Professional Standards Critique

My Experience

As I have wrestled with what I want my future to look like, the idea that has always stuck in the back of my head is law school. I am pursuing a minor in business law and in every class, I have found the lessons so interesting, thanks to my professors, and the material so engaging. I find myself excited to go to class and never complain about the homework and projects. I know when something means a lot to me when I’m excited about it. My plan, as of right now, is to take a gap year before going to law school. As I look at this idea, I realized I lacked understanding of how professional ethics actually work across different legal jobs. Before I made any decisions, I wanted to talk to professionals practicing law right now. Therefore, my research goal for this project was to seek an understanding of how ethical standards, such as advocacy, change depending on the lawyer’s role. To accomplish this goal, I interviewed three legal professionals: a member of the judiciary, a corporate attorney, and a plaintiff lawyer.

            A major success that I had during my research process of finding connections was using my existing network. While talking to my friends about what I planned to do next year after graduating, they would always be willing to help me out in any way. I was able to expand my network and create new connections as they referred me to their other friends or their parents.

            Over the summer, I had a financial planning internship, in which I worked with one other intern. We became very close, and we talked a lot about potential career paths. I told her I was interested in law school, and she suggested that I talk to her mom, who is a Minnesota District Court Judge. I immediately jumped at the opportunity and set up an interview with her. We met in person to grab coffee, and I had prepared a list of questions to ask her. We started off by talking about her background. She studied law at University of Virginia and after graduating moved back to Minnesota to work as a law clerk. For a couple years, she worked as a trial attorney and then eventually worked for the United States Attorney's office for the District of Minnesota. I was in awe of her accomplishments. She was the first and only Japanese American judge in Minnesota and she also earned the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Trailblazer Award- selected to receive one of this national bar association’s most prestigious awards in Boston in November 2009. It recognizes extraordinary contribution to the Asian Pacific American legal community, as well as the broader Asian Pacific American community. This made me feel a little intimidated when talking to her. I prepared questions like, “How do you balance being a public official with the ethical requirement to remain neutral from politics?”, “What professional standards do you use to ensure your personal experiences don't cloud your legal interpretation?”, and “When you are reviewing a case from a lower court, what is your primary 'standard of review'?”.  I was also interested in how the law clerks work since that would be the first step in the field. She explained how they have a non-partisan elective system, and she must carry out the law itself. She tries to not to make speeches or decisions that are obvious to where she stands politically. If she did, she could run into issues in the courtroom. She can sometimes struggle with decisions she makes, but she has no choice if it follows the law itself. She is constantly focusing on the standard of the rule of law, unbiased. Although she has much empathy and her personal perspective on cases, she has to make decisions based on the facts from the lower court and the written law. She looks at stare decisis, how a certain type of case has been ruled on before, still emphasizing the use of fact, not opinion. I found that while I was interviewing her, neutrality in the court room is undisputable. Although she may think the law is unethical, the law is the law, and it is her duty to enforce it.  

To conduct my second interview, I met with a friend of mine’s dads who is an attorney at a law firm. My friend is also interested in law school, so I asked if I could meet with his dad. He has had a ton of experience in law, over 20 years. We decided to call on Zoom because he is located in the cities. I know him pretty well, so I felt comfortable asking a lot of questions. He started by explaining what he did and giving some background. He studied law at the University of Minnesota and shortly after started working at a law firm, practicing corporate governance and capital markets. He explained how he wanted to transition to a different type of law but didn’t quite know how. He advocated for himself, and now he represents a major medical device company working mostly with mergers and acquisitions, which he loves. I wanted to focus more of my questions as to what he did now, instead of what he used to do. I asked similar questions that I had asked in my first interview. He often works with another partner of the firm and the ethics committee of the firm when writing a brief. He wants to ensure that he is disclosing the right amount of information and that it is all legal. He is consistently practicing the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that he is not being personally biased. Since he works with mostly mergers and acquisitions, he has a role to advocate for the buyer or seller, and it is important that he follows the Rule of Conduct and does not lie to try to improve the deal for his client. It is important that he and the team he works with do due diligence on every case to make sure there is no loophole in the merger and make it the least risky he can for the client. It was really interesting because it felt the same as meeting with my friend’s mom, as the practice of being unbiased is very important.

            Lastly, my best friend’s mom is a lawyer who works with injuries and work compensation claims. We set up a time to meet, and it felt really casual because I knew her so well. She initially worked in a law firm with her brothers as a defense attorney but branched off to start her own firm focused on worker’s compensation. She has over 25 years of experience, and she has an immense amount of knowledge. Her role can be very ethics-based. She is constantly fighting for justice for her client, who has been injured at work, to get the full benefits and compensation. She says it is easy to get emotional with clients because they can get tricked by the system and told their medical treatment is unnecessary. She uses medical records, doctor claims and does her due diligence to prove that this compensation is what her client’s needs. She sometimes may feel her client deserves more, but she must follow the professional standard of what they can legally receive. She doesn’t look at just how the injury happened, she explains to workers their rights in the compensation system and what benefits they deserve. It was really interesting to see this point of view!

            One challenge that I faced was sticking to the evaluation of the standards and ethics because I knew two of my interviewees personally. It was easy for the conversation to turn casual, and I had to make sure that I stayed on track, instead of just talking about career paths.

            Overall, there were a lot of differences among the three, but also similarities. The three I interviewed all look at the fact differently. The professional standards of inquiry for the judge were based on fairness by looking at the law and precedents. In contrast, the attorney for mergers and acquisitions focuses more on risk and what could be potential liabilities in a contract. The injuries lawyer sees their standard of inquiry as rehabilitative and working toward fairness for workers. From a basic level, they all do their due diligence on any case, they never misrepresent facts, and they all want to advocate for something. Whether the judge is advocating for law or the M&A attorney wants the best deal for the client, or the injuries lawyer wants the best compensation benefit for their client, they are all advocates. The judge has to be more neutral than the other two. The M&A attorney has to facilitate more transactions and focus more on what’s possible and the injuries lawyer has to focus on advocating for worker’s right. It was really interesting to see how many different pathways there are to studying law. I am eager to continue networking to understand what I would truly want to do with a law degree.

            This research project was very successful, as I uncovered information about how different ethics and standards are used across three different types of legal professionals. It helped me form new perspectives on the industry and encouraged me to become even more curious about new information. I feel more ready to navigate different ethics and standards I may face as a future law student.

            As I reflect on these conversations, and what’s next for me, I think that it would be really hard for me to be judge if I have to be neutral on a topic I feel strongly about. I do really like how personal the injuries lawyer’s work is and how she is a strong advocate for her clients. I want to specialize in something that I feel passionate about because it will make my job so much more enjoyable. As I look for what’s next, I am going to keep having conversations with the three that I interviewed, in hopes to find clarity and understand what law degree would be best for me!

Notes & Findings