Opting Out

26/7/2016

MORGAN KOEGEL
Volume 10, Issue 1

I leaned forward and rested my forehead on the cold glass, staring down at a muggy Collins street below me. Business-attired ants poured onto the sidewalk in a steady stream of grey and black. I let out the sigh.

How the fuck did I get here?

It wasn’t until I was literally sitting at my 101 Collins desk that the significance of my decision to pursue a clerkship hit me. I’d spent the better half of two weeks writing and re-writing cover letters and perfected my canned laughter for cocktail parties, but there was never a moment where I really sat and thought about what I was doing – it was just the done thing and I was doing it.

Like many people, I entered this degree with a notion of what sort of law student I would be: diligent, studious and, above else, uncompromising. The whim of my classmates and sparkle of a corporate career wasn’t going to change me: I’m principled.

But here’s the thing - in a closed environment, principles become a little more malleable.

It goes without saying that MLS is one of these environments: it’s small, it’s held out to be a haven of intelligent (and competitive) people and its culture is shaped by two institutions with similar interests. Both the law school itself and the LSS have a vested interest in elevating the status of corporate law (and clerkships by extension): the law school needs to produce success stories and future donors, and the LSS relies on corporate firms to sponsor the events they have tied to their identity as a student support body. The extent and consequences of those decisions have been well discussed, in this publication and broader, so I won’t go beyond acknowledging that it exists and has an affect on all of us here.

But still – how did I end up, a mere 18 months after stepping into MLS for the first time, sitting in an office environment that I never envisioned for myself? It wasn’t the money or the glamour. It wasn’t the seminars and careers sessions on offer at Uni. It wasn’t even the allure of free sparkling water in every office at the firm. It was the pervasive, incessant suggestion that there is no other option – if you want to be successful (or even to get a job!) you need to go corporate.
As law students we are constantly reminded of the tough job market, the oversupply of graduates and the dwindling funding for community law organisations to provide grad roles. This combined with the clerkship-fever that spreads every June to August over this building is enough to produce some mercurial principles.

And so I, like many before me, told myself that I wasn’t doing anything wrong by opting in and applying. I didn’t have a choice - I was just following the only option. I told myself I would do a year, maybe two – exploit that corporate dog for my PLT – and then move on to a real job, one with meaning and purpose.

A lot of people tell themselves the “just one year, maybe two” lie. I met a lot of them at my clerkship – people who studied law to save the environment and now celebrate the acquisition of a new mining client for the firm. Or those that thought they’d be a community lawyer only to find themselves churning out corporate contracts. Two years turned into four: there were mortgage repayments and a private office was in sight. Four turned into six with a promotion. Six to eight with the allure of partnership.

The “just one year, maybe two” lie turns into the “I get to do so much good through pro bono” lie pretty quick.

Have no illusions: corporate law is a selfish choice. Pro bono is a farce. There are no mid-tier firms with different values. Firms are largely homogenous in culture and focus. No matter where you go, money is king and the client is queen.
I won’t pretend to be any bastion of moral purity, but fundamentally I live by the principle that those who are given opportunity through education and privilege owe that back to the world. Using the opportunity of a law degree from this University to advance the profits of corporations and amass personal wealth is indefensible.

The world around us is crumbling. From our vantage point as legally educated people we are well placed to see it all: wealth inequality, mass incarceration, environmental collapse, human rights abuses. Choosing a career path with the odd hour spent on a pro bono case or a few grand thrown to charity is the moral equivalent of closing our eyes on those hard truths.

I get it - an alternative is not visible. Time and time again we're told that if we want to be a judge or a barrister or a Legal Aid solicitor or a politician, than a corporate firm is the place to start. This path is presented as some rite of passage for the future do-gooders and great legal minds of the future. To me this is self-serving bullshit: the University sells it because they end up with high-powered grads and the firms because it secures them a steady stream of applicants. Best to strike terror in the hearts of students for doing anything other than falling to their knees in gratitude for a clerkship.

It’s a full-circle system of creating fear to try alternative pathways and acceptance of the status quo. It’s a system that rests on a shrug of the shoulders from those who could make a difference and demand appropriate funding for the community law sector and reject the notion that toiling in service to others is a feckless choice.

There is no impetus for this system to change until the best and brightest stop opting in.

If any of this sounds inauthentic coming from someone who did a clerkship, fair enough, but a quick caveat: after one, I bailed on the next two. One was enough to not only turn me off corporate law, but the law in general. Now, as I gear up to start a job in the not-for-profit sector, I’m free of the pressures that make people publish clerkship diaries anonymously.

So I’ll leave you with this: clerkships and corporate law may be the easy way in – but take some time to question what’s making you want to get in before realising that you can’t get back out.

Morgan Koegel is a third year JD student

The rest of this week's issue:

Breaking: Animals Rights Lawyers Collective Generates Civic Disturbance

More Articles Like This:

Sarah Moorhead

26/7/2016 09:01:56 pm

Brilliant.

Anon

26/7/2016 09:09:02 pm

"Using the opportunity of a law degree from this University to advance the profits of corporations and amass personal wealth is indefensible."

This is the most self-righteous piece of shit I've ever read and you should be ashamed of yourself. This comment applies to the piece generally and not just the quoted section.

What gives you the right to foist your values upon the rest of the student body and shame people for wanting a career that you don't subjectively perceive to be 'good'? Where does this idea that if you're educated then you owe something to society come from? Are all accountants horrible people too? The teller at your local bank branch? The manager of a call centre? Or is that just judgement reserved only for those who study law and choose to engage in paid employment?

And this hating of corporations. What's with that? Did you skip the part in legal ethics where lawyers are fiduciaries that must put their clients' interests ahead of their own? Don't like what a client does or that the law allows it? How about you lobby to change the law instead of deriding those who are simply facilitating full access to legal rights.

Just because it isn't career you want doesn't mean many of us don't go into it with our eyes wide open and it doesn't make you better than anyone else. Get off your high horse.

P.S this is anonymous because I actually want a career so would rather not have my name associated with this article (read: thinly veiled attack on all the people who don't share your values.)

Scott

26/7/2016 09:56:40 pm

'What gives you the right [...]?' That is how moral judgement works, believe it or not - if we don't have the right to oppose the position of people we 'subjectively perceive' to be doing the wrong thing, then we have no moral judgement at all.

'Where does this idea that if you're educated then you owe something to society come from?' That is the responsibility of intellectuals, and the responsibility that comes with privilege. Again, if those with a privileged insight into the way society operates do not speak up, then there is no intellectual counterpoint to the loud voice of power, with all of its resources.

'Are all accountants horrible people too?' Obviously not. People fulfil institutional roles. There's a legitimate role for accountants in small enterprise. What is being discussed here are the enormous corporations - and all of their enablers, including commercial firms - which are privately owned, exert control over the democratic process, and are accountable only to shareholders. The economic system running the planet into the ground.

'How about lobby to change the law [...]?' The whole point of this article is that the law can't be thought of in isolation - it exists in a broader political and economic system, where laws are made in the interests of elites. When laws 'do' respond to the will of the people, then that indicates a popular movement has taken place. You're contradicting yourself when you argue 'against' critical judgement of institutions, but then 'for' lobbying - you're either on board with elite interests, or you're on board with popular movements.

Living up to the responsibility of educated people - speaking the truth to power, rather than representing elite interests over the interests of the human species - absolutely makes you more moral than somebody who serves only themselves. This is the basic message of all the great philosophies and religions (before the various neoliberal debasements came along, at least).

PS: One imagines that your comment could have been made without the anonymity, had it been written more analytically and without the absurd hyperbole. This would have been consistent with both civility and Ayn Randian careerism.

standwithscott

27/7/2016 01:53:13 am

Surely we can discuss this a bit more academically than 'this is the most self-righteous piece of shit I've ever read and you should be ashamed of yourself'.

I suggest you write anonymously, Anon, not because you are worried about having your name associated with the article, but because you are afraid to put your name to your own mud slinging.

Perhaps you are the one who should be ashamed.

Person incognito

27/7/2016 07:52:52 am

I think the term 'indefensible' is just too strong, but of course you're entitled to your opinion.

The fact is that many of us treat this degree as an investment, especially those of us on full fee places. We are not paying $120,000 so we can save the world and crusade for equality or whatever.

We may enjoy the substance of the degree but if there is not a chance of a big fat pay cheque at the end of this, many of us would not be here.

27/7/2016 12:42:02 am

I feel for the author of this piece, and the commenters above me.

Both Morgan and Scott have stated that corporate law is a selfish choice as one who pursues a career in the remarkably broad area that is corporate law serves only themselves. This thesis is fundamentally flawed. The idea that it is impossible to work in a corporate field and contribute to the public good is incorrect and shows a remarkably simplistic understanding of the broader public good and diverse contributions made to it within society.

There is a long list of corporate philanthropists that have done more good than many well intentioned, but ineffective, not for profits. Further, there are many examples of highly skilled commercial lawyers, engineers, consultants, and many other ‘corporate professionals’ who have created considerable public good. This may be through philanthropic donations, contributions to not for profits, or in fact through contributions in their commercial field.
This already proves the value an individual can have whilst pursuing a corporate career, but stopping here would still be a simplistic analysis.

The fact is that our current ‘economic system’ has provided immeasurable public benefit since the industrial revolution. Increasing wealth has seen a growth in living standards and prosperity unrivalled in history. Wealthy societies have led technological advancement (including vital medical discoveries and invention), which has increased the standard of living of most people around the world. Third world medical programs and the push to end absolute poverty have been made possible with the wealth generated in the corporate sector. The wealth and revenue generated by private commercial enterprise has undoubtedly been the single most significant factor in the advancement of living standards and social good over the past 200 years. Advancements now taken for granted would not have occurred without the public and private investment utilising wealth generated in commercial and corporate industry, including significant contributions from professional advisers.

Modern society, whilst achingly imperfect, is better than that experienced at any point in history. This is not due to the relatively recent expansion in the not for profit sector. Similarly, it is not due to corporates alone, although their positive impact is arguably greater through history than that of not for profits.

I applaud you for your choice of career Morgan and appreciating that corporate law is not for you. However, don’t think that you’re the only one contributing to the benefits we experience everyday, and don’t deride those who choose not to follow you. No one group monopolises morality, and no one group is the sole contributor to progress and prosperity in our society. Failing to appreciate the public worth of someone else’s work is not indicative of a failure of choice on their part, it is merely a self-centred promotion of your worth over theirs.

Informed critique of our social and economic system is undoubtedly a good thing, and a broader discourse should be encouraged within society. But failure to appreciate the benefits along with the costs of our current systems does not create a discourse worth participating in. Claims to tear it down and wreck it all highlight the failings of corporate professions without appreciating their benefits (of which only some have been mentioned here). And whilst I’ve provided a brief defence, I shouldn’t have to.

Duncan

28/7/2016 01:30:45 pm

It's only a matter of time on the internet until someone brings up the Nazis... so I'll do that now haha.

You say that corporate capitalism brings public benefits which must be "appreciated" in order to make a discourse worth participating in. Would you say the same about anyone criticising the Nazis in Nazi Germany? After all, they brought significant "public benefits" in the form of economic growth and full employment. If someone wrote an article criticising people for taking up work with the Nazi party would you also chide them and tell them not to "deride those who choose not to follow you"?

You also set up a false dichotomy between investor owned corporations and not for profits. There's a vast range of ways of doing business outside of the two types you mention - you can get a snap shot of that here pp 2-6: http://bccm.coop/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AASB-submission.pdf

28/7/2016 04:25:24 pm

AC -

You've offered up a broad defence of capitalism, and made a range of factual claims. Capitalism has been the subject of a couple of hundred years of highly rigorous critical intellectual work, which has well and truly dealt with all of your arguments.

This isn't the place for a general argument about the merits of capitalism, in and of itself, or about whether we can survive really existing capitalism (two entirely separate questions).

What you have done is confirm the whole point of Morgan's article - which is to say, you have shown that one must be, if not an apologist, then a conscious participant in capitalism in order to practice commercial law without hypocrisy. The article is directed to those who regarded themselves as Leftists at the beginning of law school, but who had subsequently decided that they could juggle their Leftism with commercial practice. Morgan's point is that the two are incompatible.

Your final line, which states that you shouldn't have to provide a defence for capitalism - a system of power, whether you support it or not - is a deeply troubling one. No system of power is self-justifying. To make such an argument reeks of opposition to free-thought.

PS: Don't 'feel for us' too much, we dispute everything you said. I'm more than happy to engage in a debate about politics generally in a more appropriate forum. But just as a starter, lest anyone take this apology too seriously:

- You make no distinction in your discussion of philanthropy between individuals in their personal capacity and institutional roles;
- You fail to recognise the complete disconnect between market ideology and actually existing power structures;
- You fail to deal with market failure by externalities (and the stranglehold of concentrated private power on public power, blocking liberal reform);
- You give the impression of having read nothing of imperialism or colonialism (or their origins in the private ownership of capital), and the way that the 'third-world' was manufactured and sustained intentionally by the 'first world';
- You make a false positive claim contradicting the fact that States have always acted as R&D departments for big business, profit then being privatised and loss being socialised (through massive state-led government intervention throughout history);
- You give the impression of having read no account of peoples' histories, and the way that every single freedom and every public good that we enjoy has a long history of mass organisation behind it;
- More philosophically, you make no distinction between 'technological' (which nobody would begrudge modern society) and 'moral' progress;
- Your reading of the industrial revolution totally ignored the decline in living standards, the introduction of mass alienated labour, and the emergence of modern classes in that period;
- You confuse what you regard as a historically beneficial phenomenon with the undesirability of a more humane, and survivable, alternative; and
- You draw a false binary opposition between late capitalism and the 'not for profit' sector.

28/7/2016 05:31:24 pm

I should add:

- Your general assessment that capitalism (by which I suppose you mean market liberalisation) has 'increased the standard of living of most people around the world' is a gross misreading of IMF / World Bank reports. Take a second look, and read further than GDP growth (inflated by local enablers who tend to become super wealthy). Look at how overall wealth and income inequality figures have grown.

- Your argument fails to account for the fact that no political or economic alternative has ever been allowed to exist in opposition to state-capitalism. Either economic or military intervention has always opposed self-determination, and attempts by 'third-world' peoples to share in the spoil of resources and production. You totally ignore the entire history of opposition to global capitalism that proceeded the neoliberal era.

JackC

30/7/2016 09:57:30 am

https://80000hours.org/career-guide/high-impact-jobs/

Fact

27/7/2016 08:52:07 am

Someone's elevated their own opinion to fact here. Thanks for your amazing insights into commercial practice Morgan. At the end of the day, don't forget you had three (or so) weeks having your hand held and attending internal meetings.

You're in no informed position to claim that "firms are largely homogenous in culture and focus." Whilst it's true that the commercial goals of firms are broadly similar, I've found working in numerous firms and commercial areas that people are the determining factor in a firm's culture, and there are substantial differences between the culture of firms.

Your insights into the the 'mid-tiers' you never worked at similarly carry little weight.

It's fine that you don't like corporate law, but this piece merely your personal opinions masquerading as fact. You criticise corporate lawyers as selfish, but this is an amazingly self-centred piece.

Ad Hominem

29/7/2016 12:48:56 pm

This is a strange reaction - but one to be expected when someone speaks the truth. Never a shortage of (future) well-paid apologists to jump to the defence of any powerful interests. In fact, it's probably a good sign that the remarks have hit a nerve.

Aside from what you say about different cultures across firms (all of which will inevitably reflect the institutional fact that a commercial lawyer is a cog in the machine) none of your strong ad hominem remarks pertain to the thrust of the article.

It is, after all, an opinion piece. But an opinion piece in the context of concrete institutions, about which rational generalisations can (and should) be made. All opinion, analysis and moral judgement is 'self-centred' by your definition. A very different kind of egocentrism to what is being critiqued - participation, for big bucks, in a pernicious system.

Katy Hampson

27/7/2016 05:27:12 pm

Pure Marxist propaganda, this is so blatant. Not wanting to sell out to our corporate overlords is a step too far. Will be penning an angry submission about MLS being infiltrated by the sociaist alternative post haste.

Henry HL

30/7/2016 10:48:07 am

What an excellent article

Allure

9/8/2016 01:27:12 pm

"The world around us is crumbling. From our vantage point as legally educated people we are well placed to see it all: wealth inequality, mass incarceration, environmental collapse, human rights abuses."

This article is well written and an important piece for MLS students to consider.

However, I'm not sure whether we are so well placed to see these problems. We need to acknowledge our advantage. The majority of us can't imagine any of the horrible things described above. To assume we are is also highly problematic.

I also think claiming that clerkships are the easy option is presumptuous. A lot of students would love the opportunity you've been given. Perhaps they were disadvantaged, and weren't offered a clerkship because you accepted one.

Lastly, say what you want about corporate greed and the shortcomings of corporate law, but bro bono programs at corporate law firms are important. These firms have the resources to pursue cases that would be too expensive for other firms or agencies to take on.

I appreciate this piece but I think that it's not all as straightforward as you portray it. Although I acknowledge that there are no easy answers in this space.

Amelia Eddy

24/8/2016 11:36:18 am

Outstanding article, Morgan.

Comments are closed.

Opting Out

Archives