Can lawyers be happy?

[DGuller]

Maybe this is true for some, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity would prefer not having to work (which, you will note, is different from "not working"). The gain is in freedom - doing what you want, rather than what you must. 

I suppose such concepts are alien to an accountant. 

For the majority of that vast majority, that will forever remain a dream at least until the retirement age, so they don't find out in practice whether the grass really is greener on the other side.

[Barrister]

How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.

I would disagree even stronger with that.  I think that "not having to work" is far from an unqualified good that you make it to be.  I'm sure some people have plenty of fulfilling things to do to occupy their time without having to work, and some of those people might even find that this is still true after they do indeed stop working, but a lot of people can easily go stir-crazy in an environment when there are no factors that can put pressure on their qualify of life.  Being able to consistently get everything you want is hell, not heaven.

Maybe this is true for some, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity would prefer not having to work (which, you will note, is different from "not working"). The gain is in freedom - doing what you want, rather than what you must. 

I suppose such concepts are alien to an accountant. 

Difference is between what you want, and what makes us happy.  Many of us want things that in the end are unrelated to our long-term happiness.

It occurs to me you know a good example - your friend's trustafarian boyfriend/husband.  He has no need to work.  Do you think he's happier than you are?

[Rasputin]

I've known two lawyers who've committed suicide. The first did so while going through a horrible messy divorce and about a week after losing a trial to me.

Wow was that hard for you?

It was but only because he left behind two young children and I'd had about 6 or so cases against him and knew him pretty well for someone with whom I had no social relationship. I think the divorce and his misery as a lawyer got to him. He was one of those lawyers that believed he was so lucky that only clients who deserved to win showed up in his office and when he lost cases from time to time he became completely unhinged. In one case years prior to his death he became so distraught at a judge giving me a summary judgment that he wrote a nasty letter to the judge. he would have been much happier as an engineer where there are right answers.

[Malthus]

Difference is between what you want, and what makes us happy.  Many of us want things that in the end are unrelated to our long-term happiness.

It occurs to me you know a good example - your friend's trustafarian boyfriend/husband.  He has no need to work.  Do you think he's happier than you are?

The difference there is in character. He really has no interests, which I put down in part to his family being wholly disfunctional, and in part to have never had to rely on himself.

That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.

In short, I would not find that freedom a burden, but an opportunity.

[Valmy]

That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.

Well it is the difference between becoming Roman Emperor as an experienced General at 40 or inheriting it at 16 when your father died. 

[Malthus]

That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.

Well it is the difference between becoming Roman Emperor as an experienced General at 40 or inheriting it at 16 when your father died.

[crazy canuck]

All lawyers should be decimated.

I thought we already did that.  The 1 in 10 was Marti

[Syt]

The premise of the original post's article is faulty because it presumes that lawyers have something resembling human emotions.

[crazy canuck]

The premise of the original post's article is faulty because it presumes that lawyers have something resembling human emotions.

PDH said it better. 

[Berkut]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

[Razgovory]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

Seems legit to me.  Breaking the rules for a client could and very likely will screw them up badly down the road.

[crazy canuck]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

[MadImmortalMan]

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.

Oh? Please explain.  I can see an argument that they can on some rare occasions be antithetical if the law in question is immoral.  But I am not sure how it could be the case that the law and ethical behaviour are "often" at odds.

[Eddie Teach]

What's legal and/or ethical or not is often up to interpretation.