Cross-Examining the Myth of Lawyers' Misery

This comment will address one important aspect of Professor Schiltz's broader argument, namely his contention that the legal profession is afflicted with widespread job dissatisfaction. More specifically, Schiltz makes the following assertions about lawyers' unhappiness with their professional lives: (1) dissatisfaction is high; (2) dissatisfaction is increasing; and (3) dissatisfaction is highest among lawyers in private practice in large firms.l Using data from a recent survey of Chicago attorneys2 as well as other studies of lawyers' job satisfaction, including those cited by Schiltz, I will address each of these points in turn. I. ARE LAWYERS UNHAPPY IN THEIR WORK? At first glance, the evidence on job satisfaction among lawyers may appear mixed, but upon closer inspection it becomes clear that the most valid, well-designed research has produced little if any support for the notion that lawyers are unhappy in their work. The studies cited by Schiltz range from trade journal surveys to more serious scholarly enterprises, and the significance we attach to their findings should be in direct proportion to the validity and reliability of the research techniques employed. For example, we have no way to assess the quality of the data produced by the fax poll conducted by California Lawyer magazine,3 which finds over half of all lawyers in that state dissatisfied with their careers. Because this survey does not use a random sample of lawyers, but instead relies on the voluntary participation of the magazine's readership, it is highly unlikely to provide a representative picture of the target population. Selection bias occurs in at least two ways: first, the readers of this magazine may not be representative of all California lawyers, and second (and more important), lawyers with an ax to grind may be much more likely to participate in a poll about job satisfaction. The magazine does not even report the total number of respondents to the poll, further diminishing its value as a measure of the attitudes of its target population. Other studies cited by Schiltz as evidence of high dissatisfaction within the bar take a more systematic approach to identifying respondents, but suffer from very low response rates. For example, the survey conducted by the National Law Journal in 19904 had only a 13% response rate, and the survey of large-firm partners conducted by the same publication in 19976 had only an 11% response rate. Such low participation rates undermine the validity of the findings produced by these surveys. Data validity may also be compromised when studies have titles that tip off potential respondents as to the type of information being sought. For example, the American Bar Association surveys conducted in 1984 and 19906 consisted of a mailback questionnaire titled "National Survey of Lawyer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction." Although response rates for these surveys were fairly high, there is no way to know for sure whether disgruntled lawyers were disproportionately willing to participate. Some of these same studies cited by Schiltz produce findings that fail to support his contention that lawyers are largely unhappy in their work. For example, overall findings from the ABA surveys in 1984 and 1990 do not bolster a claim of widespread dissatisfaction in the profession. In the 1984 survey, 81% of respondents were either "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their current job, whereas only 12% were "somewhat dissatisfied" and 3% were "very dissatisfied."7 In 1990, 76% were either "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied," while 14% were "somewhat dissatisfied" and 5% "very dissatisfied."8 These figures hardly suggest job dissatisfaction of crisis proportions in the law. Similarly, the 1990 National Law Journal survey found 31% of respondents "very satisfied" and 48% "somewhat satisfied" with their careers,9 and its 1997 survey of largefirm partners found that 64% of respondents were "happy practicing law. …