Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I know 4 of the interviewees featured in their article and they're undoubtedly good lawyers. Making partners in their respective old firms wouldn't be surprising at all. At least 2 of them were JLCs. Even if you look at it with more cynical eyes, they all came from local firms (including the FLA mentioned), so the prospects of making at least JP is well within reach.
Of course, whether they would've been good rainmakers or not (arguably just as or more important than technical skills when you become a more senior lawyer) in their old firms is another thing.
But striking out and setting up your own shop is the truest challenge of whether you're a rainmaker, is it not?
Personally I would've felt somewhat uncomfortable tooting my own horn but I guess they felt convicted enough to agree to be interviewed. This conviction that they can do better with their own practice is probably why they left the safety net of their big firms in the first place.
|
Speaking of JLCs, I have a question. To what extent is being a JLC helpful to one's career? Am on track to get a first class honours but of course things are very fluid and may change since I've not graduated. But wanted to think of options.
Is being a JLC something one must absolutely do if given the chance? If you look at the background of those conferred SCs, appointed to the Supreme Court and even taking higher office in politics, many of them have been JLCs. This is despite only a small number of people becoming JLCs each year, or so my seniors tell me. I'm sure these were ridiculously clever people to begin with as your post above suggests. But does time as a JLC train one's mind in a way that law school and practice does not that gives one an even stronger edge in life and in the profession? And should it be something I should push myself to get if I intend to be in litigation, to academia or even aspire to politics [don't judge me]?