IPUpdate has the results of research by Dr Larry Richard of Hildebrandt International assessing the personality types of lawyers.
This came out as being typically INTJ: perfectionist, narrow topic specific self-confidence, bad at personal relationships (sigh:( so true, so true) incompetent at social rituals (small talk flirting etc.), pragmatic perfectionist system builders to the point of obsession. Ever asking “make sense to me.”
Dr Richard assessed scepticism autonomy and urgency as way over average, but resilience as under average. ‘Sociability’ was said to be on the level of a block of wood for lawyers, but Geeklawyer can’t entirely agree with that. It may depend on the definition of ‘sociability’; if it’s merely a matter of conviviality then it’s wrong, as anyone witnessing Geeklawyer carousing into the night would attest but if it’s a broader matter of social interactions, in depth, then perhaps.
Would the lawyers reading this agree?
My sense is that he’s bang on except for the sociability aspect. I think that’s bang-on for about 70–80% of the lawyer population, but that there is a solid 20–30% who excel at the interpersonal stuff, and thrive in highly social environments. Many of them go crazy and start chewing the carpet etc. at large firms. I think I’m a pretty convivial guy, and the inward-looking culture of BigLaw drove me nuts — though I left before I started on the carpets
My experience is that there is a big distinction between civil and criminal lawyers, solicitors and barristers. To the criminal bar flirting comes as naturally as breathing; typically their egos are matched only in size by their libidos. Solicitors on average are more sociable and have better social skills than barristers; its a survivial characteristic, if you can’t get along with your colleagues and your clients you won’t get far. Solicitors are trained to hunt in packs, barristers are lone scavengers.
As far as the perfectionism goes, I fear this is a malaise suffered by many young professionals. We’re Thatcher’s children; and frequently products of aspirant parents. Two generations ago you were born working class and stayed working class. There were never any disappointed expectations because there were no expections. Suddenly we’re all supposedly able to do or be anything and we’re overwhelmed with choices and expectations.
Perfectionism, I understand, is a by product of a child who was required to earn love. Therefore there is no inner sense of self worth and value is always judged relative to external sources. The danger is that no matter how much is achieved you can never achieve contentment because nothing is ever good enough…
If you are having problems with relationships consider whether you are applying your standards of perfection not only to your work, but also to your partners. Is it rather that you have nice partners, but they are never quite good enough?
Equally don’ t believe the myth that everyone out there is having wonderful relationships. Remember about a third of marriages end in divorce. Success is relative, maybe success is deciding not to marry the person that was unsuitable, rather than just going through with it in the hope that everything will work out. Also relationships can be hard work…
There’s a lot of pressure on people to get married and be seen to be in a relationship. Don’t be made to feel that being single is some kind of sub-standard existence. In Victorian times it was normal for certain sections of the population to remain single. Its only since the second world war that the pressure has arisen for everyone to be married. There seems to me to be increasing pressure of late as the goverment is concerned that the birth rate is dropping through the floor and there will be no one to pay for their pensions.
One thing is certain; fretting about it won’t help. I think if you can learn to be happy with yourself then you are at the right starting place for a relationship with someone else.
I did read that barristers tend to be drawn from families where there is suppressed anger. The courtroom is a venue where thoughts can be expressed in a santised, emotion free public forum. Not dissimilar to a blog I guess.…
For a nanosecond there I actually felt a bit sorry for Geeklawyer. I can see him now, scraping a living, sitting hunched over his terminal in a freezing flat somewhere alone munching on a Pot Noodle…
I suspect that the reality is rather more Blofelt: banks of gleaming computer screens programmed for world domination in an opulent mansion.
No chance you might be angling for a date then? Maybe female readers of this blog will now be mailing you in their thousands..
The image of Geeklawyer being in a starving garret, just does not fit.
Now the image of sitting in Alpine splendour with views across cityscapes with diamond encrusted pussy on lap.….
But the Intro/Extrovert etc analysis is too loose to put all lawyers in one category. Those of us in other professions do sometimes lump all lawyers together but normally only after seeing a large fee note!
Likewise the stereotypical outlooks of families of the 50/60’s as to the prospects of their offspring has surely now changed. I believe that whilst there are doors more easily opened to those with the right social key to life provided by their family and educational history, that there is no door that is locked to gifted individuals.
I had always thought that barristers were intellegent actors who thought the “life at the bar” sounded better than “treading the boards”. Perhaps they are morning people rater than night owls.
If Ruthie thinks Geeklawyer is angling for a date, is she offereing? or is she looking for thousands of offers from males.
Please Miss, here Miss, me first, please please pretty please… etc ad nauseam
Please. Gentlemen. Form an orderly queue…
If you are male and the owner of a Harley Davidson (or preferably an Indian Dakota 4 Classic Deluxe) and a Grand Piano, you will be considered. Bear in mind you will also need the patience of a saint…:-)
Hi. I was reading about the personality of the Lawyer in the internet and foind this thread, and would like to give my own cent to it.
I´m a Lawyer myself and most probably INTJ (most MB tests said that, but with quite balanced I/E and P/J, sometimes I doubt the J), so would exactly fit the profile. INTJ certainly helps for the aspects of the profession that involve legal reasoning, conceptualizing, silogism and writing petitions. That is, for the study of law, it´s the typical profile. It´s an excellent profile for a Jurist.
But there´s much more to be a Lawyer than that. A Lawyer is something quite different from a Jurist (Jurists can become Judges, or prosecuters, professors or public administrator etc.)
I´m Brazilian and live in Brazil, but have lived for a while in Europe. At least here (and I think this applies to other latin cultures, like Italy, but also to business driven America), a Lawyer is above all a solver of problems.
Much more than to know the Law and be able to find brilliant legal and logical arguments, the day-to-day work o a Lawyer involves negotiating with clients and the attorneys of the other side. A Lawyer has to improvise, convince, talk and find creative solutions that are interesting for his client, taking into account other factors than legal arguments, most important of all, economics. In my experience, the legal and judicial aspects of the matter are just another card in the broader game, a very important card, that´s true, but just that.
In Brazil, a Lawyer with the sociability of a block of wood would starve…
In fact, here the stereotype of the Lawyer also involves that aspect of cunningness and even greasy salesmanship, not so much that of the reclusive professor-like legal mastermind.
So, far from attacking the research, I just wanted to put this thought for discussion too. In how far is the INTJ profile of the “typical” Lawyer really suited/fitting for today´s Lawyers? I´m saying that also because I, who am INTJ, am looking for other professions in the legal sector, exactly because I think that my personality doesn´t really fit for that kind of Lawyer.
“perfectionist, narrow topic specific self-confidence, bad at personal relationships (sigh:( so true, so true) incompetent at social rituals (small talk flirting etc.), pragmatic perfectionist system builders to the point of obsession.…”
Hi, Rob–and “others”. I agree with you–would put percentage of people with people skills at about 15%, though. A lot of us rise to occasion–but it’s an act.
This, to me, is a serious problem–taken me 20 years to really discover.
With the exception of many (not all) trial/contentious work people–where thankfully we have a few functioning narcissists–the guy’s right. Nothing brilliant about it: trust me, lawyers everywhere are “geek city”. All over world. The general public has no idea.…they’d kill us in our sleep if they knew. Or at least make up more lawyer jokes with lack of courage as the main themes of lack of courage and no self-confidence. I think the lawyer personality is a type–and it hurts clients. I am convinced we are a wimpy group.
Yeah, I realised this some time ago and knew that you would never summon up the courage to ask me so I’ve bought the ring and booked the wedding…and sent the bill to the finance department at your Philadelphia office. I figured they wouldn’t notice amongst all the bills for your self-help books, and so far I appear to be correct.
Incidentally, jury trial lawyers tend to fall outside the steroetype, since an inability to empathise and lack of confidence is a major draw back if you are trying to persuade 12 members of public why they should or should not convict.
Guilty, yes–and trial lawyers really ARE different, at least when working. Empathy and supreme confidence are an odd couple, but most trial people have them both.