6 ms·

Speaking as a software engineer who became an attorney, I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, ma

Speaking as a software engineer who became an attorney, I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). I say this because the bulk of work for many types of legal practice is information filtering/search/organization/and presentation, both in wrangling evidence and in exploring the law itself. Basic programming knowledge can do great magic in terms of making these processes more efficient, such as by programmatically manipulating the hundreds or millions of files that can be produced in legal cases. In terms of more in-depth knowledge of programming, there is a definite place for it in the law (it has worked to my benefit), but I think that role is specialized/limited. I think improved software tools will, generally, fill the profession's need rather than every attorney attempting to specialize in another field enough to roll their own apps.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
Would you say a lawyer can make more / be more employable than the average lawyer if they can take software-related cases?
- rudyfink 7y ago
  That is more complicated than you might think. In a lot of ways the legal profession is only a semi-functioning market--at least compared to software. On one hand, there are fairly amazing and very longstanding restrictions on how attorneys can market their services. This makes it harder (or outright impossible) for an attorney to market, so that diminishes (but does not eliminate) comparative technical advantage. On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. So, the attorney is likely more "employable," but the market signals are substantially muted.
  - joshAg 7y ago
    Doesn't the lockstep go away after only a promotion or two when the attorneys get promoted beyond senior associate? I guess that's still the better part of a decade, though.
    - james_in_the_uk 7y ago
      The promotions are based on business case, especially as you get senior. To make a business case for partnership practicing technology law at BigLaw you need to have a decade or more of doing that as an associate, where you get paid more or less the same as everyone else at your level. In fact it can be harder to meet your targets / make your bonuses because technology law tends to be faster moving than other areas so proportionally more time needs to be spent on professional developer, as against fee earning.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. This is not true at all. Salaries for starting lawyers at "BigLaw" firms are generally fixed...but only by firm and by location. So Firm A in NYC pays $XXXk but their LA office only pays $YYYk. Firm B probably pays close to $XXXk in NYC but might pay $ZZZk. And if you go down to the smaller firms, they could pay anywhere from $40k to $XXXk based on location, type of law, etc. After the first year, very few firms are lockstep with regards to raises...in the past few years, I think only 1 or 2 major firms is still on the lockstep model. Raises after 2nd year are almost universally based on performance, which depends heavily on technical skill (technical meaning legal, not programming, skills).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - vqc 7y ago
      Are you sure this is true? It seems -to-edit many more than one or two of this hundred https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100-law-firms-rankings https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100... are still paying lockstep. Cravath still lists lockstep raises for years 1-7. Skadden years 1-8. Latham 1-9. Davis Polk 1-6. Etc. Are the firms reporting one thing but actually doing something else?
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        With respect to the BigLaw firms cited, yes, since Cravath is the only one that is actually doing lockstep. They rest don't do lockstep anymore. On paper they start with lockstep, but actual raises are based on performance, location, legal group, etc. I have enough friends at Skadden and Latham in different offices to confirm that.
        vqc 7y ago
        I've never heard of anyone who hit their billable minimums (e.g. 1900, 2k, etc) not get bumped to the next year. Although I guess there's a bit of a dance that happens years 5/7-9 for people who think they have a shot at partner.
  - ohaideredevs 7y ago
    Interesting, thanks. I always wondered if there is carry over to law if you know say, finance or SE well.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  No. While a lawyer can build a lucrative practice around software/tech clients, the legal issues are not really unique to software. Learning to recognize/handle legal issues common to tech companies does not require programming skills. Though, an exception would be patent attorneys. Patent attorneys with CS/EE degrees are usually in high demand.
petra 7y ago
>> attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). Can you give a few examples of practical uses of those tools ?
- gjstein 7y ago
  I was a paralegal a number of years back and, due to my experience as a coder, I was able to automate a bunch of my responsibilities. Much of the job of a paralegal (and some of the responsibilities of a lawyer) are things like data entry and records keeping that are trivially automated. One of my most popular tasks was to take data from Doc X in format A and move it to Doc Y in format B. Some string parsing (with human oversight) massively accelerated my productivity. I wrote a short blurb about my experience a little while ago: http://www.cachestocaches.com/2016/2/how-we-teach-programming/#an-anecdote http://www.cachestocaches.com/2016/2/how-we-teach-programmin...
- torstenvl 7y ago
  Higher echelon (DOJ, State AG's office, etc.) wants to make a case for a change in the law and needs statistics about how many cases over the past x years where certain factors are met. You can query your case management database... or you can send an RFI to every subordinate office and make them do it by hand when they already have crazy workloads. You have a set of documents you prepare regularly. Could be a Power of Attorney, a diversion agreement, whatever. You can highlight the frequently changed part and substitute information by hand... or you can set up a macro with a form to enter the information and have it automatically generate. Attorneys are knowledge workers burdened with a lot of administrative nonsense. There is a lot of low hanging fruit for automation.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    You have a set of documents you prepare regularly. Could be a Power of Attorney, a diversion agreement, whatever. You can highlight the frequently changed part and substitute information by hand... or you can set up a macro with a form to enter the information and have it automatically generate. Law firms have been using software to do this for 2 decades. Rather than using macros, they have dedicated document-management systems that can generate templates/documents based on the type of filing, client, etc. that get further customized by lawyers as needed.
jimktrains2 7y ago
> I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). I would argue that this is true of nearly everyone. A small amount of knowledge can go a long way in helping to build simple tools that save a lot of labour.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
How was that career change? Worthwhile (from a financial, job security, level of responsibility etc sense)?
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  I did it too. It has been successful for me but inherent conservatism of the legal profession can be wearing over time.
- stult 7y ago
  I went the opposite way. Big law to programming. I make about the same (maybe slightly less but not if you account for unreimbursed business expenses like buying suits and similar hidden costs of employment) but for less work and I'm way happier. Many, possibly most, lawyers are miserable and hate their work. It's long hours and high stress, both because the stakes are usually high and you are frequently dealing with open interpersonal conflict/adversarial relationships. Plus no chance for equity, so you're an hourly worker for life.
  - epmaybe 7y ago
    > no chance for equity What about as a partner?
    - stult 7y ago
      Law firms are usually organized as LLPs, LLCs, or PCs these days, but bottom line that means ownership shares can't be freely transferred. You can't sell your stake, so there's no opportunity for a major liquidity event like you might experience as an employee compensated in stock at a corporation when the stock increases in value dramatically and you sell. Worse yet, lawyers have to keep working to continue to receive equity compensation in the overwhelming majority of cases. So you can't retire and continue to make money from your equity stake. You can't even really cut back on the crazy hours. This answer covers it pretty thoroughly: https://www.quora.com/Do-partners-in-law-firms-keep-a-share-of-the-firm-after-they-retire https://www.quora.com/Do-partners-in-law-firms-keep-a-share-...

ohaideredevs 7y ago

Would you say a lawyer can make more / be more employable than the average lawyer if they can take software-related cases?

rudyfink 7y ago
That is more complicated than you might think. In a lot of ways the legal profession is only a semi-functioning market--at least compared to software. On one hand, there are fairly amazing and very longstanding restrictions on how attorneys can market their services. This makes it harder (or outright impossible) for an attorney to market, so that diminishes (but does not eliminate) comparative technical advantage. On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. So, the attorney is likely more "employable," but the market signals are substantially muted.
- joshAg 7y ago
  Doesn't the lockstep go away after only a promotion or two when the attorneys get promoted beyond senior associate? I guess that's still the better part of a decade, though.
  - james_in_the_uk 7y ago
    The promotions are based on business case, especially as you get senior. To make a business case for partnership practicing technology law at BigLaw you need to have a decade or more of doing that as an associate, where you get paid more or less the same as everyone else at your level. In fact it can be harder to meet your targets / make your bonuses because technology law tends to be faster moving than other areas so proportionally more time needs to be spent on professional developer, as against fee earning.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. This is not true at all. Salaries for starting lawyers at "BigLaw" firms are generally fixed...but only by firm and by location. So Firm A in NYC pays $XXXk but their LA office only pays $YYYk. Firm B probably pays close to $XXXk in NYC but might pay $ZZZk. And if you go down to the smaller firms, they could pay anywhere from $40k to $XXXk based on location, type of law, etc. After the first year, very few firms are lockstep with regards to raises...in the past few years, I think only 1 or 2 major firms is still on the lockstep model. Raises after 2nd year are almost universally based on performance, which depends heavily on technical skill (technical meaning legal, not programming, skills).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vqc 7y ago
    Are you sure this is true? It seems -to-edit many more than one or two of this hundred https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100-law-firms-rankings https://www.vault.com/best-companies-to-work-for/law/top-100... are still paying lockstep. Cravath still lists lockstep raises for years 1-7. Skadden years 1-8. Latham 1-9. Davis Polk 1-6. Etc. Are the firms reporting one thing but actually doing something else?
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      With respect to the BigLaw firms cited, yes, since Cravath is the only one that is actually doing lockstep. They rest don't do lockstep anymore. On paper they start with lockstep, but actual raises are based on performance, location, legal group, etc. I have enough friends at Skadden and Latham in different offices to confirm that.
      - vqc 7y ago
        I've never heard of anyone who hit their billable minimums (e.g. 1900, 2k, etc) not get bumped to the next year. Although I guess there's a bit of a dance that happens years 5/7-9 for people who think they have a shot at partner.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  Interesting, thanks. I always wondered if there is carry over to law if you know say, finance or SE well.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
No. While a lawyer can build a lucrative practice around software/tech clients, the legal issues are not really unique to software. Learning to recognize/handle legal issues common to tech companies does not require programming skills. Though, an exception would be patent attorneys. Patent attorneys with CS/EE degrees are usually in high demand.

petra 7y ago

>> attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). Can you give a few examples of practical uses of those tools ?

gjstein 7y ago
I was a paralegal a number of years back and, due to my experience as a coder, I was able to automate a bunch of my responsibilities. Much of the job of a paralegal (and some of the responsibilities of a lawyer) are things like data entry and records keeping that are trivially automated. One of my most popular tasks was to take data from Doc X in format A and move it to Doc Y in format B. Some string parsing (with human oversight) massively accelerated my productivity. I wrote a short blurb about my experience a little while ago: http://www.cachestocaches.com/2016/2/how-we-teach-programming/#an-anecdote http://www.cachestocaches.com/2016/2/how-we-teach-programmin...
torstenvl 7y ago
Higher echelon (DOJ, State AG's office, etc.) wants to make a case for a change in the law and needs statistics about how many cases over the past x years where certain factors are met. You can query your case management database... or you can send an RFI to every subordinate office and make them do it by hand when they already have crazy workloads. You have a set of documents you prepare regularly. Could be a Power of Attorney, a diversion agreement, whatever. You can highlight the frequently changed part and substitute information by hand... or you can set up a macro with a form to enter the information and have it automatically generate. Attorneys are knowledge workers burdened with a lot of administrative nonsense. There is a lot of low hanging fruit for automation.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  You have a set of documents you prepare regularly. Could be a Power of Attorney, a diversion agreement, whatever. You can highlight the frequently changed part and substitute information by hand... or you can set up a macro with a form to enter the information and have it automatically generate. Law firms have been using software to do this for 2 decades. Rather than using macros, they have dedicated document-management systems that can generate templates/documents based on the type of filing, client, etc. that get further customized by lawyers as needed.

jimktrains2 7y ago

> I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). I would argue that this is true of nearly everyone. A small amount of knowledge can go a long way in helping to build simple tools that save a lot of labour.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

How was that career change? Worthwhile (from a financial, job security, level of responsibility etc sense)?

james_in_the_uk 7y ago
I did it too. It has been successful for me but inherent conservatism of the legal profession can be wearing over time.
stult 7y ago
I went the opposite way. Big law to programming. I make about the same (maybe slightly less but not if you account for unreimbursed business expenses like buying suits and similar hidden costs of employment) but for less work and I'm way happier. Many, possibly most, lawyers are miserable and hate their work. It's long hours and high stress, both because the stakes are usually high and you are frequently dealing with open interpersonal conflict/adversarial relationships. Plus no chance for equity, so you're an hourly worker for life.
- epmaybe 7y ago
  > no chance for equity What about as a partner?
  - stult 7y ago
    Law firms are usually organized as LLPs, LLCs, or PCs these days, but bottom line that means ownership shares can't be freely transferred. You can't sell your stake, so there's no opportunity for a major liquidity event like you might experience as an employee compensated in stock at a corporation when the stock increases in value dramatically and you sell. Worse yet, lawyers have to keep working to continue to receive equity compensation in the overwhelming majority of cases. So you can't retire and continue to make money from your equity stake. You can't even really cut back on the crazy hours. This answer covers it pretty thoroughly: https://www.quora.com/Do-partners-in-law-firms-keep-a-share-of-the-firm-after-they-retire https://www.quora.com/Do-partners-in-law-firms-keep-a-share-...