We all know them. We are “them.” Stubborn. Unbending. Unyielding. Arms across your chest with your hands over your ears stubborn. Are you being smart or, well, a jackass? That’s a question that has easy (and not so easy) subparts.
SOME KINDS WORDS FOR THE EMBATTLED DONKEY!
When we think of “stubborn,” the poor donkey comes to mind. (Sorry to you donkey lovers about the “jackass” reference!). Donkeys really get a bad rap. They are fascinating animals. In your stubborn beliefs, you think of a donkey as dumb, legs locked, and refusing to do work. Well, let’s talk about that. A donkey will fight and kill a hyena. Donkeys are smarter than horses, and have a better field of vision. In terms of strength, donkeys are stronger than horses their own size. The locking of the legs is a common trait for donkeys. You know why? Because it is careful where it steps, to avoid a fatal injury. You can’t just force a donkey to walk. He is afraid he’ll get injured. His hoofs are for climbing, and by default, he is careful where he treds. Donkeys are as intelligent as dolphins and dogs, and have excellent memories. Donkeys are very affectionate, but that takes time to develop with them. Donkeys are awesome protectors against predators, such as foxes and wolves. Ok, back to the article.
THE STUBBORN FOOL
These types are easy to spot. Like a sea anemone, they refuse to change. They drive 55 mph when traffic flies by at 85 mph. They refuse to use Google Maps, and instead, get out their 1970’s Thomas Guide for city streets, and through trial and error, find their way on to the correct grid. Or worse, they stop at the gas station expecting to find a fold-out map of the general location of the city, and “wing it” by asking locals. The navigation system in their car is “too complicated.”
You will observe them in their native habitat at home or at work. Whatever you tell them about the latest greatest, they say “No. I’m fine.” You found the answer to a question they had on the internet. “Nah, I know the librarian. I will go see and talk to him, and look for a book on the topic.” “Google? Why? I was born way before that, and I got along just fine without it.”
THE STUBBORN GENIUS.
These types seem like oddities to the conventional thinker. That’s because they are not conventional thinkers. To the stubborn genius, the conventional thinker is the stubborn fool. He’s the guy that invented the navigation system that the stubborn fool refuses to even learn. He invented air conditioning, the Mac, the Iphone, and fiber optics. He’s Thomas Edison. After 2,000 “failures” he got the light bulb to work. The stubborn genius transforms our lives, and his vision eventually our new normal. The stubborn genius is often misunderstood, under attack, and fighting to make change happen to improve our lives, or find a better way of doing things, while fending off attacks from stubborn fools.
YOU CAN BE A MIXTURE OF BOTH.
Stubbornness is not a “bad” thing. It just is. These traits are just traits. You can put whatever label you want on it, but it comes down to behavior. The stubborn fool is closed-minded. But, being “closed-minded” is wisdom if his has direct experience in that area, and knows the pitfalls of what a person proposes to do. You can be “stubborn” because you refuse to eat cottage cheese. Again, this is not “good” or “bad.” It’s a trait or preference, and nobody is harmed by it.
People who are stubborn in the face of danger are fools. Ask the guy that captained the Titanic. He was stubborn as hell. In his mind, the ship was unsinkable. It turns out it was very sinkable, as the metal was not cured properly. The captain let his pride, ego or need for control get the best of him. You can be stubborn by waiving off people’s ideas. Stubbornness must be viewed in context. (I will never, and I mean, never, eat cottage cheese). I am always open to new ideas on just about anything else. However, as noted above, if the idea is on something you have directly seen first-hand, and it was bad, then hold on to your stubbornness. The person advocating it is being stubborn too, but in a foolish way.
CONCLUSION
On the extremes, we can identify foolish and genius stubbornness. The genius perseveres despite the set backs. He has a goal that he is trying to achieve. His behavior stems from being aggressive, confident and a visionary. The stubborn fool is closed-minded, and won’t listen to anything unless he agrees with it. Some of this behavior can be traced to insecurity. Some of it is rational too – like the guy in Office Space who held rigidly to an outdated process to save his job.
Like with all types of behaviors, it is complicated by the personalities, needs, desires and the beliefs of persons, which are as varied as you can imagine. When thinking about this, ask yourself, “In what areas am I being stubborn, and does this hinder or advance me in my career and my life?” Focus on you, and work on your own self-betterment. Keeping an open mind is the anti-thesis of being stubborn. Who knows, you might surprise yourself. I now eat figs and avocados after swearing them off my entire life. I threw away my Thomas Guide too.
HOW TO RID YOURSELF OF PARASITIC, WORTHLESS PEOPLE – by Patrick J. D’Arcy
My instincts are to help people, but that means I get taken advantage of by “needy” people who are truly parasites in disguise, and who bring to me their endless stream of problems. I am not talking about persons who truly are in need – those with physical and mental disabilities, or the elderly or infirm. I am talking about able-bodied persons who just endlessly dump their bullshit upon you. Believe me, if it becomes a pattern, you are being manipulated. They don’t give two shits about you. To them, it’s a “game” to see how little they can do, and how much you can do for them. They are passive aggressive, and will not do anything for you in return. You will notice that they go on vacation during the busiest time of the year for your department. For them, you are their white night, and you will be on speed dial with panic calls requiring you to spring into action. You gave them rent money, only to find they blew it in Vegas, and now are being evicted, and need a place to stay – with their three toddlers. You worked out repossession of their car with the bank (they asked you to call the bank to help them “figure it out” because they “are not good at math”). Then, they miss the payments again, and ask for more help. They bring their loving dog to your house to watch “for a few hours,” only to be gone for several days, and will not call you or text you about why they have not returned. You, of course, couldn’t leave the dog alone in your home, so you canceled plans with your friends to make sure the dog was ok. They come back, “apologetic,” and explain “what a great time I had in Tahoe, and I couldn’t call because we were at a chalet and there was no phone reception.” “Tahoe? You said you were just leaving for a few hours.” “A few hours? Did I say that? Oh, I am so sorry. You’ve been great. We should catch up some time!”
Once The Parasite Latches On, You Will Be Responsible For Their Life And Emotional Well-Being.
Once you climb into the ring with them, they will latch on tight, and suck out every bit of your time, money and energy. And let’s not forget the heavy negative energy and drama they bring to you, too. You might be just trying to relax after another tough day, and your phone rings. It’s “him.” He might say, “Can you call me at 5:00 a.m. so that I wont miss work? I’m really tired.” Failing to answer means more drama. Five more text messages hit your phone. “I need your help!’ “Are you there??????” “Can YoU cALl me PLeasE?????!!!!!!” Finally, you call. Then, it’s more hell. Ok, so what’s the answer?
Learn To Set Boundaries, And To Recognize Patterns Of Manipulation
I am always charitable until I see a pattern or feel manipulated. Don’t be uncharitable, and change who you are due to these bozos. My post deals with “manipulative patterns of conduct,” not isolated issues that come up and that could happen to anyone. People need help. The question is: do they rescue themselves and just need a helping hand into the boat, or are they the type who expects you to supervise them and bail them out of trouble?
If the pattern emerges, do not react. Do not feed into the energy. Do not give them elaborate, fake reasons. These experts will actually cross-examine you to get to the truth. Then, you’ll accuse you of lying to them! They are master manipulators. You will be caught off-guard at how brazen they can be, Simply say, “I can’t help you, and I’m hanging up.” Then, hang up. Don’t equivocate, or become wishy-washy. They will respond with vitriol, guilt shaming and the like. It’s all part of the manipulation. They will never become responsible with human safety valves like you lying around.
Cut Them Off, With A Simple “I Can’t Help You.” Then Hang Up Or Walkway. Do Not Make Elaborate Excuses. They Will “Test” These Excuses to Manipulate You Even More
Parasites will get angry when you cut off their money and fuel supply. Watch how quick they become angry and then turn on you! All of your prior charitable acts will be quickly forgotten or brushed off. You see, they need people to regulate them because they refuse to regulate themselves. You’ll get a feeling of immense satisfaction when you see them hitting up other people to do what you did for them. Also, do not flatter yourself. These types are creative geniuses. Do not think they didn’t pitch the “rent story” to ten other people, and not only got the rent money from several of them, but used that money to buy a nice watch or new clothes too. Because they are parasites, they will need to latch on quickly to a new host, and when they do, they will never approach you again. You are not losing a friend, just a liability.
Don’t Worry, They Never Liked You. You Are Not Losing A Friend, You Are Losing A Liability.
The sobering reality about being used is the you feel responsible for allowing it to happen. Don’t worry. Forgive and forget. That will cut down on the emotional stress these useless people toss upon everyone. Nature doesn’t put up with these shit. The momma bird throws the young one out of the nest. In the wild (and in prisons), the big eat the little. You are actually doing them a favor. Let them realize that there are no easy escape hatches, which will force them to learn what it means to grow into being a responsible person. Hopefully, they will rebound, and one day thank you.
In a complicated real estate and probate action in downtown Los Angeles, trial lawyer Patrick J. D’Arcy got the Plaintiff’s case dismissed at trial after Plaintiff rested its case. The Plaintiff sought to erase a loan of $1.2M from the property and failed. Mr. D’Arcy’s attack on the witnesses was so thorough that he got their expert – a doctor – to admit he was wrong in his analysis, after only five minutes of cross-examination. Mr. D’Arcy then sought a 631.8 dismissal motion and it was granted. Prior to trial, Mr. D’Arcy had ten defendants dismissed, had two more dismissed at trial, and the last two after Plaintiff called its second witness.
Before trial, the Plaintiff had filed 20 claims against 14 defendants. This case was also in the probate department, where Mr. D’Arcy got the foreclosure stay lifted. The lawsuit had a multitude of claims to defend against – wrongful foreclosure, “predatory lending,” 17200 violations, etc.
The Question Asked Of Every Young Person: “What Do You Want To Be When You Grow Up?”
Throughout your life, the dream killers show up, toss piss on your goals and aspirations, and leave you in shambles. They are friends, family members, enemies, and fools. This is your life, not theirs. And it must remain yours. I want to help you deal with the dream killers, and encourage you to pursue your dreams.
“What do you want to do with your life?” This is a very hard question for most people, especially when asked of someone in high school. For some, the answer is a clear and direct path: law, medicine, welder, artist. For the vast majority, it remains somewhat of a mystery. This is normal. Worse, when the high school student now enrolls in college, he is pressured to select a “major” before the student really can figure out their interests. The classes themselves – even if the student has an interest in the subject – can kill off interest. Even for those that see a direct path, the dream can be derailed when they stumble with bad grades, personal tragedies, lost-interest or other reasons. I am here to give you real-world advice – the dreams you had as a child and when growing up reflect your true interests. The problem is that you are programmed at an early age to think that your dreams are only dreams. This may be my most important blog post: the protection of your dreams, and living your life according to your terms. You take medicine to protect yourself from illness. You must take the hard medicine of tuning out dream killers and saboteurs, of ignoring them, and dealing with the pressure that comes from choosing your path, and not that of everyone else.
The Dream Killers- They Are Your Friends, Families And Enemies. They Convince You To Go In The Wrong Direction.
In Will Smith’s movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, he realizes that what he just said to his young son is the stuff of dream killers, recognizes his error, and offers this incredibly important advice (note, the following videos are under the Fair Use exception to copyright law, as its use is non-commercial in its purpose, for educational and comment purposes by me to illustrate the point being made, only a small portion is used in support of the education and comment purposes, and other factors):
Will Smith’s advice is dead on: he tells his son to protect his dreams, and to not let family members (including his own father) talk him out of it. To his credit, Will Smith realizes quickly that his advice to his son is wrong. This movie was very inspiring to me. You see his young son talking about what he likes to do, and there it is – the dream killer – telling you it is a waste of time and not productive. Hearing this from your dad can be very powerful in stealing your dreams. The comments in the Youtube video discuss how people listened to the dream killers and naysayers, and are now full of regret.
In Legally Blonde, Reese Witherspoon wants to go to Harvard Law School to get back her fiancée that dumped her. Watch how the counselor at “CULA” (a funny swipe at UCLA), tries to talk her out of it as unrealistic. The “advisor’s” knowledge of entrance requirements to Harvard is dead-on, and the truth about the difficultly in gaining admission is also correct. These powerful forces – authority figure and the difficulty of the challenge – push dreams aside, and destroy the dream in the process. Reese isn’t having it. First, her parents try to talk her out of it (1:16 mark), and then the counselor (at 1:45). “Harvard won’t be impressed….” Yes, they were. Reese didn’t get an amazing LSAT score of 175 (about top 1%), but a near perfect 179. Even in law school, she was treated as “dumb” (despite being highly intelligent). From these struggles, she found herself, realized she didn’t need her dumb and useless fiancée, and continued to surprise herself about the true depths of her talents. The discussion with her parents and counselor to discuss her new career path only took about 60 seconds, but those 60 seconds could have drastically pushed her life into a wrong direction. You must be on guard against this!
Beware Of The Dream Killers – They Are Everywhere
The point of this section is simple: many persons in positions of authority (as well as enemies and rivals) will ask about what you want to do with your life, only to find a way to squash the dream or put doubt into your head so that you never do it. Some do it deliberately (the narcissists and backstabbers), some due it innocently (they are just uniformed), and some are giving you real advice from a road already taken. Never accept the “reality” these people foist upon you. It is your life. You decide, and only after you really know the facts. Do not be afraid to stake your claim. If it is unconventional, the criticism is certain. Don’t let the criticism stop you.
When I was in law school, there was this great student. He came to class early, took notes, studied, and was loving the experience. He was also married, and about 40 years old. I noticed he lost a lot of weight, and looked stressed out. I talked to him, only to find that his wife was threatening a divorce if he didn’t quit law school. At first, she didn’t like living on a bare-bones budget when he quit his job. So, he got hired back, and now is working full-time and going to law school. The stress of doing the impossible was killing him. Then, while this stay-at-home wife was complaining, she further expressed her dismay that he wasn’t paying enough attention to her. It didn’t matter to her that he had long stretches of time off between semesters and school breaks. It didn’t matter that this was only for six semesters. It didn’t matter that he was looking at a $125K starting salary (in 2006) upon graduation, and the $2,000 per week summer associate gig coming up the next year. By dropping out like he did, he didn’t even finish the first year, so all of that time was wasted, to say nothing about the costs of a legal education. Worse, he was now back doing a job he wanted to escape from. Chances are she probably still divorced him. This is the dream killer in action.
The Dream Killers – And How To Spot Them
The Person Who Says, “You Can’t Do That” Or “You’re Not Good Enough.”
People who tell you that “You can’t do that,” or “What you really should be doing,” are dream killers. What they say will be backed by some intuitive logic: “Why, only a few people make it in singing.” “You really shouldn’t focus on art, as there are so many starving artists out there.” ” A fashion designer? Do you know how hard it is to break into that field, and it’s already flooded.” When you say you want to be an astronaut, they reply, “Only a select few make it that far, and what if you don’t get accepted? You would have wasted years of your life?” These people leave you discouraged, but only if you listen to them. While it is true that only a tiny fraction of people make it to astronaut, so what? If this is what you want to do with your life, then make it happen. If you are passionate about achieving your goals (which includes putting in the work), then you’ll get there.
Dream Killers Find Ways To Justify Not Attaining Your Dreams. They Tell You “What About Your Family Responsibilities,” Or “You Are Too Old To Start Over,” Or “How Are You Going To Survive While You Are Back In School?”
You are in a job you do not like, over 30, never finished college, and decide you want to become a lawyer. You reached this decision from being in the working world and seeing what lawyers do, and realize this is the career for you. You are now working on making the dream happen: you enroll in college, change your work hours and now live on a greatly reduced income while competing against students younger than you who do not have to spend time working. All of your effort is now focused on getting high grades and blowing away the LSAT. The dream killers come out in full force to find “justifications” for keeping you exactly where you are. They’ll tell you that you are “too old” to go back to school, that “you’ll be 36 by the time you finish,” or “What about your family? How are you going to survive while you are back in school piling up student loan debt?” Others will say you are being “selfish,” “irresponsible,” or worse, “a professional student.” I remember a lawyer told me that in a lunch room at the insurance company where I worked. He always saw me studying on my lunch break, and asked me, “What are you studying now?” I told him “Econometrics.” I was in the MBA program. “What are you going to do with an MBA? You sound like a professional student.” Because he was a lawyer, and had a high role at the company, his words really stung, especially when he said it in full view of the other employees. In his mind, why waste my time studying to get an MBA, when my job doesn’t require it? That’s precisely the point that this dickhead didn’t get: I was looking to change careers, and an MBA was a good credential to add to my skillset. About a year after graduating, I helped form a joint venture, and the MBA was well-received by the executives in choosing me. Not only did I know the title insurance end of things, but now I had a managerial degree. The MBA transformed my career into a slew of high-level executive positions where I formed several multi-million dollar companies. The snap analysis by this dream killing asshole sounded “correct,” but this “logic” is only superficial. The lawyer was a dream killer.
People told me that “Who goes to law school at age 41? You won’t be working for three years! You will accumulate a ton of student loans that you will be paying back in your 50’s.” I heard it all. Today, I run my own law firm, make my own money, and handled all of the challenges. Yes, not working for three years is a problem. We dealt with these problems, knowing they are only temporary and solvable.
You Could Be Your Own Dream Killer – Through Fear Of Change! Fear Is Good.
Realize that you could wind up sabotaging your own dreams through fear – the fear of taking the next step in your life; the fear of actually putting yourself out there on the line, and making shit happen; the fear of quitting your job; the fear that you could wind up being financially devastated if things turn out badly; the fear in your own abilities to be the CEO of YOU. To echo Gordon Gekko, fear, in all of its forms, is good. Fear of financial ruin. Fear of failure. Fear of rejection. Fear of watching your life pass you by. This fear triggers warning signs in your mind, makes you alert, and guides you to take action. It is only when you are immobilized by fear that you have lost. All heavyweight boxers talk about their fear when they enter the ring. Same with soldiers about to go into combat. The difference is that they don’t let fear stop them. As you confront your fears, you notice you are making concrete progress and feeling alive. Doors are slowly opening, new pathways are getting connected, and a new future is unfolding.
The Case Of Susan Boyle – Dream Killing In Action, And Her Courage To Make It Happen Before Her Dream Was Gone
When Susan Boyle walked on to the stage of Britain’s Got Talent, she was laughed and scoffed at. Now, maybe due to nervousness (which is completely understandable), she didn’t choose her words or actions better. Fittingly, she sung the song, I Dreamed A Dream, the lyrics which absolutely fit the situation, and tells the story of a person watching their life turn to living hell, with no escape, and how dreams during a young person’s life are there for the taking, but not as you get older. She couldn’t have picked a finer song, as it mirrored her life. (Again a Fair Use exception to copyright law is invoked here, as with all videos, I don’t own the rights to them, and not making money off of it, and my commentary is for teaching and education). She made Simon gasp, Piers was rocked, etc. She mentioned show she wanted to sing with Elaine Page (which happened, as they did a duet together). What we love about Susan’s story is her triumph over dream killers who tried to kill her dreams (again) on national television. The audience’s reaction when she says “I am 47” at 1:08. After exhaling, Simon asked the right question “What’s the dream,” to which she replied, “I am trying to become a professional singer” at 1:19, including smirking and laughter by the audience. Pier’s laughter at 1:38 before she starts. Simon’s expression of “What a waste of time” at 1:50. Now, look at Susan’s fierce “all business” expression at 1:42. Her eyes narrow, and she is now going to make shit happen. She’s felt the ridicule and ostracizing for her entire 47 years, but she’s got talent, and damn it, she’s thinking, this is my time now. Fuck the critics. I can do this. At 1:47 before she starts, she briefly smiles at Simon, as her eyes are pointed to the far right where he sits. She knows his vote is what really matters. At 2:22 when Simon lets out a big smile, I see Susan relaxing, and she is now focusing on the song and the notes. What a performance! Way to go! In fairness to Piers, look at his face at 2:41, he knows beautiful singing, and loves this song the way she is singing it. He’s convinced, and is enjoying the performance. Simon’s facial reaction at 4:01 is of complete shock, and the realization that he hit the lottery with this one. This is fucking talent, and it just walked on the stage and nobody gave he any credit. Incredibly, she didn’t know whether or not she succeeded until the final votes were tallied. I take this to show the depth of her depression and deeply entrenched feelings of inferiority and shame from dream killers and cruel people that tormented Susan her entire life.
Don’t Pick Careers Solely Due To Pension Benefits. It’s Easy To Make More Money In A Different Way.
Dream killers tell you to take jobs you don’t like simply due to the retirement benefits. This is an egregious mistake. Get to know about present value and future value of money calculations. For instance, if you expect to make a 5 percent annual return, how much money do you need to put into an account so that it grows to $1 one year from now? PV = $1/(1 + i)n “i” is the interest rate expressed in percentage terms. 5% interest is 0.05. “n” is the number of periods (1 year). So, the PV of $1 today is: $1/(1.05)1 or 95 cents. The FV is $1. What this means is 95 cents today is the same as getting $1 one year from now at 5% interest. Similarly, $1 today (the PV) is equivalent to taking $1.05 one year from now (the FV). This simplified analysis is to make something very clear: you don’t need to rely on a pension to fund your retirement, since the pension is taken from your pay anyway. It’s not free money. You paid into it through a job you hated. You could put that money into your own retirement account and fund your own damn pension through a solo 401(k), and IRA or Roth IRA.
When a person who has worked a government job for 30 years and walks away with a $120K per year pension (and decent pay along the way), there are still “costs” to this decision. One giant problem is if he detested his work, so in that sense, he did “bad.” Also, if the average male in the US dies at 75, and he can’t collect until the age of 67, then he is looking at only eight years of $120K per year. And again, he paid into this pension his entire working life.
Suppose you want a $2 million retirement nest egg at age 70 to retire on. How much do you need to invest to get there, assuming you start your career at 25? Well, we are talking 45 years of contributions, (so that’s the “n”), we’ll assume an annual rate of return of 5% over the entire 45 years (that’s the “i”), and the FV (the final amount) needed is $2 million. Look at financial calculators on the internet to plan your retirement. You don’t need a government pension (like any generality, there are notable exceptions, such as lavish and outrageous pensions for our top government officials).
Here, we are making payments of the same amount, and want to how much we’ll have after 45 years of making those payments at 5% annual interest. Under this scenario, you are putting $12K per year into your IRA in a lump sum to fund your retirement. It’s a handy way of knowing how much money you’ll have at a certain retirement age. This is the FV of an annuity: FV annuity = $12,000 x [((1 +(0.05)45-1)/(0.05). The amount grew to $1,916,402! What I am saying is that if you were disciplined, and put $12K per year away for your retirement, you’d have about $1.9M by the time you are 70. And, you can give that money to your heirs. Under a state pension, you might not get anything after you die. Never take a job solely for its pension. There are exceptions, of course. I can’t cover everything here.
You Better Like What You Do, Because You Will Doing It Every Day For Decades.
Whatever career you choose, consider how many hours per day you work in a typical work-week, that you will be doing this type of work each day, and then think about how that work physically and emotionally affects you. Do you like this work? Do you hate it? Are you bored and have lost interest? Is the work “doable,” but the pay sucks? Is the work difficult but the pay is great? Is the work high-stress, but allows you to buy whatever you want? What kinds of things matter to you? Are you the type to want to live in a nice house, drive an expensive car, or own a large yacht? Are you happy living in a modest home, driving a Prius, and perfectly fine with a salaried job with good benefits? Think about your tastes and reactions, because this affects how you view your job. Only you can answer these questions. Your career path must also be in alignment with your personal standards of consumption. People who like nice things often get frustrated by their pay. In that case, search out the careers that pay very well, or open your own business.
Doing what you like to do has immense advantages: by enjoying your work, you will do great work. Work, in and of itself, does not alienate you like work you can’t stand to do. The key is to find what you like to do, then make a living at it. Liking what you do also means doing great work on a consistent basis, and that leads to career success and fulfilment. This leads to my next point, the rationalization of time.
Beware Of Time Rationalization – It Keeps You Trapped Where You Are
The relativity of time is a powerful way to keep you stuck where you are. When I was 27, I felt “old” compared to when I was 18. Today, 27 seems like being a kid. 40 feels “old” compared to 30, etc. Where you currently stand will seem “old” from where you were previously. This mindset can trap you from making new changes in your life.
You will confront this thinking when you consider going back to college, like when I went to law school at age 41: “You are too old to go to college. You will be 44 when you graduate.” The naysayers and dream killers who helped fuck up your present situation will come out of the woodwork to offer you even more of their fucked-up advice. My response: I will be 44 even if I don’t go to law school. I will have at least 25 more years of work ahead of me, doing what I want. I am doing this for me before I run out of time. As far as being among the oldest students, so what? Does that matter after I graduate? No.
I wanted to become a real estate lawyer. I also knew that time was running out to make the move to a three year full-time study. How much longer do I wait? Until I am 50? Is there really ever a good time to go? I pulled the switch and went to law school. The dream killers found all types of “justification” for telling me I was “irresponsible,” that I was “chasing a foolish dream,” that “nobody will hire you as a summer associate given your age” (untrue), that “there are too many lawyers,” etc. I did not let these things derail my dreams. I worked around the problems as they presented themselves. The not-so-funny thing is this: the dream killers and naysayers who tried to talk me out of going to law school hit me up for advice after I graduated, and what they said makes no difference to me now. They also went quiet once I made the decision. Your life is not your life until you are in charge.
Transitioning To Your New Career Means Short-Term Financial Hardship But Long-Term Gain
Any career transition means losing most of your current income, and possibly starting over. This also keeps people trapped. Very quickly, you can rationalize that you cannot live on a reduced income. Yes you can. These realities are powerful, and you must deal with it. You can make the necessary changes. What you think are “required” items in your life can be eliminated, downsized or sold. Move into a cheaper apartment; sell you car and pay cash for a “clunker.” Sell your home, or refinance the debt to a cheaper “interest-only” loan to cut your monthly bills even more. Eliminate your credit card debts and long-term debts before making this change.
Starting Over – Do Not Look Back, No Matter How Tempting It Is.
Along this journey of realizing your dreams, the urge to “go back” to the old job or way of life will be strong. We get so trapped in what is known and comfortable that we are tempted to go back to what we tried to escape from. For instance, you’ll notice guys who are security guards looking to start a new career, only to go back to being a security guard. I see this with waitressing too. The waitress has tremendous people skills, can work under pressure, etc. She could just as easily take a job in customer service, and then build from there. Instead of seeing herself as a “waitress,” she needs to assess that she has learned many different skills that translate over into new career paths. During the transition, you are making financial sacrifices all the time. Dining out is impossible. You might abolish cable tv, cut your phone plan to the bare minimum. All of this passes in time. Economic realities make the leap back to the old lifestyle quite easy. Don’t do it. Do NOT look back. Something deep inside you made you take stock of your life. Your inner voice told you that the old path was the wrong one. The old path might be paying more (now), but that will change over time. You didn’t start out making that kind of money, and your new career needs time to re-boot as well. Enjoy the fear that comes with change, and enjoy the fear of failure as you embark on this journey. Going back to what you tried to escape from means you have surrendered your dreams. On your death bed, or at a moment far into your life, the things you will remember with regret and sorrow are those things you failed to do, not the things you did. I can also tell you that after your well publicized escape from the current career, any return back to it conjures up images of some type of failure in your new venture. The “failure” is more likely from not allowing the new career to develop and being too impatient with the rate of change in your new life. Get comfortable with the uncertainty and high amount of change in your life, as you see yourself finally freeing yourself from the influence of others, and moving in the direction you know is right for you.
The “Risk Adverse” Strategy Of Staying In Your Current Job Is Actually High Risk
While exceptions always exist, in general, the “tried and true” or “risk adverse” strategy of not changing careers is actually a high risk strategy. By not changing careers, you kill off the adventure the new career brings to the table. You kill off the new happiness that the new career offered. You will never know how that script played out, and whether the new career meant higher pay, a better life and a legacy to pass to your kids. These are the risks from refusing to change. Only sea anemones refuse to change. Humans, by definition, respond to change. The harder you work out your body, the stronger it becomes. Studies show that certain types of learning makes you smarter. Watch how prison inmates become transformed from illiterate, to debating Shakespeare. The talents within you are immense. The change in career is supposed to speak to these talents. Chances are very high that if you are talented in something, then you also enjoy it too. We like to do what we are good at. What are you good at? That could answer the question, “What do you want to do with your life?”
Embrace Fear And Embrace Failure
To become successful, you need to embrace fear and failure. When a person “fails,” as I use the term here, it is not a failure in the traditional sense. In school, an “F” grade means you “failed,” and is mark of shame. The teacher or professor is saying, “Hey, you blew it.” Failure in the business world has different meanings. You can blow it in the business world by missing a deadline. That is like getting an “F” in school. These “F’s” are to be avoided. Then, there is the other kind of failure – a failure that comes with acquired knowledge and experience. This is the failure to cherish and embrace. This is where wisdom is acquired. The wise persons are those who repeatedly failed, didn’t give up, and learned from it. These failures increased their knowledge levels.
To be successful, you must accept that failure and errors happen, and learn from it. If you are not making any mistakes, then you are not learning, and not pushing your boundaries.
You Are The Product Of Your Acquired Learning
When you start your career, you are the product of what you have learned. The depth of your learning becomes evident when you are thrown into new waters. Do you sink? Do you swim? Can you deal with pressure, are you resourceful, do you have initiative to get things done? When you find yourself sinking, then you must start swimming! A dog knows to dog paddle even when it has never been in the water before. Your instincts are the results of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Part of getting to this new path is new thinking. Erase doubts of fear and failure, and think in terms of solutions and goals. The “fear” from change and new situations is like iron being forged from a hot flame. If you have gotten to this point, then you know it is time to make that change. I opened my own law firm over a decade ago, and it was the right decision for me. I broke all of the “rules” in the process. I wasn’t going to be defined this time by the “theys” and their dream killing bullshit. Was it easy? No. Is it easy? No. And I would not trade it for anything. I am now 18 years after my fateful decision to go to law school, and it was the best decision I ever made. I wasn’t “too old” to go to law school, I landed a terrific job at a large firm, and finally got to become a real estate attorney. Looking back, I have no regrets. I wish you all the best and hope you realize your dreams. There are always reasons why you can’t do something. Now, go make it happen.
You completed your first year of law school, and as the second year starts, you interview for summer associate positions at the law firms. We all know the large firms are highly selective, and usually won’t interview from the lower-ranked schools, except for those in the top 10% of their class. This is the unfortunate reality – the big law firms are going to charge a high hourly rate for your time, and the prestige of the law school you went to matters. There are many star attorneys from the lower-ranked schools (affectionately known as “toilet schools”). The same person who attended Whittier Law and then transferred to Berkeley due to stellar grades in their first year gets the opportunity to now work at a big firm. Whether it’s a large or small firm, here are the do’s and don’ts.
Understand The Firm’s Atmosphere
Partners might very well be walking around in jeans, or “business casual.” You are not a partner. The partner lives by different unwritten rules. All partners are bosses. Never forget that. Piss off a partner, and at the partner’s meeting, they will all know about it. Do great work, and the partners will all know about it. Partners may slide into work after 9:30 a.m. (or later). Some are there at 8:00 a.m. Some leave for two hour lunches, and come back later in the afternoon, and then work until 8:00 p.m. Get to know the routine of the partner you are working with. If he is out until 10:00 a.m. every day, you need to be at the office by 9:00 a.m. Why? Because he has a secretary, and she’ll field the call, not be able to get in touch with the partner, and might send the call to your office. If she can’t, then she gets frustrated, since there is nobody to help her. Also, the partners are older, and have worked for as many (or more) years than you have been alive. Many were in the working world before your parents hooked up in the backseat pretending to be watching a movie at a drive-in theater, with a sound box attached to the window. You are about the age of their adult children, and haven’t yet put in your time to get the privilege of coming in later to work. If you, as a 23 year old, start showing up at 10:00 a.m. (unless specifically told to), you will come off as a lazy and clueless moron. Courts open at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte (emergency) hearings are usually at 8:00 a.m. You are auditioning for a job. Never forget that.
By being at your desk ready to go, you could politely take the call, ask the client what their questions are, and tell the client you are calling the partner right now to relay the questions. Chances are high you will have no clue as to how to answer a single thing being said. That is not your role, since, as a rising 2L, you don’t know shit. But the client is more assured having someone to talk to. Simply say, “Good morning. My name is Betty (unless it is not Betty), and I am helping [partner’s name]. Can I jot down your questions so that I can look into this right now, and call [partner’s name]? If they ask about it, and want guidance, tell them you are NOT a lawyer, but a summer associate, and will need to defer to the partner. Sometimes, the client will just tell you they have the partner’s cell phone, and will call him instead. Your next move is to email the partner, and tell him: 1) who called; 2) provide their cell phone number; and 3) a list of their questions and if the call needs to be returned immediately. Keep your emails short and to the point. Partners hate wasting time. No large introductory lead ins. Write it like this:
“Hi Steve. I just got a call from Joe Blow, and he wanted to ask you about three things: 1) has the city approved the project; 2) did you speak with George about getting an extension on a bond; and 3) can you meet with Joe this week, preferably Tuesday or Wednesday? On question “3,” I checked with your secretary, and you have Tuesday open, and a court hearing (it’s a CMC) at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday. Your secretary thinks that hearing will end by 10:00 a.m., so you have the rest of the day open. Please let me know if I can research or do anything for you. My cell is (123) 456-7890. Thanks, Betty.”
This is a helpful email. No wind up. Just what needs to be done. You also checked his calendar (lawyers live by their calendars, and were wise enough to ask his secretary what days he had open and his schedule). You saved him the trouble of checking his calendar. He’ll like that. You offered to do research. All lawyers welcome this. You provided your cell phone number in the email. Why is this important? Because he might want to just call you and not write out an email, especially if he is in the car at the drive through. You provided the client’s phone number, in case he doesn’t have it to quickly look up. He’ll respond like this.
“Betty. Thank you. Call Joe back, tell him Wed at 11am to 3pm, his choice. No approval. City wants impact study. Working on it. George is working on a bond. Can you set up the meeting. In person. If not, set up by conference call. Thanks, Steve.”
Steve likes you. You are helping him get shit done. If there were important things to discuss, Steve will call the client. Here, Steve just wants you to be a relay to the customer, and the customer understands this. By telling Joe you are not a lawyer, Joe isn’t going to pepper you with questions. Set up the meeting, but first see the secretary to see how it’s done. It might be that she handles the whole thing. Ask her.
Shut Up At Client And Partner Meetings
You have nothing to say, so STFU at client and partner meetings. Unless you are asked a question, do NOT try to make your presence felt. You are there to listen and to observe, to get things for partners, and to help with the work. Here’s an example from the Sopranos, when Tony explicitly told Chris before the meeting to keep his mouth shut, and not to offer advice. A newly made guy, Chris now feels the need to share his wisdom, and ignores Tony’s hint to “clam up” at the meeting. (Clip used under “Fair Use” exception for commentary and education and without any commercial purpose). You could very well fuck things up at the firm by telling the client something wrong. You don’t know the dynamics, so what you say could have a terrible impact on how things proceed, and you force the partner to “unfuck” what you just fucked up.
There was a case I was handling. I made requests for documents, and the other side kept lying that they didn’t exist. A new lawyer comes into the picture, and doesn’t have the history of the case to know any better, and the shit I was fighting over. Sure enough, I ask him about these documents, and he sends them over. “Oh, yeah. Here they are. Can I email them over?” That launched a motion to disqualify the firm.
You are not an advisor. Again, you, with your liberal arts degree and Marxist inspired college professors, know absolutely NOTHING about the real world. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security that you can now advise a business executive facing a crisis. Your urge to offer your opinions will be strong. Everyone in your family seeks your advice, and you have been very successful in school. Those worlds are irrelevant to the law firm world. Say something stupid, and your client might act like Johnny Sack. Chris didn’t know the deal, and didn’t know the background and history. So, his “solution” was infuriating, and only confirmed that Chris is a moron. This is not the time for you to open your latte drinking mouth and opine on what you “feel” is the right thing. The client is being advised by people with years of experience. So again, shut the fuck up. Let the partner and the senior associates do the talking, and you do the listening. Bring a yellow note pad and take notes. A yellow pad, you say? Ok boomer. (I’m not a boomer). Understand that attorneys – even those who are technically proficient, use them. Your typed up notes could conflict with what the partner remembers. Seeing it written down gives it credibility. Typed up notes can be changed. Write legibly, so that you can pdf it and scan it to everyone as notes of the meeting. It will become an important record of the meeting. Mark it as “Attorney Work-Product And Attorney Client Privileged,” so that it doesn’t get accidentally turned over in discovery. Save it to the system as a pdf, with a file name in call caps: “CLIENT MEETING ON 1-23-19 ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED SMITH V JONES MATTER.” Then, create a separate folder on the system called “ATTORNEY NOTES” and put it in there. Your partner will smile and see that you “get it.”
When I was a summer associate at Sheppard Mullin (great firm), I was already 42 years old, the age of some partners, and way older than the summer associates. Because I had formed many companies before going to law school, I knew a great deal about how to advise a CEO on business problems he was facing. The partner knew this, and allowed me to meet with them. I knew how to keep the client and the partner happy. I also had a summer associate, who, at age 25, figured he could advise a client on business issues. Another partner confronted him and said, “Pat here was president of a Silicon Valley company. I know why he is here. What are you doing giving advice to our clients? Don’t open that door, and embarrass us. Just listen and observe.”
A “Draft” Is Not A Rough Outline, But A Polished And Perfected Piece Of Writing.
When a partner wants a “draft” memo from you, do not think it is just a rough compilation of your ideas. A “draft” is not a working paper where you collaborate with the partner. No, a “draft” in partner parlance is a perfect exposition that has been reviewed and edited (by you) at least a dozen times before the partner sees it. Your “draft” memo is an exquisite work of art that the partner can pawn off to the client as if the partner wrote it.
Keep your memos short, and get to the point. Use headings. Write in 12 point Times New Roman, or whatever font your firm uses. Use spell check. Write in active voice. State the issue, and your answer to it, as follows:
“July 4, 2020
From: Betty Bootlicker
To: Isaiah Pederast
Issue: A tenant was presented with a lease, but did not sign it. The tenant performed everything called for under this lease, and now wants to vacate. Is the tenant a month-to-month or can the tenant be bound under a lease it didn’t sign so that it now owes all the remaining rent?
Answer: The tenant is not bound. Under the decision of Rex Investment Co., LTD v. SME (3:15-cv-02607), a federal case in San Diego one by an attorney named Patrick D’Arcy in Irvine, California, the tenant, a Burger King franchisee was not liable under the lease, even though it had performed all of the provisions under the lease, because it did not sign it. This case that was won by this lawyer is now binding authority in the Ninth Circuit. The crucial point of the case is that the tenant must affirm in writing that it intends to be bound. Otherwise, the tenant is month-to-month. I have attached the case and the opinion.
Long Writing Is Bad Writing
The more you think through something, the clearer your writing becomes, and the less you write. Get to the point. Answer the question. There is no better example of this than Steve Jobs. His iconic graduation speech had a very short lead in, and went straight to the three stories he wanted to share, and then all built on each other. Youtube videos piss me off. It has a catchy title, and the presenter is still blabbing two minutes later, and still hasn’t gotten to the point. They say things like, “Thanks for watching my video. When I was thinking about this video, a lot of things crossed my mind, and I especially like all of the feedback….blah…blah…blah….” Get to the point.
In the memo I wrote for you, it was so brief that the partner will be impressed. (Did you catch the typo that I “one” the case?) That’s not a small infraction. You’ll be dinged heavily for this. Be afraid – VERY AFRAID of typos. When editing down your memos remove all redundancy. These are smart people you are dealing with. Each paragraph has an internal structure where the sentences are connected. Edit the paragraphs so that transitions build on different concepts. Shorter sentences are preferred over longer ones. Change things up, and do not say, “said letter,” “herewith,” “do not hesitate to call me” or “enclosed please find attached.”
While in school, you got a better grade with a lengthier report. Judges and partners hate long briefs. Make your points and stop writing.
Ignore Backstabbing Associates
All summer associate classes contain insidious backstabbers. These morons were ruthless to get into the top schools, and now are vying for the best jobs. Your class contains the top students from the best schools. Think about it. In my summer associate class, we had graduates from Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, Georgetown, U. Penn, Michigan, Northwestern and many other fine schools.
As a summer associate, your function isn’t to stand out as much as it is to be responsible, professional, presentable, able to handle pressure, likeable, and to follow directions. Ignore the quirks and narcissistic attitudes of your future colleagues. I can guarantee you that getting into arguments with your classmates might be the reason you are “no-offered.” Hold your tongue, smile your way through it, and just accept the fact that assholes exist. Do not confide in a partner about problems you are having. He has to share this with the other partners. Because your “problem” is inconsequential, they overlook the details, and simply take the position that you are to be eliminated from further consideration.
Follow Directions
If a partner tells you that an assignment is budgeted for 10 hours, do not go over 10 hours. Your time is billed to the client. Excessive time is written off by the partner, which pisses them off. There may be a limit to what they can write off, and the client gets stuck with a large bill. Always ask how much time is allotted. If you get stuck, see a senior associate and ask for help.
Don’t Let Your 2L Grades Drop
A large drop in your 2L grades can get you no-offered. I saw classmates panic when the firm wanted updated transcripts. Do not let your grades drop, and understand that some firms are pretty serious about this.
Pay Attention To Your Grooming/Hygiene
There is something particularly irritating about a person with bad breath. It can happen to anyone, but I’m talking about habitual bad breath. I worked with a guy who had breath that smelled like he ate shit for breakfast. The guy was disgusting. Go see a dentist, and get your teeth fixed and your gums scraped. You might be a great guy, but nobody wants to hold their breath while talking to you.
Be careful at firm dinners that you don’t speak so loud and forcibly that you spit out food. Don’t drink too much alcohol, and do not take too much food from the buffet. Don’t be the life of the party. Don’t smoke weed either.
Pay attention to your clothes. Shine your shoes and belt. Throw away ties with stains. Cover up any tattoos, and get rid of nose piercings and excessive ear piercings. Remember, you are being groomed to be a trusted advisor. This requires a conservative appearance. Suits that are blue, grey or a dark color are fine. Don’t wear “loud” outfits.
One last thing – NEVER wear cologne or AXE or whatever that shit is. You will make enemies fast, especially in conference rooms and small offices.
When Taking Calls From Opposing Counsel, Do Not Admit To Anything, And Do Not Agree To Anything
I was a 2L, and a partner from a large firm called. I didn’t know shit about the litigation. He sweet-talked me. “You new?” I told him I was just a summer associate. He wasted no time. “I’ll need some extra time to complete the discovery responses, can you give me another two weeks?” Being “nice,” I said “Sure.” I got an instantaneous confirmation email from him. That worried me. I went to the partner and told him what happened. He told me that they had blown the deadline, and I let them off the hook. Being “courteous” and “nice” has its place in the legal profession. Understand that as a summer associate, you are in no position to instruct or consent to anything.
Be Grateful For Such A Cush Job
A summer associate job is supposed to be glorified internship. Anything you write is discounted or verified. When you see a partner, politely introduce yourself, and let them know how much you enjoy the opportunity to work at the firm. Show genuine appreciation. Millions of Americans work very hard doing physical labor for far less money.
Don’t Gossip About Anyone Or Anything
Don’t spread rumors, don’t repeat shit, and when gossiping takes place, stay quiet and don’t participate. When asked what you think, just say, “I don’t want to get into that.” And go stone quiet. If summer associates are making trouble, leave. If they are getting drunk, know when to step away. Don’t talk about firm business in public places, including restaurants, and if you are required to, do not mention names. Say something, “The client wants us to do this…” Not, “I spoke with John Smith, and he is going to fire his manager, and wants us to do this.” For all you know, the manager is in the booth next to you, and about confront your client in 20 minutes.
If You Get “No-Offered”
Before accepting a summer associate position, check the law school’s figures on offer rates. Nearly all big law firms offer permanent employment to their associates. Some other firms “no-offer” a fairly high percentage. Here’s the thing. Getting “no-offered” is a big deal. This can prevent you from getting gainful employment after graduation. You will be forced to interview against as a rising 3L. The law firms are going to wonder about you. Did you fuck up something terrible? Are you lazy, incompetent, or just a dick to be around? Law firms are conservative places, and are generally risk-adverse. The “no-offer” stigma is a stench that carries far and wide. Get a letter from the firm making sure that you were not the reason. Do not lose that letter, and bring it with you when you interview next year. The firm might say, “You did excellent work but we just didn’t have additional space for this person.” Law firms are not stupid. They realize that the letter may be a ruse. Fortunately, a no-offer is so rare that I only heard of it happening one time.
I received this fax letter from a “Mr. Sanz Javier Cires,” claiming to be a lawyer from Spain, at the Spanish law firm of “Dotilegal.” This is the variant of the “running of the bulls.” I call this the running of the bullshit. This letter was mildly entertaining, so I want to talk about it, and also warn others about this latest scam. Perhaps people are getting wise to the “Hello: I am writing to you from the Kingdom of Zumunda, and I have NINE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED BILLION” buried underground by the heirs of a Mr. Rip Van Winkle and need your help….” This scam took a little effort – sending it out to everyone across the world with the name of “Darcy,” and then tying to it a fake website to make it look more believable. While Spain is a beautiful country, my thinking is that these “Darcy” scam letters really need to be sent to Ireland.
This letter claims to be from DotiLegal, which is a fake Spanish law firm, and where a “David Darcy” has died, leaving $7.5 million euros in a safe deposit box due to a “earthquake” in China about twelve years ago. Yeah, yeah. This legitimate “lawyer” then went looking for a “Darcy” and chose me: “This prompted my search for anybody with a common surname.” He adds, “I know you may not be related to my late client.” No shit. He then boldly suggests that I “stand as the heir,” and that “there is no atom of risk connected to this business.” Yeah, sure. No problem. Of course, there is no “David Darcy” that died in some earthquake. That begs the question: who really believes a lawyer is so stupid as to send out a junk fax to people with the same last name in hopes one of them is willing to lie to claim a fake inheritance? I admit, I’ve seen my share of dumb lawyers, but does anyone really believe a lawyer would send out such a letter – a mass mailing to commit fraud against an estate? I also love the double periods after “Your Trusted Legal Partner..”
Who Is DotiLegal – Why, It’s A Scam!
We checked to see if there was a “DotiLegal” on the web, and sure enough, there is! It has lawyer bios too. Ok, here’s a screen shot of this prestigious firm. I like that they created a scam website to back up their scam letter, replete with contact information and an email address “[email protected].” First, a link to this amazing law firm.
I was looking for stock images for the “lawyer” they found on their website. I would love to match it up. It reminds me of those lonely guys getting “catfished” by some gorgeous woman overseas, when it really is nothing more than a picture lifted from some porno website, and where his money winds up in some foreign country converted to bitcoin while a bunch of guys sipping coffee at some internet cafe are just laughing their asses off to see who can outdo the other. Immediately, you notice all of the typos on this website. Lawyers and typos are a match made in hell.
Anyone can tell this guy’s not a real lawyer. He smiles too much. Being a lawyer isn’t fun and games. Few lawyers spend as much time on their clothes, physical fitness, beard, hair and teeth as this guy. Why? Because we are working all the time, or we are just too ugly to care about it.
DotiLegal’s Website Hosting Is A Clue They Are A Scam
DotiLegal’s website is hosted in Panama, and registered on June 24, 2020. While claiming on their website to have been around for 21 years, their website – registered in Panama under Namecheap – is barely six months old.
One “Lawyer” On The DotiLegal Website Is Named “Nicolas Simon Garcia.” He scored one victim for $50K!
This person said she sent $50,000 to “attorney” Nicolas Simon Garcia, who scammed her regarding a dead person named “Thomas Chaefsky” and his $7 million “estate.” Imagine getting $50,000 like this? Incredible. Here’s the idiot’s victims plea for help. Let’s get real: she got greedy and fell for the scam. Like my scam letter, she was told to keep quiet about it. Yeah, that sounds legit.
Recieved a fax saying aThomas Chaefsky had died leaving over $7million He would arrange for me to get the money since no living heirs Iended up wirering $50,000 t0 abank in Barcelona He directed me to tell no one of what was happening Kept needing more money I finally stopped answering his calls Can you help?Names reported:Nicolas Simon GarciaPhones reported:+34-60-337-6791″
A narcissist presents a special challenge to trial lawyers. The direct answer to this topic is as follows: the narcissist thrives on conflict, drama and positive and negative energy. The harder you push on them, the more direct attacks you launch against them, the more they relish the fight. Because they have a personality disorder, your standard arsenal of litigation tactics do not work upon them. What does work is this: starve them out of all emotion and drama. Do not speak about the evils of their ways, the pain they have caused your clients, and the conflict that has disrupted your client’s life, etc. These statements give the narcissist his dose of supply (or “fuel”), which keeps them going. Instead, you must think and act differently – remove all of the drama from your pleadings, your questions and your litigation tactics. Be robotic in dealing with them. Be indifferent. Ridicule their accomplishments. Ignore them. These approaches pay rich dividends. The narcissist has no answer for this. Starving them of this “fuel” causes immediate problems, as they feed off of your energy to sustain themselves. They are emotional vampires, which is why you feel drained dealing with them. Cutting off this “fuel” causes them to explode, and ignites their rage and fury. They wind up expending their own precious fuel while receiving little to none in return. The narcissist cannot function in this manner. Fighting them head-on is like smashing up against iron gates. Weaken the support for the gates by softening up the soil, cracking the cement holding the support posts, and then watch the strong gate collapse under its weight.
Narcissists all have the same general traits and behaviors. Since they know they are evil to the core, and are always looking to screw you over, to get revenge or to just control your life, you cannot believe anything they say, nor can you believe any of their fake apologies. Let’s first describe these devils before discussing how to deal with them.
Narcissism is a personality disorder. The “narc” is very much ashamed of themselves. They are emotional toddlers. Perhaps they were toilet trained in an abusive manner, maybe daddy didn’t give them enough attention, or maybe mommy’s expectations were too high. Whatever the reason, the narc cuts off these feelings of shame and humiliation, and creates a “new” (and fake) person that they present to the world. This fake person is what you see, unless you happen to catch the narc in its primal state. When you do, or when the mask that they are wearing momentarily slips, you will see a face of true evil. The fake person is a walking contradiction. They demand loyalty from you but give none in return. They demand their freedom while trying to control you. They preach about the values of marriage, while secretly cheating on you.
Here are the warning signs you are dealing with a narc: 1) they have an absolute need for control; 2) they refuse to ever admit they are wrong; 3) they blame you for everything, including evils acts they do to you (e.g., when they slugged you, it was your fault for provoking them); 4) they will engage in a unrelenting smear campaign to destroy your name and reputation; 5) they seek revenge, regardless of how many years have passed; 6) you cannot freely speak your mind around them, as they have hair-triggered personalities; 7) they can fly into a wild rage at a moment’s notice; 8) they are compulsive liars; 9) they suffer from addictions; 10) interactions with them leave you emotionally drained; 11) they think they are smarter than you; 12) they think very highly of themselves (and many are quite accomplished); 13) they lack any empathy or feelings of remorse; and 14) they cannot compromise, as everything must be on their terms.
The “narc” uses you to fulfill its needs and desires. You are not a person, but a “thing” to be owned and possessed. What the narc needs for its survival is emotional fuel, or “supply” from you. Cut that off, and the narc quickly discards you, and then embarks on a vicious smear campaign. Narcissists are pathological liars, have high opinions of themselves, and span the gamut from dumb to intelligent, from an incompetent to very capable, and from unemployed loser to a captain of industry.
Narcissists don’t see you as a co-equal human.
They do not care about you, even when they lie and claim they’ll change. The narc has limited emotions: fear, jealously, greed, envy and idolization. Since you are not a person to the narc, but a “thing,” you are like a brand new stove that was just installed in your kitchen. Like with anything new, the narc expresses great joy over this shiny new possession. Over time, that new awesome stove becomes (in the narc’s eyes) an old burner, to something that produces small amounts of fuel, but only in rare instances. The narc’s perception and treatment of you steadily declines until the narc wants to get rid of you. Or, think of this “relationship” as the strong oxen that plows the field, does what it is told, becomes weary and abused from the constant strain of heavy work of tending to the narc’s needs and wants, to being disfavored in old age as it can’t keep up any more, and then used as leather and food for the owner. The narc doesn’t have a “relationship” with you (even if married to one, or a “best friend” with one). The narc simply uses you through manipulation, deceit and threats to get that precious emotional fuel. Narcs seek reactions from you. Cut off the reaction, and the narc dissolves like the Wicked Witch of The West did. Remember, to the narc, you are a thing, not a person.
Your “relationship” with the narc is like the poor oxen. The owner makes sure their basic needs are met. You are clean, housed, properly fed, and given medical attention. Beyond that, you are muzzled, and forced to do work for the narc (where the narc sets the terms and conditions, and really doesn’t give a shit about how you feel about it). When these oxen get too old to do this backbreaking work, the narc still finds a way to have his needs met: he will butcher them, keep their hides, and turn them into a delicious meal.
What Is A Narcissist?
Today’s need for instant “likes” and “shares” promotes narcissism on a grand scale. You take a photo from Switzerland, as you vacation in the Swiss Alps, and then post it on Facebook. (By the way, the “friends” on Facebook can tell a burglar to go hit your house while you are away). While I appreciate some selfies, especially if it to capture a really great moment, it has gone overboard. That “duck lips” or “trout pout” face bothers me – a lot. People are taking selfies at funerals to show off their new outfits, taking selfies while driving, and post to social media for the “high” from many “likes.” Here’s a few of the stupid selfies that encourage narcissism. Doing these things doesn’t make you a narcissist, but it encourages it.
Narcissists are wounded assholes who create nothing but drama and conflict in your life, as well as lie, cheat and steal. They have no empathy, and present special problems in the courtroom. Because they will lie on command, and have no fear of lying (and will be very convinced of their own lies), they must be dealt with differently. A narcissist will never “settle” in a lawsuit. They must destroy you. The longest and most draining lawsuits involve narcs.
Narcs all come from the same playbook: they are the ones who never admit that they are wrong, always find reasons to blame you for things, have no moral conscience, will quickly unload on you with all of their problems, pretend to know everything, have a need to control people, to intimidate them and then destroy reputations, while maintaining this carefully guarded and fake image of themselves. You will find that the narcissist will react strongly to any criticism, and will take great delight in destroying your name and reputation when the time suits them.
Narcs are the product of a wrecked childhood, caused by parental neglect, continued bullying or other emotional trauma that makes them horribly insecure, and deeply ashamed. Because this wounded moron cannot accept that they are a loser and a pile of crap as a human being, they seek out prey to fill their egos, needs and desires. They are predators. To avoid this “true” person (their real self), the narc represses these emotions. In its place is a “fake” persona that the narc creates and shows to the world. The narc is the person that only got a C grade on an exam, yet forges the “77” into a “97” and then lets others see the score to impress them. The narc goes to extreme lengths to protect this fake self image. You will see it on their social media – pictures of them at church, a charity for the homeless, or working at an animal rescue. These things are part of the false self the want you to see. They will be polite to you when you first meet them, engaging, charismatic, etc. This is all to throw you off so that you do not do the one thing that terrifies the narc – EXPOSING THEM. Anyone who attempts to expose the narc, and bring them face-to-face with their “true” self, will see a massive eruption of anger and violence. The narc cannot face themselves, and they literally self-destruct. Getting them to see their “true” self is all about inflicting narcissistic injury.
A narc cannot manage their own emotions, so they use you to feed their need for “fuel” (or “narcissistic supply”). Consider what is meant by “fuel” (and I give full credit to this term to H. G. Tudor, and his amazing videos on Youtube). I learned a great deal about narcs from H. G. Tudor, a self-admitted narcissist who explains what you must do to avoid getting entangled with narcissists. What H. G. Tudor said was true, and counter-intuitive to my approach as a trial lawyer. I am always confronting people with their lies. I live for the lie (as all trial lawyers do). The narc is a compulsive liar, but they think they are smarter than you, and that you will believe their lies. The truly “gifted” narcs blend lies with the truth, to make for a fascinating BS story. What H. G. Tudor said turned out to be very true: the narc lives for the drama, including the escalating conflict in the courtroom, and the high stakes emotion from cross-examination causes them to draw “fuel” from the interaction. You are playing their stupid game. Instead, you must starve them of any emotional reaction, and thus starve them from any “fuel.” The point of H. D. Tudor is that the drama from direct confrontation backfires when used against the narcissist. You must remove all drama and charged energy, since the narc feeds off of it.
You cannot reason with a narc, nor can you stay in their good graces. To “win” against the narc, you must simply cut all ties to them. Narcs, if left unchecked, will guilt you into doing their work for them, will emotionally manipulate you, will scream and cry about how they need you, and put on any act to keep control over you. Narcs eventually try to ruin anyone that has crossed their path. Like any parasite, the narc is very vocal if you try to claim your freedom and break free. While projecting confidence, the narc is a scared individual who cannot be alone, and needs the interaction with people held emotionally captive to feed their stupid instincts and desires.
Did You Unmask The Narcissist And Get “The Stare”?
A narc is a demon. I really believe they are possessed with dark energy and are completely evil. When you have unmasked them, when they realize that you know what they truly are, they reveal to you the stare of evil. Yeah, read up on it like I did. This stare is meant to intimidate you, to regain control, and, for the malignant narcs out there, could actually be eyes of black. You won’t forget it should you see this stare first-hand.
Narcs can be very dangerous persons, and can threaten to hurt or kill you. They will become enraged if you expose them for their true self, or if you have confronted them with who they really are. For that moment in time, the mask comes off, and you see the real demon. If you will be in physical danger, then do not provoke the narcissist. This is especially true if you live with a narc. I have watched first-hand (and read and heard the stories) of when the narc got exposed, and the violent reaction from them, including physical violence.
People discuss the other reptilian stare that narcissists have which resembles a snake about to strike, or an insect about to capture its prey. That “trance” or “reptilian” stare is them sizing you up and studying you. Like I said, these are sick people. In unmasking them, they now put you on their forever shit list.
The Narcissistic’s Demonic Phases – Recognize Them Early
Phase 1 Of The Narc Demon – “Love Bombing”
The “love-bombing” stage is when the narcissist tells you how great you are, how much they look up to you, how much you and they are alike, and how much you have in common with them. They bring you gifts, shower you with attention, and make it look like you have found your soul mate. This first phase is meant to suck you in. It’s all fake. During this phase, you think the narc is the greatest person ever. The narc is a demonic asshole. Never forget this. The narc demon does not experience emotion like we do. Instead, he manipulates, lies and bullshits his way into your life SO THAT YOU WILL SERVE HIS NEEDS. THINK OF THAT STOVE. THINK OF THOSE OXEN. Narcs are emotional vampires that suck your energy from you.
Phase 2 Of The Narc Demon – The Devaluation Phase
The second phase is the devaluation phase. This is where the narc starts finding fault with you, even when you are not at fault. They will blame you for shit you didn’t do, insinuate you lied (when you didn’t), and demand accountability from you (while flouting the same rules themselves). They no longer show that much interest in you, leaving you puzzled and confused. You will get the silent treatment. They get passive-aggressive for no reason. They disappear for spells at a time. You catch them in lies, and they lie about the lie. You are to blame for everything.
a) They Cut You Off From Friends And Family
During the devaluation, the narc works overtime to cause problems with your family. Your dad is “overbearing,” your mom “is nasty,” your brother is “too nosy.” At family gatherings, they pick fights, start arguments and cause trouble. After awhile, they start driving a wedge between you and your parents, trying to sever this critical link. The narc starts hitting on your friends, and then lies and says they hit on him. Over time, if successful, all that is left is you and the narc, and they use this isolation to further control you. This is why you NEVER let a narcissist EVER watch your children or family members.
b) They Gaslight You And Make You Believe You Are The Problem
In the movie Gaslight, the husband sets up a plan to get his wife to think she is crazy. This is where the phrase “gaslighting” comes from. Narcs gaslight nonstop. The narc husband tells her she left the car engine running. She says “No, I didn’t.” He then points to the car, and she sees the engine is running. Confused, she can’t understand how that happened. (It happened because the narc went out and started the car). Then, he’ll tell her the dentist appointment is at “10:00 a.m.,” and the next day, at 8:30, say, “The appointment is at 9:00 a.m., why aren’t you ready?” You respond, “You said it was at 10.” The narc says, “No, I told you the appointment with the vet was at 10, and you got them confused.” This is really how narcs think!
c) They Point Out Your Mistakes, Even When You Didn’t Make Them
During the devaulation phase, the narc starts pointing out your mistakes, or starts creating trouble over nothing. There is a “correct” way to eat steak, only “idiots” watch football, your friends are “morons,” you failed to cook the steak correctly, etc. The narc is deliberately creating negative energy in you because the positive fuel you once gave is now drying up.
d) The Silent Treatment
These demented assholes feed off of energy, both positive and negative. While they prefer positive energy from you – where you say how great they are – they’ll take negative energy too, as it is “supply” or “fuel” for their sick minds. The use of the silent treatment is meant to put you on edge. You’ll think, “What did I do wrong?” “What happened?” “What did I say?” The narc demon takes delight in your discomfort, and draws fuel from your hurt and confused look, and your emotional reaction. The narc loves giving you the silent treatment. They want you to feel upset, angry or anxious.
e) Passive Aggressive Behavior
In addition to the silent treatment, the narc gets off on being passive aggressive. They ask if you want coffee, only to give it to you cold. They offer to pick up your kids from school, only to tell the teacher you couldn’t pick up your kids because you felt hungover. The narc tells you about a “great job” at another company that they know is a shitty place to work with no advancement, just to derail your career and make your life a living hell. The narc only does things for you because it helps them, not you.
Phase 3 Of The Narc Demon – Discard
The narc eventually grows tired of you. The positive fuel you once emitted is gone, and the negative fuel doesn’t pack much punch. Your narc is now on to a new source of narcissistic supply, and is busy love-bombing your friend, while telling your friend what an awful person you were, while lying about things you never said about your friend. The discard phase happens when the narc has locked up new (and “better”) supply from somewhere else.
The Narc And Litigation
A direct frontal attack against a narc during cross-examination is usually a mistake, except where you can pin them down to “yes” or “no” answers. The narc doesn’t back down too much, and has an answer for everything. The narc is braced to fight back. They have outward supreme confidence. Taking the narc head-on and getting pissed off at them during cross-examination is a serious mistake. They are not wired correctly, so they “take” the positive fuel (compliments) and negative fuel/supply (anger) and drink it up. Normal people start to shut down after a constant barrage, but the narcissist continues with the fight. When the narc thinks they have the upper hand, or thinks you are “losing,” they smile and smirk at you. When you nail them, they will know it. In those moments, a blank stare comes across their face, followed by “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know” answers. Continue pressing. When given the “I don’t remember” answers, or the “I believe….” or “It’s my understanding….” tell them, “Great, you don’t recall. The reporter has recorded that as your answer under oath. At trial, you will not be allowed to now testify to this, since you don’t remember today, then you cannot now remember at trial!” The narc will once again get that look of bewilderment, meaning you are scoring hits.
Step 1: Remove All Emotion From Your Cross-Examination Questions
The narc feeds off emotional energy. Starve them of this energy, and you defeat the narc. Do not use emotional tactics or questions. Keep it neutral and robotic. Do not show anger, sorrow, hurt or surprise. The narc uses up energy through answering questions (as does any person), but will NOT get renewed energy from the fight, since no fight is being offered! It works magically.
Step 2: Inflict Narcissistic Injury!
Getting key admissions requires inflicting narcissistic injury, which is very easy! Narcissists are thin-skinned and highly sensitive to even the slightest criticism. They are paranoid, and on guard. Narcs get pissed off when you IGNORE them, when you INSULT them, when you QUESTION THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, when you make them feel UNIMPORTANT and when you call out their bragging as IRRELEVANT. Like the emotional toddlers that they are, continued “hits” to their fake persona pushes them into full blown narcissistic RAGE. They act just like the four year old kicking and screaming on the supermarket floor when he can’t get candy.
One narc I battled (because I didn’t realize she was a narc) seemed to enjoy the barrage of questions I hurled her way. Her brother said, “You need to understand that she likes it when you get angry with her.” I then switched gears, and inflicted narcissistic injury, to test whether she as a narc. She was. The shift in the deposition was noticeable. She was now confused, and lost her confidence. Attacking her directly was a mistake.
Use Their “Intelligence” Against Them
Narcs will tell you that they are highly intelligent, and will often brag about being smarter than you. When you speak to a narc, they have a bemused face of “How dare you think you are on my level.” Use this smugness against them. Play into it. Go along with their premise that they are smarter than you. Allow them to think they can talk their way out of anything. Open up with softball questions to “confirm” what an idiot you are. Later, you pin them down on minute details. Keep track of those details, and then confront them when they forget their lies and get confused.
Examples Of Inflicting Narcissistic Injury
During the questioning, ask them about anything, then follow up with sarcasm. You could start with their academic achievements. “So, you graduated from UCLA?” Narc: “Yes, I graduated with a degree in Physical Education.” “Oh, so you chose one of the easy majors.” They won’t like that. Narcs, more than others, begin to ignite with such questions. “Did you get bad grades at UCLA, you know, C’s and D’s?” Narc: “Why is this relevant?” “Well, I’ll take your refusal to answer as a ‘Yes.'” “I will repeat the question……” Then ask again. Then ask if they were on academic probation, etc. Get them to brag about their work accomplishments, and then find reason to criticize it. “It shows here you were an office manager.” Narc: “Yes.” “And you were the office manager for several years, I see.” Narc: “Yes.” Now comes the injury: “Most jobs with the title of ‘office manager’ means that you worked alone in a one-person office. Is that what happened to you?” “So you weren’t invited to the concert?” Narc: “No.” (fuming) “These things happen to you regularly, correct?” Narc: “No!” “I am sorry, what is your name again?” You get the idea. These questions prevent the narcissist from gaining control over the deposition, and allow you to get the information you are looking for. Once you hit pay dirt with a narc, they get really pissed off, and start saying all kinds of things because nobody is allowed to mess with their fake image.
In defense of themselves, they will start spewing out all sorts of information. In the interim, they are getting angrier and angrier. Like a bomb with a short fuse, they suddenly explode.
Avoid The Narcissist’s Traps – They Love Playing The Victim.
The narc doesn’t believe in the truth. They are liars of the first division. They will refuse to answer your questions, while “projecting” your “bad behavior” back on to you. This is the weird quirk of a narcissist. They always play the victim. The narc turns the conversations back on to you, and something you have done, which is the basis for their blame. The narc could have been the one who left the keys in the ignition (probably on purpose), so that your car got stolen. You confront them: “I told you to never leave the keys in the ignition.” Narc: “Why are you yelling at me? Why are you so mean and cruel?” See the blame shift? The narc turns it around and questions your behavior toward them, while ignoring that they caused your car to be stolen. They never apologize, and instead lie about you, how you acted, etc. Narcs never accept responsibility, and think the rules don’t apply to them.
During cross-examination, the narc blames your client for everything that happened. They have rehearsed these lies many times, and even recruit people to back up their lies. You can use the victim blaming to draw out their “defenses” to what they did, which is useful, but do not allow them to control the questioning. The narc probably spent many hours perfecting their answers, looks and responses well before the deposition or hearing. They are practiced liars.
If you have made it this far, get out of any “relationship” with a narc. These toxic assholes leave you feeling emotionally drained, and demand everything from you while giving you nothing in return. Block them, and go no-contact. If contact is necessary, keep it in writing and at a bare minimum and without any emotional reactions.
The jury’s verdict, based on available data, ranks among the top 65 in all of California for 2019. This was a hard-fought case, with a court docket of 80 pages, and over 450 entries. I represented 22 plaintiffs, and after winning the case, defeated all of the post-trial motions and got the appeal dismissed.
Thinking of Slinging Mud With A Bad Review On Yelp? Brace Yourself For Nasty Litigation.
Let’s say you go to a restaurant, and the service is terrible. I mean, really bad. It took two hours to get your pizza, it was cold, and the waiter was rude as hell. You decide to leave a 1 star review, and write the following:
“Horrible experience. I hated the place. It took 3 hours to get my pizza, and it had a dozen dead cockroaches in it, and the waiter called me a “jackass,” challenged me to a fight, and then called my wife a whore. I told the manager about it, and she called me an “idiot” and a liar.”
Now, some things you say are pure opinion, and not defamatory. There is no such thing as a defamatory opinion, but there are defamatory facts. Saying you “hated the place” cannot be proven true or false, as it is your opinion. You could have liked it until now. Warning – saying something is “just my opinion” isn’t likely to save you. If you say, “In my opinion, Gary is a liar,” you have admitted facts by implication, which means you defamed him. You can’t save your defamatory statements by calling it your opinion.
Insults vs. Defamation – Insults Can Still Get You Sued
Like everything else, the law has a lot of exceptions. Generally, insults can’t result in any damages, unless you say something outrageous to a young child, or a person with a medical condition, etc. While you could be sued for anything, being sued for an insult can result in the case being dropped. Calling someone a “jackass” is an insult, and doesn’t count as defamation. Things change when you call a woman “a whore” – that is defamation per se (automatic defamation, unless of course, she is, then you have the “truth” defense). Same with calling someone “a liar.” Unless they are a liar, that too is defamation. False facts will get you into trouble. Saying you waited “3 hours” (when it was 2) is a false fact, as are stating that there were “cockroaches” in the pizza. You can be sued for falsely implying something negative: “Isn’t this diner subject to health regulations?” Well it’s a question, and not a statement, the “take away” isn’t good.
The restaurant gets wind of this post, and pulls up the videotape to show you lied, and then sues you for defamation. A good defamation lawyer will get you into instant trouble. Your recourse could be to file an anti-SLAPP motion – a motion that says what you did was essentially free speech on a public issue. That will not hold for false facts and false implications that harm the restaurant. Those will be disputed facts, so you lose the motion. The Court when viewing the evidence essentially gives the win to restaurant for facts in dispute for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion. If you win the anti-SLAPP, the case is over and you’re done. You also get your legal fees. In the interim, your hastily posted review has burned you for at least $10K in legal fees.
California Has A One-Year Statute of Limitation For Defamation
If more than one year has elapsed since the post went up, you are in the clear in California (unless it was published in a seldom or archaic journal that is not publicly accessible). They only have one year to bring the defamation claim.
Even though I have experienced terrible service, or even gross shit (such as a waiter coughing and sneezing right on a table with dishes), I do not write bad reviews. The legal trouble – which I could deal with as a trial lawyer – is not worth it. Your bad review could mean two or more years of legal wrangling, plus the potential damage award and the legal fees that pile up. There’s nothing wrong with informing the manager, and then kindly inform them that you are not going on Yelp to make the matter public. You will see a sigh of relief on the manager’s part. Legitimate businesses really want to do the right things, and see you come back as a customer. Bad reviews, especially FAKE ONES inflict damage on a restaurant’s reputation. Rather than “Yelp” them, see if you can calmly tell the manager what happened. I am positive they’ll want to fix the problem. And if you are nice about it, and not there to nuke the place, you’ll get even better service when you show up next time.
Now, are there exceptions? Sure. If I saw restaurant employees spitting in food, I’d sure as hell write a bad review. Otherwise, if you are going to leave a bad review, leave out the person’s name (because you add more plaintiffs against you). When you say “Brenda at The Musty Bucket Of Chicken….,” you have defamed Brenda and the Musty Bucket. That’s two defamation lawsuits. My point is that leave bad reviews for those times when it is really deserved. And, when you mention an employee’s name at the store, understand the emotional trauma you put upon that person. Each day that review is up, she is reminded of what you said, probably got into trouble as well, and feels embarrassed. You have the power to hurt people with bad reviews. Exercise that discretion wisely or you could wind up a defendant in a lawsuit, and calling a guy like me to figure how to get you out of trouble. Or, the restaurant owner will call a guy like me and tell me to sue you.
My name is Patrick J. D’Arcy, and I am a trial lawyer in Irvine, California. After more than a decade of handling cases, jury trials and everyday litigation, I wanted to give an honest perspective to those considering law school, and what litigation (and being a lawyer) is like. For some, it’s the right call. For many others, it is a ticket to non-dischargeable student loan debt and years of financial misery. There’s too many lawyers, and not enough good-paying jobs. All I’m saying is to make an informed choice. Law schools are now feeling the pinch, as fewer applicants apply. The law schools will be forced to market themselves more aggressively, since as a business, they must survive by putting asses in seats. The law professors working at these law schools have seen the layoffs, and to remain employed, will push the narrative about how law school will open up a veritable choice of great careers. Without asses in seats, they lose their jobs. What this tells me is that capitalism works, even if the legal educational system does not.
This blog is my contribution to the marketplace of ideas. If you have a burning desire to work long hours under great stress, deal with serious issues and solve problems, then the law is for you. I come from this without an agenda other than to provide you with information from “the inside.”
While I attack the law professors generally, I want to clarify that it is aimed at: 1) those without relevant experience who instead teach; 2) their stubborn adherence to a “learning model” that penalizes and stifles learning through the “Socratic Method,” the time-honored tradition of wasted time through open-ended questions between the “law professor” and the students; 3) and this horrible lie put out by law schools that their primary responsibility is to “teach you to think like a lawyer” rather than to teach how to be a lawyer.
I’ve met great law professors who have real-world experience, and then bring that experience into the classroom. Then, there are the others: pure academics without real experience who teach to those with even less. Legal education in its present form – sucks.
Patrick J. D’Arcy’s Blog Is Featured In The University of South Dakota Law Review And Other Websites
Apparently my “contribution” is pissing off law professors (and their cush lifestyle) – in a big way. Jonathan Van Patten, a law professor at the University of South Dakota, wrote a law review article (“Skills For Law Students” 61. S.D.L. Rev. 165 (2016)), which prominently quoted my blog, and my criticism (or attack) on legal “education.” In fact, my blog looks to be the centerpiece of his article. He never contacted me about being “featured” in his magnum opus (which he admittedly didn’t have to do). But, it is kind of weird to not even inform me that I am about to be the subject of discussion in the legal community. You’d think he would understand that point. I doubt it had anything to do with an urgent deadline, since law professors don’t look too busy to me.
Law Review Articles Are Mostly Worthless Reading By Academics, For Academics. Trial Lawyers Ignore These Articles (Except To Criticize Them)
Few people read these law review articles, and even fewer people care what is written in them. Having written hundreds of motions, I can tell you that a law review article being used as persuasive authority in a brief is pretty rare. Umm, wait a second. You are a law student applicant, right? Then, I apologize, I am using terms you won’t know the meanings of. A “motion” is effectively a request for the Court to “move” on something, such as moving the Court to make an order. I am now going to tell you something you’ll never learn in law school – a motion must be by way of notice (there are exceptions), and depending on your state’s rules, heard at least 16 court days later (not calendar days), plus five calendar days more for mailing, two business days for FedEx, and no extra days delay for personal service. When a motion is filed, a trial lawyer first checks to see if proper notice was given. If not, then the motion can be temporarily defeated on those grounds. In response to a motion, the other side files an “opposition,” and then you file a “reply” to that opposition. Ok, back to the story….
Rarer still (in fact, about as rare as discovering a 10 legged moose) is a Court’s citation to a law review article for any authority at all. I’d feel ridiculous if, during oral argument, I told the judge about this “great law review article” that is on-point. Law review articles – like the schools from which they reside – largely take a smattering of cases and concepts from different jurisdictions, and there is a standing rule that you NEVER cite to out of state jurisdiction (since it isn’t binding). Even then, the judge will be sure to do his own legal research, and figure you to be a dolt if you can’t find at least one case from your state that addresses the issue.
My article was circulated at another law school (Lewis & Clarke). Here’s a link to this very informative law review article, and you’ll notice that the law professor takes aim at me right out of the gate (starting on the top of page 2). Van Patten Skills for Law Students_stamped
The good professor quoted me with an obvious disdain for my thoughts and beliefs (page 2, footnote 6), which he is certainly entitled to do:
“As a trial lawyer, I am constantly reviewing the latest cases (as other lawyers do). We NEVER refer to our casebooks or our lecture notes to help us out. They are irrelevant. To prove what BS the “Socratic Method” is (the main learning device used by law schools), watch how fast these same “law professors” simply give you the information during a condensed bar review session, when they did nothing of the sort during your time in law school. Explain to me how the Socratic Method fosters learning when the “law professor” leads a class filled with students with no background in the subject, and peppers them with open-end questions chock full of wrong answers. All that results is mass confusion. What a huge waste of time. If medical schools worked this way, the doctors would have no practical training. Instead, they put them on rotations, and the professors are practicing surgeons. Not law schools- they put someone in charge who typically couldn’t hack it in court. Law schools are fine with it. They graduate functional idiots who do not know how to draft a complaint, take a deposition, know the rules of evidence, serve a complaint, file motions, etc. I learned all of this for the first time after I graduated. Law school is an extended liberal arts education. I tell you this so you can be aware of the problem you will encounter thinking graduating from law school is enough to start your own practice. When law schools speak of”practical training,” just do what I do and laugh your ass off.”
Be sure to read his criticisms of what I wrote. I’m trying my best to get at least 200 people to read this article outside of the law school itself.
I can understand why Professor Van Patten is upset. My blog (and those of other trial attorneys who actually earn a living practicing law) are unmasking legal academia and a threat to their livelihood. We have crossed over to the other side, and see what is wrong with legal education. You would think intelligent people such as law professors would just immediately reinvent themselves to address their failings. Nope. They have an agenda of self-preservation.
Law Schools Need To Replace Decaying Faculty Without Practical Experience With Trial Lawyers And Judges
Imagine if the law schools actually did something revolutionary, and started hiring trial lawyers to teach Civil Procedure, Torts, Contracts, Real Estate (Property), etc., and fire the law professors who lacked legal skills, teach from stale books, and get their hard-earned pay asking law students such thought provoking questions, “And, what do you think about Stacy’s answer?” The first thing we’d do is toss your useless casebooks – an archaic invention of old cases cobbled together and put into one book. About 200 years ago some law professor figured it would be a great idea to assemble cases together from different fields to increase learning. The world has moved on – we are searching for cases (for our jurisdiction) on line with Lexis, Westlaw, etc. Next, we will make the law students spend several hours per week working with outside attorneys to learn about the job, under the tutelage of real lawyers.
Imagine this scenario – the law school hires people like me to teach Civil Procedure (which are the rules of litigation in state and federal court, each with their own specific rules), Evidence (something we live and breathe in court), Torts (the personal injury lawyers will line up to teach this), Contracts (litigation attorneys are always suing over breach of contract claims), etc. You get the idea. Bringing in trial lawyers and practicing attorneys would create a healthy chaos – the students will be forced to actually learn something. The typical “law professor” has been out of circulation for many years (or never been in circulation in the first place). A problem with my approach (although a huge improvement over the current system), is that today’s practicing attorneys will get “stale” in their skills, and start to fall off the wagon. Rules and procedures change.
Professor Van Patten’s Resume Fails To List Actual Trial Experience
I don’t know Professor Van Patten. However, when I reviewed his resume, I didn’t see anything about jury trials, cases he won, notable appellate victories, etc., which is something I argued in my blog regarding law professor qualifications. http://www.usd.edu/faculty-and-staff/Jonathan-VanPatten Perhaps there is a different resume which lists this stuff? If so, great. Then get on board with me!!
What I did see (and what I ironically complained about in my blog) were articles that law professors churn out like Professor Van Patten’s important work, “Storytelling For Lawyers.” This title is up there with the movie, Bedtime For Bonzo. I did mention in my critique that law professors are driven to put out such articles, rather than solve real-world problems facing real lawyers. I will allow the good professor to show me his litigation experience, and I am fairly hopeful he has some. I would think that he does.
Professor Van Patten takes a few pot shots at me (and that’s ok). But his criticisms are ineffective and ironic. For instance, he chides me by stating: “Don’t trust a trial lawyer who uses ALL CAPS or snarky quotations to make a point.” Well, Professor Van Patten, YOU used ALL CAPS throughout your headings to make your points, right? And if you equate a lack of trust in a trial lawyer with the use of the ALL CAPS approach, then you’ll need to exclude A LOT of lawyers.
If you wrote briefs, you would notice that ALL CAPS is for headings (as you used in your article) or for emphasis. Besides, the comparison is illogical. What does ALL CAPS have to do with honesty and knowledge about trial law? As for using ALL CAPS, we do this ALL THE TIME (just sparingly). Another thing, Jonathan, your writing style is patterned and predictable.
Jonathan Van Patten says not to “confuse” the “third and fourth years” of medical school and their “four years of residency” with “the first two years of law school.” Actually, I’m not confused at all. You are. You see, there are only three years of law school, so years two and three (not one and two) are for the “advanced” training of the law students. In medical school, the “advanced training” takes place after the first year as well (but they actually learn how to be doctors). It’s an analogy that was lost on you.
My Observations (Criticisms) Of Professor Van Patten’s Law Review Article.
More Is Less – Trial And Appellate Courts Want Brevity, Not Long-Winded Articles That Fill Up Space
Point 1: This law review article is too long, and bores me. A judge and her clerk (if it were a brief) would be pissed reading this. A practicing lawyer knows that all briefs have page limits (including rules on font size, spacing and pagination). Long winded articles (or briefs) are ineffective, unimpressive, and cause the reader to lose focus on the important points. Excessive footnotes take away from the art of persuasion. Effective writers know when to scrap arguments for brevity and clarity. Law professors tend to think that a weighty and lengthy article is impressive, when a busy judge thinks just the opposite. The attitude of the court system is if it takes you a long time to make your points then you haven’t thought them through. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the 43 page appellate brief I filed to defend my trial court victory, but that’s because it dealt with 13 witnesses.
Law School Courses Are Not “Foundational,” But A Foundation Of Ignorance
Point 2. Van Patten argues that first year courses are “foundational.” Huh? What the hell does that even mean? A foundation of ignorance? Practicing lawyers know to avoid ambiguity in their phrases. Storytelling For Lawyers, based upon the ambiguous title, could be, for all I know, Professor Van Patten’s attempt to cure lawyer insomnia by presenting a series of really boring cases for required reading at night. I mean, any time you can get your hands on a toxic tort case where the amount of phenylananline bifurcate 23 diboxyl exceeds 0.1 deciliters per nonliter, and the thousands of pages of data by EPA scientists in dispute with their published results, you are sure to be snoring loudly by page three. I’m not going to lie, a “good” case will do that and get you off your sleeping meds quickly. The first-year courses are taught so as to block learning, ok? The “foundation” is really more like a wall of professionally prescribed ignorance.
Professor Van Patten Cites To A 1965 Study That Legal Education Sucks.
Point 3. Van Patten cites to a 1965 article stressing the failure of legal education. He makes my point for me: 50 years is enough time to know when something isn’t working. The problem is that change will only occur in legal education when the “law professor” agrees to give up his cush lifestyle to benefit the students. But asking a law professor to sacrifice for the greater good is, well, as the last 50 years has shown, not going to happen. In 2065, a new “law professor” will write yet another useless law review article citing to Van Patten, and argue that legal education needs revamping.
Watch This Youtube Video Of A Law Professor Speaking To A Law School Graduate Working At A Gas Station.
What practicing lawyers secretly dread are the undiscovered cases out there that doom their position. In federal court, I represented a Burger King franchisee in a hotly disputed real estate lease case, where the landlord wanted $450K in damages. I won the case because – surprise – I didn’t turn to my casebook, call my law professor or review my notes from law school. Instead, I did what real lawyers do – research on Westlaw and Lexis and found a recently handed down case that destroyed the other side. Van Patten says about me, “Don’t trust a trial lawyer who uses ALL CAPS or snarky quotation marks to make a point….” Well, Mr. Van Patten, trust this – I filed Rule 12b(6) (that’s Civil Procedure Rule 12b(6)) challenges and got the owners and four of the six claims against their company dismissed, and then dismissed the case through a seldom used Rule 56 opposition to their motion for summary judgment (a motion to end the case in their favor without the need for a trial). My clients never even appeared at one hearing. I never learned any of that shit in law school. Incredibly, when I started work at Sheppard Mullin in Orange County upon graduation, I didn’t even know what an “opposition” or a “reply” was. Thanks for your observations, but my clients trust me. And this isn’t “Rate My Professor” type shit. These are real world problems that are serious and in need of resolution. If my clients thought I sucked as a lawyer, you can be damn sure I’d be out of business. This rule doesn’t apply to law professors – no matter how little information you impart, you get paid and work few hours to do it. None of this is real world.
Could you have obtained such a result – full dismissal? My actions saved them $450K in damages and perhaps $400K more in legal fees (including, had the other side won, potentially $500K in attorneys fees added to the $450K they sought). In other words, the $450K damage claim, had we gone to trial and lost, was really about $1.4 million, and against the owners personally. Instead, they got out for about $50K in legal fees. How about the $3.7 million jury verdict I just obtained on a complex stock fraud case where I single-handedly represented 22 plaintiffs, and did the direct, re-direct, cross and 776 examinations for every witness, including the defense expert, a person with 40 years of experience and over 400 trials under his belt? I got their expert to admit my clients were defrauded. Do you realistically think that you would stand any chance at all against me if we faced off in open court – assuming you have limited or no trial experience? While law professors perfect their law review articles, I am working hard figuring out how evidence could be excluded, the missing evidence needed to prove my claims, how to trap witnesses at depositions, what questions not to ask a fact witness, etc. How many law graduates could handle any part of this with a worthless legal education? And again, in fairness to the professor, if he has “real world” litigation experience, then I completely respect him for it. However, then why is he fighting my suggestions?
Law School Graduates Are Being Ripped Off When They Learn How To Become A Lawyer After Spending $200K On Their Education.
Point 4. Van Patten cites (correctly, which makes my point again) that law firms (and not law schools) are the training grounds for new lawyers. Law firms simply charge $350 hour for me (in 2006) to learn on the job. I spent a fortune on my legal education and was a functional idiot upon graduation. The top litigation firms give the scut work to the new lawyers, such as tracking down documents, writing memos, and doing basic research, while charging the client a fortune. Then, that work gets reviewed by a more senior associate (at a higher billing rate). Besides the firm itself, who actually benefits from this? Not the customer. The “law professors” put me (and all graduates) in the embarrassing situation of having to get real questions from clients, and not having any idea how to answer them. Oh, that’s right, I was still taught “how to think like a lawyer,” just not how to be one. Got it. Picture a real world situation – I had to defend a client on federal mail and wire fraud charges, involving millions of dollars. A conviction on one charge alone could land him a 20 year sentence. A law school graduate – who holds a doctorate – that cannot do basic legal work is hardly better off than the person seeking the help. Thinking like lawyer means absolutely nothing when a client looks at you with, “Is any of this registering, or should I go elsewhere?”
Law Schools As Trade Schools? Yes!
Point 5. I agree with Professor Van Patten that law schools must function more like trade schools. The three years of “instruction” needs to be three active years of actually learning by doing. As it stands now, law students sit in the class room, tune out, and listen to a lecture that has no value.
But, Law Schools “Teach You To Think Like A Lawyer,” Right? BULLSHIT. Teach Us Instead To Be Lawyers.
Point 6. Well, Mr. Van Patten, like those who drink the Kool-Aid of academia for too long, gets back to the tired line, “…law school is ultimately not about information. It is primarily about how to think like a lawyer. No lie.” Actually, that’s the biggest damn lie that law schools put out. I am not calling Mr. Van Patten a liar. He is entitled to his opinion. If this is his belief, well, good for him. Of course, the disaster that is legal education (cranking out functional idiots without any skills) should be proof that Van Patten is wrong. But, he doesn’t walk in our shoes. Instead, as a law professor, he drives from his home, gets to the office twice per week, works six hours (per week) or so teaching courses, and then plans his weekend, with large breaks of time in between. He, like law professors in general, will work hard a couple a days a semester grading exams, but people doing document review have it much worse, and it’s every day (for lower pay). The ABA has a rule on teaching loads, so it’s not his fault he must work so few hours per week. Like I said, it’s a great job! I don’t recall him addressing this aspect of his working lifestyle in the law review article.
Professor Van Patten Admits That You Won’t Know Much When You Get Your Law Degree – A Doctorate, No Less. Thanks!
Point 7. Professor Van Patten goes off the rails again, with “It is an important skill to recognize one’s lack of knowledge, to recognize what one does not know and to figure out a way to understand and integrate new information.” First, as the lovely Marisa Tomei stated so eloquently in My Cousin Vinny (in response to Joe Pesci saying “I’ll learn as I go”), “Learn as you go?” How do you know what it is that you don’t know.” That’s right, Marisa. Checkmate. I can tell you from first-hand experience, that you won’t know what you don’t know, at least not initially. In law school, I knew nothing about law and motion practice, the 16 court days advance notice (with five calendar days for mailing, etc.). When a motion landed on my desk, I was like, “Uh, what do I do?” I remember reading it a few times (since I learned to “think like a lawyer”), but I was a total dud on what to do in response. So, I “Googled” “motion” and learned a lot of things. Then I had senior associates telling me what NOT to do, and finally, a partner, who scrapped all of my work and started over. Yeah, law school education is so great.
I won’t re-read and analyze this article any further, I have to get back to actual work.
