
Why I Quit Law School and Became a Programmer - ishener
https://plus.google.com/111241211394734927605/posts/WPH7sAMiQHo
======
rayiner
Interesting article, but frankly the idea of an "innovative legal system" is
quite frightening. The whole point of the legal system is to be a predictable
backdrop against which human activity can take place. I don't want to be able
to predict what Silicon Valley will do 10 years from now. I do want to be able
to predict what judges will do 10 years from now!

It's not a sign of decay when the legal system uses principles that are 200+
years old, it's a sign of the fact that the heart of the legal system, dispute
resolution, involves the same issues today that it did hundreds of years ago.

~~~
DannyBee
I wish i could upvote this a billion times.

I don't want to start getting daily plea deal offers from the prosecutor.

"First 50 defendants to sign up get 50% off their sentence!"

~~~
GuiA
And yet, for some fines, pleading guilty will lower the amount by ~50%
($550->$350 for a traffic violation in the recent experience of an
acquaintance of mine).

~~~
tptacek
Traffic violations are probably a bad example.

(1) Judging cases imposes huge administrative costs. Somebody has to pay those
costs; if it isn't you, it's everybody else. Particularly with moving
violations, where offenses are so widespread and the cost of admitting guilt
is so low and where so many people have interface with the legal system, it
makes sense to charge people who force costly adjudication that later proves
pointless (which is what a discount for a guilty plea effectively does).

(2) The fines associated with most traffic violations are artificially low.
Although any one person who speeds or runs a red light is unlikely in that one
instance to grievously harm someone, people who drive carelessly as a cohort
impose enormous costs on the rest of society, and those costs simply aren't
priced into the $300 you pay for a 55-in-a-35 speeding ticket.

------
smalter
This is a case where I think Cal Newport's arguments are on point: it's not
about your passion, it's about your skills. Or as a lawyer friend put it to me
when we were working together on a late night at an elite NYC law firm: "Law
is only good when you can write your own ticket."

All of the OP's statements are true but also not true. For example: law is
about authority, computers reject authority. What is authority? In some sense,
it's just network effect. A sufficient number of people have agreed on an
argument, therefore it won't be disturbed unless there's a very good reason.
Same goes with computers.

Innovation vs. Applying past wisdom: The law's not so myopic to only look to
the past. It considers the accumulated wisdom of the past to determine what to
do now. In fact, the law is changing rapidly in part in response to
technological innovation (and the increasing complexity of government and
modern life). The question is whether past rationale makes sense under current
conditions. Under that frame, innovation and disruption happens in the law --
consider the law & economics movement, for instance, or critical legal theory.

The question isn't whether law or programming is inherently more innovative,
it's where you're situated.

If you're arguing cases before the Supreme Court, you are dealing with the
cutting edge of law and you are constantly looking at new cases that come out
and analyzing how their rationale opens up new arguments and reflects new ways
to attack existing decisions. The problem is that to do that, you have to be
the best of the best.

If you're a programmer at a huge corporation working on maintaining a legacy
system, you probably think you have the dullest job in the world in a field
where nothing changes.

No doubt, real differences exist between law and programming, although they
are remarkably similar. Nevertheless, I think Newport is on point when he
talks about just how important excellence is to appreciating and enjoying your
craft.

~~~
esurc
> real differences exist between law and programming, although they are
> remarkably similar.

As someone who (perhaps like you) practices law and does some programming, I
wanted to agree with this statement. The fields are remarkably similar. If you
gathered a list of "best practices" for writing good code and a second list of
prescriptions for writing good legal briefs, it's striking how much advice
overlaps. That's because clear thinking about complex systems is the heart of
both worlds, and both sets of professionals have to (working within a set of
constraints and syntax) work out an elegant solution that can be readily
understood by their peers.

As for the OP, the first year of law school has a habit of shattering whatever
hazy dreams people bring with them. If he now wants to hone his programming
skills instead --- and in this economic climate for lawyers, that seems like
the safer bet --- then I wish him well.

------
imechura
I know this is anecdotal, however after topping out salary-wise in the
programming field after 11 years, I often wish I would have gone the law
school route. Don't get me wrong, it is a good living. Its just not on par
with an I.P. lawyer or general council with an equal amount of education and
tenure.

I just don't see many options available to a tenured programmer beyond the
obvious (stop programming) and the extremely risky (join a start-up w/
equity). Whereas a decade of dedicated service in the right law firm can lead
to partner status which often times is a lucrative engagement.

~~~
joonix
No, you won't make partner. Nobody does anymore. It's more risky to go to law
school with hopes of being partner than to join a startup.

You should factor in quality of life, predictability of work hours and number
of them, hourly billing requirements, quality of people you will work with
(shitty), job security (shitty), and debt ($240k+ at high interest rates!).

IP is hot right now, but it might not be in a few years, and demand for your
technical background may wane. Software patents are shaky anyways.

Don't ruin your life. If you absolutely want something else, why not try a top
MBA? Technical expertise may help you.

I'm a newly minted lawyer who wishes he went the programming (or maybe IT)
route.

------
tzs
OT: Am I just being an idiot, or is it very non obvious what one has to do to
see more than a couple of lines of Google Plus posts on an iPad?

I finally figured out that hitting the share icon brings up the full post and
an edit box so I can add my thoughts, but that seems unintuitive to me. I
would not normally hit a share link until after reading something. Is that
really the way they intend it to work?

------
jacques_chester
Mannnn, back when I was a law student I had similarly _deep_ and _profound_
notions about how Lawyers Just Didn't Get It.

Turns out, good lawyers are kinda smart. Like doctors, obnoxiously so.

In Common Law jurisdictions, the law is an evolved complex system.

It is complicated because the problem domain -- _everything humans do_ \-- is
sorta kinda complex, guys.

Don't think of law as a fixed entity, which "is an ass".

Think of law as a _discovery process_.

------
gailees
I feel like I've seen this story before....interesting, nonetheless!

