Litigation
Cal. Litig. VOLUME 37, ISSUE 3, DECEMBER 2024
Content
- Attorney Proffers Post-menendez: How To Make the Risk Worth the Reward
- Chair's Column
- Editor's Foreword: New Leadership Arrives
- How Joining the California Supreme Court Historical Society Can Benefit You
- Inside This Issue
- Over Ruled: the Human Toll of Too Much Law
- PAST SECTION CHAIRS & EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
- Postscript: Updating California's International Arbitration Code
- Presidential Immunity: Precedential Impunity?
- Reconciling the Duty of Zealous Advocacy and Civility
- Remember Korematsu?
- SECTION OFFICERS & EDITORIAL BOARD
- Selected Evidence Issues With Depositions of the Person Most Qualified/Knowledgeable In California and Federal Courts In the Ninth Circuit
- Table of Contents
- The California Supreme Court In Judicial Year 2024: the C.J. Guerrero Era Is Underway
- Who Owns This Sentence?: a History of Copyrights and Wrongs
- Working: Conversations With Essential Workers
- Climbing the Mountain Again
CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN AGAIN
Written by David M. Majchrzak
You never know ’til you reach the top if it was worth the uphill climb. That’s a line from perhaps the one sincere song in Avenue Q, an irreverent musical. But it is a message that I have found holds up in many circumstances. And it is one that particularly resonates with me when considering the practice of law.
The 1921 ABA Root Report urged bars "to prevent the admission of the unfit and to eject the unworthy," and to "purify the stream at its source by causing a proper system of training to be established and to be required." As a result, jurisdictions modified lawyer admissions so that it was no longer possible to seek admission after serving an apprenticeship or simply studying the law. Rather, the report set forth the system that we are now quite familiar with, a requirement to attend law school for three years, pass a written examination, and fulfill the moral character requirements. In short, for those who aspired to practice law, it created a mountain to climb.
Despite these requirements, it is difficult for many people to determine whether the profession is right for them. Despite the inherent rewards of helping clients address some of the most significant issues they will face in their lives, the practice of law is not for everyone. And there are several people who discover early on in the practice â only after admission â that this is not meant to be their life’s work. Of course, they learn this only after having made that initial climb. For many, the most unsettling aspect of this is the multi-day test. Before I sat for the California bar exam in the summer of 2002, I had known some extraordinarily bright people who did not pass that admissions requirement on the first attempt. A skilled test-taker at the time, I went in with the mindset that I was going to sit for a bar exam for the first and last time. Indeed, I prepared in the way that I thought would best position me to do so. I attended Barbri lectures in the mornings and then worked on my physical condition in the afternoon, whether running, playing basketball or tennis, or otherwise trying to match a strong mind with a strong body. And when I left the exam room on the third day, my leg bleeding from repeated bumps against the folding table’s support brace, I was confident that the information I went in with coupled with my skills were more than enough to carry the day. A posting I reviewed that November confirmed I was right.