law away from a “professional” model to that of a profit-driven enterprise.

But I think it is too easy to disparage this shift if it is taken in isolation. My own take on the significance of the transition of the practice of law from “profession” to “business” is not that it has occurred but that so many legal enterprises have managed it so poorly. My strong suspicion is that the cause of job dissatisfaction, compensation jealousies, lack of upward mobility, loss of professional loyalty, and the perceived absence of a satisfying family life is not because law firms have become “businesses,” but because they have become poorly run businesses.

Third, the combination of economic pressure and instantaneous communication has resulted in a precipitous decline in the general standard of acceptable legal work. Immersion in the nuts-and-bolts of clients’ businesses, multiple edits of important memorandums, focused preparation for negotiation and oral argument, and senior partner review of final drafts of briefs and merger agreements are all increasingly being ignored.

The most welcome change in the practice of law has been the ethnic and gender “homogenization” of our major firms. Forty years ago, Chicago still had “Jewish” firms and firms that would not hire Jews. There were no blacks and few women to be found at any level in the most “prestigious” firms. In my law school class of over 500, there were less than 10 women and five blacks. Blessedly, ethnically defined firms are now gone; associate ranks are filled with equal numbers of men and women; and black and other lawyers of color are aggressively recruited. We have a long way to go in making partnership work for women; recruiting, training and promoting minorities; and sensitizing law firm managements to the needs and aspirations of “nontraditional” lawyers, but the process is undeniable.

Second, client loyalty is a valuable commodity that all lawyers seek to promote and preserve. Yet when clients and law firms are so closely coupled that opportunities for “newcomers” to attract clients by offering better service, lower costs, and superior skills are ignored, healthy legal competition is impossible. When I began to practice law, each of the three largest banks in Chicago used a single law firm for all (or virtually all) of its legal work. For a variety of reasons, the world of the “one-company/one-law firm” has largely passed. In the situation I know best, the midsized law firm I helped found in the middle ’70s, we are now able to compete actively within the sphere of our resources for work from any business organization in the Midwest. That would not have been true 40 years ago.

Third, for most younger lawyers, the notion that the resources needed to conduct research were not always accessible on an equal basis must seem incomprehensible. Yet that was the case. Large firm lawyers had immediate, convenient access to their own firms’ libraries; small firm lawyers and sole practitioners had to walk to the libraries at the Chicago Bar Association and the Cook County court building. LexisNexis, Westlaw, government data banks, and the Internet have put an end to these informational monopolies and brought about a revolutionary leveling of the playing field.

Do the positive changes outweigh the negative or vice versa? I find that the surest way to determine how lawyers feel about the balance of good and bad in the profession is to ask them whether they would recommend that their children follow in their career footsteps. For myself, I would have to hesitate before answering that question, but eventually I would answer: “Yes." 

Reprinted with permission from Chicago Lawyer, May 2009.