by Barb Howard
We are
moving. Packing must begin. But, first, a weeding out of the things that should
not be packed. The junk. I bravely start in our ersatz storage space—known as
the crap closet. In the closet, along with ski boots that don’t fit anyone in
our house, a loosely-strung badminton racket, a ball pump, and a clothes iron
(so that’s
where it was!), there are certificates of education of the type that one might
hang on an office wall if one didn’t work primarily in one’s kitchen. Among
them is my law degree. Roughly three times larger than the others—making it
about the height of a beer fridge—the law degree stands out from the pack. There
it is: ironic (given its relative size and how little law I practiced), non-reflective
(figuratively, but also literally because I paid for non-reflective glass), and,
frankly, with all its self-importance and Latin curlicue-ness, kind of goofy. I
won’t go so far as to say the degree looks like a joke.
How many lawyers does it take to screw in
a light bulb?
I
practiced law in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The tasks I was given as an articling
student and junior associate kept me busy and in lawyer clothes (it was the
no-shoulder-pad-is-too-big era). By setting up small companies, closing down
small companies, and telling individuals why they should become small
companies, I thought I was successfully doing what downtown people did. Company
stuff! I had only worked in an office once in my life—at a summer job where my
main responsibility was to write tiny words on tabs for file folders and which
I quit spur-of-the-moment when I got offered a job as a canoeing instructor. In
any event, at the law firm I didn’t trouble myself with the larger picture of
what I was accomplishing or about how much law I was actually practicing. I was
twenty-five years old and making money. In one performance review I was told
that I smiled a lot. Too late, I realized that was a tip-off, a hint that I
wasn’t going to be smiling for much longer.
The managing
partner, the guy with the manicured hands and perpetual ski tan, soon invited
me to his office to tell me, essentially, to take my smiling face, my shoulder
pads, and briefcase, home for good. He said I seemed nice but that I never
seemed to “get it” (“it” being the practice of a law, I guess) and suggested
another profession, really any other profession, might be a better fit for me. He
said, recalling the recent firm ski trip, that he hoped that we would cross
paths on the slopes sometime. On my walk home I imagined how we might cross
paths on the ski hill and the managing partner did not fare well in any of the
scenarios.
“Let
go” was the euphemism for firing in those days—the odd implication being that there
was new-found freedom involved, that it was a fine thing to be let go from your
salary. If I was smiling when I got let go, it was just out of bad habit. Mostly
I was wishing I had been plain fired, not let go. Being fired sounded like chutzpah
and moral outrage were involved. Like I stood up for something. (Smiling?)
Hey, I
don’t know how many lawyers it takes to screw in a light bulb. I didn’t
practice long enough. But I do know they should all go about it very very seriously.
No smiling. And I also know that skiing skills won’t necessarily keep them on
the lightbulb team.
What do you call ten law students buried
up to their necks in sand?
I
arrived at my legal training through an indirect path. I liked the outdoors and
so, after high school, I enrolled in the faculty of Forestry at a west coast university.
To the eighteen-year-old me, that was a logical move. (I didn’t learn about
logic until law school, and I didn’t pretend to be logical until I had
children.) My parents seemed doubtful. My dad started referring to me as Smokey
the Bear. He was a lawyer, which at first glance may seem highly significant to
me and my law degree. And I suppose that it was. However, and I know this will
be unbelievable to anyone who, unlike me, grew up in a “tell us about your day”
type of family, I had no idea what being a lawyer meant or what my dad did at
work. He never talked about it other than to refer to it generically as “the
office” or “work.” As in, “I’m going to the office” or “some of us have to work.”
Certainly, because my dad was a lawyer, I knew that there were such things as
lawyers. But I’d like to think I could have figured that much out myself.
My
mother, a woman of quiet wit and uber calm, and with the power to crush any ill-conceived
dream with a single practical observation, suggested I shouldn’t feel pressured
to go to university just because my older siblings were degree holders. She
said there were other options for people like me. Like me? You know, she said, outdoorsy
types. Sporty types. I should have given her words more thought but, at the
time, with my teenage chip on one shoulder and my teenage ego on the other
shoulder, it felt like she was calling me that old cliché—the dumb jock. Come
to think of it, she probably was calling me that.
So, of
course, being eighteen, I ignored everyone’s input and forged ahead with my
Forestry plan and, of course, soon discovered that hiking in the woods was not
the same thing as identifying the woods, understanding the woods or, for that
matter, cutting down the woods. This was long enough ago that, even though the
course content no longer reflected it, the hearty refrain to my faculty song was
"cut, burn, and pave!" I learned a few things about nurse logs, cork
boots, and waterproof pencils. Still, there was a problem. I liked the words
dendrology and silviculture more than I liked studying dendrology and
silviculture. While I was in Forestry, I was also taking English courses. In
Forestry, we could only read good books in our spare time, whereas in English we
read good books as part of our course work. And, full disclosure, I got better
marks in English.
One
night, at a gathering of the woodchoppers at the university pub, I confessed to
a Forestry prof that I was thinking of switching to the faculty of English. He
said, do it. Then he bought me a beer by way of celebration. I never was sure
if we were celebrating me or celebrating the fact that Forestry would be rid (let
go!) of me. (In fact, they weren’t rid of me—for years I stayed on their
intramural teams and hung around their parties like an invasive species.)
So I
finished in English. And then, like thousands of uncreative Arts students
before and after me, saw no way to make a living other than by attending that
privileged temporary haven from the working world: law school. Long story
short: I did not distinguish myself in law school (except perhaps that one
night on the broomball rink) but I did graduate and obtain the large
certificate that ended up in my crap closet.
What
would I call ten law students buried up to their necks in sand? Drunk. Once
your gut is full of beer and law student comradery, burying yourself in sand
might seem like a grand idea. A funny photo op. I came home from my first year
of law school so bloated with boozing that I looked like a puffer fish. In my
graduation photo, two years later, there is no visible improvement. Maybe a
better question would be to ask how many law students of that era became full
blown alcoholics during or after law school. That’s a stat that should be kept.
Still, from what little I remember, it was super fun. I was probably smiling
the whole time.
How do you save a drowning lawyer?
I articled
and practiced briefly at the aforementioned firm, and then, after being let go
by said firm, I got a job at a big-ass oil company. What let-go Calgary lawyer
from my era didn’t work at an oil company? Oil companies were welcoming and, in
those days, didn’t seem to expect too much from workers at my level. No nights
or weekends, every third Friday off, and a helluva Stampede party. At the oil
company it seemed no one ever missed lunch. Lunch was important. I spent mine on
a bench in the Devonian Gardens—writing stories. I wrote fiction. But, sure, a few law colleagues, barely disguised, might have ended up
on the page. Some as heroes and heroines, some as ski-tanned nutbars. The oil
patch job wasn’t exactly drowning me, but the writing certainly buoyed me. More
writing, I decided, would be a good thing.
I left
the oil company for a legal writing job that I could do mostly from home. I wrote
case summaries at a publishing company that was a de facto holding pen for
pregnant lawyers, female lawyers with preschool children, and female lawyers
who did not “get” the profession. I fit all those categories. Although lawyers
are typically portrayed as being long winded, the women in the holding pen were
efficient with words. They didn’t have time to fuss around. They knew their
shit. They didn’t take shit. That was impressive. However, in the world beyond
the holding pen, the job was seen as lower grade. Women’s work. Once tainted
with a case summaries job, it was a rare lawyer who could claw their way back to
private practice.
When I worked for the legal publisher, I did my summaries at home
and, once a week, I put on some shoulder pads (smaller ones than I wore in the ‘80s)
and drove a floppy, yet succinct, disk of my words to the downtown office. Email
was newfangled and considered too risky a conduit for this type of
groundbreaking information. While working from home, with no overlord to keep
track of how I was using my time, I began writing fiction during the daylight
time when my kids were at daycare--which is when I was, in theory, supposed to
be writing the case summaries. I also began a lifelong practice of
rationalizing my outdoor activity time as the same as working out in a downtown
gym over lunch. This all led to a panicked writing of the case summaries in the
middle of the night when my kids were asleep. I learned this skill of burning
the candle at both ends at law school, and am thankful to have it. Others might
call it time mismanagement.
I quit
the legal summaries job, my last law-ish job, when the publishing company
decided they wanted everyone to work in the office. That would have thrown a
wrench into my fiction-by-day, law-by-night, outdoor-activity-whenever-I-felt-like-it
system. I began calling myself a writer even though most people rolled their
eyes. Twenty years ago I wrote a contest-winning story (loosely linking a beekeeper
and a kid I threw up with in elementary school after we binged on powdered
Kool-Aid) in Canadian Lawyer and established—at least to the five or six people
who read it—that I did indeed do some writing. I was no John Grisham. No
William Deverell, although their names were, and are still, mentioned to me at every
turn. In any event, with that resounding one-story success and an unhinged optimistic
view of how fast my literary star would rise (still waiting on that …), I
settled into my writing life.
How do
you save a drowning lawyer? One answer might be: send her to a legal publisher
where, outside of the traditional legal pools, she is able to envision writing
as a career. Throw her a life ring and let her kick to a different shore.
A lawyer, a writer, and a marriage
commissioner walk into a bar.
Over
the decades I’ve gone through various phases in my relationship with my lawyer-past.
My bios, supplied for stories and books and events and in courses I teach, illustrate
a shaky progression. When I first declared myself as a writer I didn’t have any
publications and so I used my lawyer-past to flesh out an otherwise empty bio.
I felt it said, hey, give me time, I was busy before this run at writing. And,
I was proud I had made it through law school, albeit without flying colours. I
only practiced for a few years but I did have that oversized degree as tangible
proof that I graduated. Then, about fifteen years ago, after a few publications
and around the time I was working on an MA in Creative Writing, I entered a
phase of embarrassment that I ever was a lawyer. I met a few established
writers who told me they could have gone to law school but they didn’t because they
knew it would suck out their souls. One writer told me she went to law school
for one year and then dropped out because it was conformist and restricting.
They all indicated they were SO not lawyer material, and I understood it, as I
believe it was intended, to mean that lawyer material was a bad thing. I took “lawyer”
out of my bio and entered a period of pretending that I had no educational or
working past, that I emerged fully-formed from a creative writing petri dish. I
did a fine job of deleting from my bio not just the lawyer aspects but all the traditional
and comfortable trappings in my life, including my husband, my kids, my
proclivity for (and free time for) outdoor activities. I assumed “lawyer,” and
all my other life accoutrements, made me look too mainstream and shoulder-padded
to possess any creative abilities.
More
recently, I have re-introduced “former lawyer” into my bios, in part because I
have been digging around in my lawyer past, and in law in general, and I am exploring
the interface between law and writing. Many individuals participate in both
professions. In the creative writing classes I teach there is usually at least
one lawyer enrolled. One obvious overlap is that lawyers and writers draft,
edit and nitpick over written words. In my experience, both lawyers and writers
tend to read widely beyond their job requirements. Of more interest to me,
though, is the way both professions are based on narrative. In law, the story—the
“what happened” or the “what if this happened”—underlies everything. The five
w’s (who, what, where, when, why) of storytelling could form an outline for any
lawyer interviewing a client, building a case, or drafting a contract.
Lawyers
and writers are trained to look at scenarios from every angle. Writers call those
angles Points of View and while they might only choose one or two through which
to tell a story, an experienced writer will consider all the Points of View, the
mindset of all the main characters, in order to create a rounded text.
Similarly, a lawyer must study a legal situation from the perspective of all
the stakeholders, or characters, in order to not leave holes in a contract or
court case.
In a
civil suit, the parties are usually called the plaintiff and the defendant. In Canadian
criminal cases, the parties are usually called the accused and the Crown. In
contractual documents, the sides are often called the something-or and the
something-ee. In writing, similarly, the parties to the story are often called protagonists
and antagonists. In real-life law and in most good writing, the sides are
rarely as clear and dichotomous as the models suggest. Perhaps someone is
withholding information, perhaps someone’s backstory makes unreasonable actions
seem more reasonable, perhaps a third party, a secondary character, arises and throws
a wrench into the expected narrative. It’s the grey areas that make both law
and literature interesting. Arguably, it’s the grey areas that make literature,
well, literature.
There are also commonalities in the nature of the relationship between lawyers/writers and their clients/readers. That is, the very relationships that are the source of their incomes. Just as there is a contract between a lawyer and her client, there is an implied contract between an author and her reader. A client expects a lawyer to handle their narrative situation. A contract is formed when the client pays the consideration of a retainer or fee. Similarly, be it fiction or nonfiction, a reader expects the author to handle and deliver a story. Arguably, a contract is formed when the reader buys a book. Arguably, a contract is formed when any reader, not just the book purchaser, opens a book and puts their trust in the author to spin a story. If you open my book and fall asleep after two pages, I probably have not upheld my writer-end of the contract. I haven’t delivered the goods.
And, finally, lawyers and writers
provide checks and balances on each other. Through stories, writers remind lawyers
that they could be as upstanding as Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch (“upstanding” in
the way he is generally viewed to be in To
Kill a Mockingbird as opposed to recent deconstructions and his portrayal in
Go Set a Watchman) or as vile as
Charles Dickens’ Mr. Vholes (the name says it all). Writers create works that
warn lawyers that if they don’t take care of the institution of law they could
produce folly or unfairness or worse. The term kafka-esque would not have
arisen without a writer (and, as it happens, an insurance lawyer) named Franz
Kafka.Lawyers provide assistance and legal balance for writers. Most
writers can’t afford a lawyer but, when a situation goes really bad, who you
gonna call? Maybe a publisher or a writing organization who calls a lawyer on
your behalf? Maybe a friend of friend of a guy who used to date your neighbor is
a lawyer who feels the need to address copyright breaches, disappearing
publishers, libel suits, and the Will your famous writer-spouse forgot to draw
up? When they are available and affordable, lawyers can be useful. And at the
highest level of the law, the union between lawyers and writers is forever
sealed because lawyers are integral to maintaining that key Charter right for
writers: freedom of expression.
What's the difference between a dead skunk and a lapsed
lawyer?
Perhaps I’m dreaming, but
I’d like to think that there are many differences between a dead skunk and a
lapsed lawyer. At the very least, there seem to be some obvious physical
differences like, say, the number of legs.
A similarity between the
dead skunk and this lapsed lawyer is that neither of us can practice law. I had
one short phase of thinking I might re-write the Bar exams and re-enter the
legal world. But, like the skunk, that phase died. The process would cost too
much money, take too much time, and I had too little interest. It galls me to
say it, but maybe that managing partner who said I didn’t “get it” was right.
Back
to the crap closet and my law degree. I decide to keep the iron, thinking I will
try a few sessions with it but feeling pretty sure that I don’t own enough
iron-able clothes to make it a serious pastime. I fill a garbage bag with fossilized
runners, hazy swim goggles, and all the other items that will never be used or
re-used by anyone, and I drive to the local dump. Among the things I toss in? My
law degree. I never missed it when it was in the closet and it’s just too big
for where I’m headed. I don’t know if I “get” what I am doing now, or if I am
better at it than I would have been as a lawyer, but I do know that I am
enjoying the direction. I have no regrets about getting that degree and no
regrets about dumping the physical representation of it.
A few
more differences between a dead skunk and this lapsed lawyer? Okay, one of them
is alive. And that one is still smiling, not at the dead skunk or at a joke,
but at how things have a way of working out over time.
Barb
Howard is the author of
the short story collection Western
Taxidermy which was a finalist at the High Plains Book Awards and a winner
of the Canadian Authors Association Exporting Alberta Award. She has won the
Howard O'Hagan Award for short story, published three novels, and is currently
writing, at a snail’s pace, a book about law and literature. Barb lives in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. www.barbhoward.ca