Comments on: Gunners and the Perils of Waking and Baking (Nuggets, Vol. VIII)

By: enrique

enrique — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:05:44 +0000

oddly enough, after reading all of your stories i have nearly changed my mind on my career path and decided to move towards law. i have no idea why or the reasoning behind it but the more i think about it, the more the idea of the profession intrigues me. before reading your posts i had dismissed law completely in my mind and decided that finance was the way for me. any comments you have or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
PL: If you have the grades and ability to get into finance and you choose law in my estimation and the estimation of probably eighty percent of the people in both fields you are card carrying crazy.
Instead of going into law school right out of college, which is the worst move any person can make (law school should only be entered after someone has worked a while), why don’t you work in finance first and decide if you like it? That’s a win/win. Blowing cash on law school to learn you don’t like it and should have gone into finance is doing it ass backward.
Never go to law school without knowing exactly what you’re getting into and that it’s exactly what you want to do. That’s the worst decision in the world, and the reason so many lawyers are so wretchedly unhappy.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:13:52 +0000

If you go to the right school, the “Gentleman’s C” is given without asking–if you’ve done it right, that is.
My school had a “course forgiveness” policy – if you got a D+ or worse, you could retake the course with zero consequence. I had a finance course that was horrifically mundane; even the dumb kids were bored. Attendance was also 30% of the grade. I was fairly vocal to my prof regarding my opinion of him and his class (Really, no finance major needs an entire project devoted to teaching “the time value of money”) and I was kind of hoping for the failling grade.
He gave me a C-, which I can only assume meant he hated me and thought I should fail, but did not want to see me ever again.
PL: My school was notorious for a similar non-failing policy. But every now and again you’d run into an idealist…

By: mt

mt — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:20:37 +0000

Great read as always. A girlfriend’s dad used to work on nuclear missiles for the army, and always went to work stoned. Apparently the rehab guys call what you’re describing here “state-dependent learning.” Somehow being stoned requires you to re-learn skills you picked up sober; that being sober requires you to re-learn skills you picked up stoned.
PL: This explains my scotch drinking problem. I’m twice the advocate after a scotch as I am dead sober. It seems to smooth all the edges and cause me to forget all the little things I absorb in the moment, causing me to veer off point. Only works with scotch. Bourbon and beer and vodka, no way. And baked? Forget it.
I can’t add any comment that would improve the fact this person works on nuclear missiles. That’s better left to stand on its own.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:46:58 +0000

Kevin is a hero. Constitutional law is the most important in this country, and it is being ignored. Haha -I know- but apathy isn’t funny.
PL: Apathy is wildly underrated. Let’s face it – most people don’t have much useful to add to our discourse (including, I’m sure many would conclude, me). We’d be better off in this country if 99% of the opinionated or “involved” weren’t. If there was one quality I wish I had more of it would be apathy.
How many hours of cable news are already devoted to people sniping at one another about nothing, never listening to what the other side has to say and always focused on that one simple end – looking like they’re “winning”? A person who’d pay to be encouraged toward that skill has little basis to consider himself intelligent enough to excel in anything, including debate.

By: Ryan S

Ryan S — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:08:35 +0000

I’ve been a fan of yours for awhile now. I loved this post in particular, so I decided to comment on it.
I agree 100% with your analysis in one of the other comments about legal education. I have just finished my first year of law school. About half of the students I can stand, the other half are absolutely terrible. It’s as if becoming an attorney empowers them; like it is some great, honorable profession that they read about in John Grisham novels.
I knew coming in I wanted to work for a small to mid-sized firm. This past year has driven that point home. 98% of the students who clerk for big firms are terrible. I’m convinced none of these people knew how to get laid before being able to tell people, “Oh, I’m going to be a lawyer.” This is why big firms need social consultants: look at the general social make-up of the people who finish in the top 10% of each law class.
Look forward to the book.
PL: The average uber-law-student is what I’d call an “aggressive insignificant.” They’re overcoming something, and I’m not sure what it is, but think about it… What sort of person would want to spend his life fighting over minutiae? In fairness, however, transactional lawyers tend to be a more decent sort. The kinds who want to work in litigation, and live for it often have serious issues. You have to be a sick ticket to want to spend your life arguing and bickering all day, and all of it over mostly worthless procedural gibberish.
In fairness, also, litigators I’ve worked with in other areas, specifically New York, seem to be a better sort. Philadelphia has this “fight, fight, fight” mentality. Many people in the city tend to be unnecessarily quarrelsome. It’s fucked up, pathological. If you drive thirty miles to Wilmington, DE you’ll find a much more pleasant bar. And New Jersey isn’t bad either. But Philly… I don’t know why, but it’s a mean, mean place.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:28:30 +0000

You say gunner…we weren’t as nice…podium whore was the term of art where I did my three year sentence. Still don’t get why people can be impressed with the piece of paper hanging on my wall. If they only knew the truth.
Great read.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:20:35 +0000

I never comment but am a long time reader and thoroughly enjoy all your stories. Thanks for sharing!!
PL: Happy to do so. More to come soon.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:25:06 +0000

Nope, you’re right, it wasn’t.
That settles it, I need to go to the optometrist.

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:40:37 +0000

Regarding “the gunner”: It is incredible how different the Law gunner is from the corporate big shot gunner.
It may be the difference in industry, but in my company the trend is as follows: The higher up you are, and the more you speak and argue…the less you actually know what the hell it is that you are talking about.
It’s a wonder we have survived as long as we did, in a company where the COO of an ISP has no idea about the basics of technology, yet will spit out acronyms and lingo with the best of them.
I’m sure that happens in your field as well; an argumentative bloke who essentially attempts to filibuster the opposing argument, or the nervous newbie who simply does not yet know the concept of brevity.
Anyway, good post, and I look forward to the book.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:39:31 +0000

My first experience with a “gunner” occurred during law-school orientation. The chief justice of our state’s supreme court addressed the incoming students, and took a few questions afterward from the crowd. Unfortunately, the judge called on the guy who would eventually become our class’s most notorious gunner. This asshole proceeded to ask a 2 1/2 minute question that included a reference to two Supreme Court opinions and a lengthy quote from the Federalist Papers. My outlook on life would never be the same.