Further insights on the "Happy Lawyer" and the 2/3 Rule

I had heard about the Rule of Thirds, the "2 outta 3 Rule" or the "2/3 Rule" before as applied to business persons and their job satisfaction.  Recently, I ran across a blog that applied it very succinctly to attorneys.   On his blog, Slaw.ca, writer Dan Pinnington asserts that the key to being a "happy lawyer" involves what he calls the "2/3 Rule" (which was handed down from some other attorneys he knew).  Mr. Pinnington's version states that the goal of being a happy lawyer is met PROVIDED that all your clients or cases meet at least 2/3 of the following requirements:

1. You are working on interesting and challenging legal problems.
2. You are working with people you enjoy.
3. You are getting paid for your work.

The more of your clients who satisfy only one of the three requirements (or none of the three), the greater your dissatisfaction.   I was thrilled to run into this theory again as applied to attorneys in private practice.   As I look at my colleagues who walk up and down the courthouse halls like someone just ran over their dog, I started thinking how much more they would enjoy the practice of law if they avoided the 1/3s or 0/3s.   In reflecting on this with some of my office mates, it was interesting as to the priority they would place on the thirds.   The more attorneys I spoke with, the more I found that that all thirds are not equal, depending on where you are in your practice.


An established attorney who is well-versed in his/her craft (and has a good supply of new clients) is far more interested in the second requirement "working with people you enjoy" than the other two.  One such attorney confided in me that to him it's no longer about the money; it's about helping clients who appreciate his help.  "Life is too short to work with clients who drive you crazy."   Potential clients who he knows he will not get along with, get past on.


One attorney I know would likely keep the first requirement at the top.  At his stage of the practice, he ideally likes to take interesting cases.   He loves the research (still hitting the books over online research) and a case of first impression is like finding a pot of gold. 


The rest of us, however, likely focus on the third requirement: "getting paid for your work."  I know to some that may play right into the "greedy lawyer" stereotype.  But while the practice of law is a vocation, it is also an occupation.  To focus on one to the exclusion of the other is a recipe for disaster.  You will burn out quickly if it is all about the money, and you will go out of business if it is only about helping people. 


Even attorneys striking a balance between vocation and occupation, if they do not have steady stream of clients, they may not have the luxury of turning away clients who "they don't enjoy" or clients who do not have "interesting and challenging legal problems."  To attorneys in this category, the rule should be called the "25-25-50" rule.   Having three small children at home (two of whom are in Catholic school) I am willing to compromise and take on clients who I may not get along with, or who do not have interesting cases, and sometimes even both, when I know the client is prepared to pay for my legal services. 


We attorneys should aspire to balance the thirds, but we have to be realistic about the practice of law and our need meet our financial responsibilities, (rent, payroll, and even student loans....).   So, in all honesty, the third requirement should be listed first.


Having stumbled across this theory again, the next attorney I see with his or her head hung low, I might pass on the rule of 2/3 to them.  Maybe shedding a few of the 1/3 clients might make things a little more bearable.


One final reflection, when I look back at my favorite cases, the ones I am most proud to have been a part of, I realize that they involved all three.


Jeff Palzer, Partner
Kellogg & Palzer, P.C.