"I sometimes find myself having to hold my tongue at client receptions and team building days/dinners etc, when more senior lawyers express views that I disagree with (on topics unrelated to work, such as fox hunting and the like). I hate the kind of people you meet at corporate days out, like shooting. Should I develop a work persona that just agrees with the views that are anathema to mine, or should I stick to my guns at work as well as outside the office?"
Click 'Comment on this article' to post your advice in confidence - or click here to share your wisdom on the Legal Week Wiki, where no topic is off limits. Rate or slate your firm and its rivals with our ground-breaking insider's guide to City law.
And remember, Career Clinic is only as good as the questions we receive, so email your career conundrums to community@legalweek.com.
Smile, keep quiet and try to find those lawyers you can get on with. There are probably things you do that others don't like, but we should tolerate each other's foibles (within reason). If you don't agree with fox-hunting, or find the constant discussions about the trials and tribulations of finding the right nanny or private school or whatever boring and tedious, simply try to steer the subject in a safer direction.
For the first few years of my professional life, I failed to bite my tongue and, as I am quite opinionated, found myself upset about others' views and alienated in the workplace. However, once I relaxed a little into a 'live and let live' attitude, not only did work get easier but I found that people respected my contrary views more. You have to pick your issues: don't feel strongly about every transgression of your moral code but do stand up for what you really believe in. Try making jokes about views you disagree with: you still make your point but is much less aggressive. You don't have to be someone else at work but you do need to remember it is primarily about your work, not your social life: if you find that you really can't be any version of yourself, move firm as work isn't worth being unhappy for. Good luck.
One thing I would say is that if you are going to challenge people's views, make sure you're well-informed. Someone once interrupted a private conversation I was having at one of these events presuming that the hunting I was talking about was fox hunting, when it was drag hunting - an entirely different kettle of fish - he didn't know the difference and I didn't bother educating him as he was too annoying, so he probably still thinks he's right. I'm not accusing you of being so obnoxious, but I think if we all limit our judgemental comments to things we really know about there would be far fewer times when would be itching to get our point accross.
The answer to this question is simple: offer your opinion if asked for it, and don't be too extreme about how you present it. I am quite an opinionated person but there is no need to force this onto others, especially in the workplace where it can only work to your disadvantage. I don't feel that this compromises my views as I do not lie if asked for my opinion.
Good advice above. Also, if you are offended by fox hunting, perhaps in future you should skip corporate days out that involve shooting, as it would probably be difficult to hide your displeasure at such an event. You certainly wouldn't be bonding with colleagues or making a good impression on your superiors in that case, nor should you have to pretend to enjoy yourself while you're secretly miserable for an entire day. I'm sure there are plenty of corporate events you can attend that will not involve activities you find offensive - attend those other events instead and I'm sure you'll find you have other things in common with your colleagues that you can discuss without having a rant.
Work out whether you are going to be a quarreller or a fighter. Apart from that, I am afraid a lot of corporate entertaining/getting on with senior partners involves a half-bitten tongue and a rictus grin.
You can probably rest assured most of your colleagues don't want to hear your views, and your clients certainly don't.
To use your example of fox hunting, it appears that you are anti, which in the bastion of capitalism that is the City is unlikely to go down too well, particularly on a shooting day. This is really just a case of engaging the grey matter.
Specifically on a subject like fox hunting - a ridiculously emotive and emotional issue if there ever was one - there is no middle ground on that debate and the opposing sides will never agree. Therefore you'd be best off to steer well clear of it; I certainly would as arguments based on no logic will only get you into hot water. My response when drawn on the subject is to waffle about personal liberty on both sides and my total lack of any care one way or the other (and for the record I am pro-hunting, I just can't be bothered to discuss the issue at work as it's nothing to do with anyone I meet with professionally and likely to upset people).
I think therefore it's not just a work persona but a meeting-specific persona: eg if you are on a corporate shooting day you can probably assume that 99% of those present are not going to object if you start telling the tale of how you had a good pop at Charlie the other week out lamping. Equally if you are at a BBC in-house lunch I'd suggest it might be inadvisable. Life is a game and you need to play to your audience.
Now, you did want to ask me my opinion on the ratings agencies and the CDO/CLO markets - didn't you?
Be wise. If you have a stance in society that you fundamentally believe, be true to yourself. You will find that a lot of your colleagues will have less than a token of integrity as they 'smart-think' their pathway to associateship or partnership - some will even make it saying publicly what they think their peers want to hear or know, whilst doing something quite else. The other side of the coin is that they are just bullish about their own stance in society and have the power to bulldoze everyone else' climate of unspoken codes. Have you been to a department meeting where all the junior fee earners never speak, and should one dare they are discreetly told not to comment? Freedom of expression is ensuring your viewpoint is known - you don't have to pick a fight to do that. 'Smart-thinking' might get you somewhere, but you will probably not be liked by many people around you as no one will trust you.
The answer to your last question depends on whether you care about your future at your firm. Most people learn to accept that part of grown-up working life involves coming into contact with all sorts of people that you would normally cross the street to avoid. However, a large part of getting on at work, both socially and in career terms, depends on accepting other people for what they are. If you choose a strategy that involves highlighting differences and igniting conflict, you are unlikely to progress far as you are likely to be unpopular and seen as difficult. If you want to get on, you have to take people with you.
As a junior lawyer it serves best not to. As a senior lawyer it serves best to.
Two points: I notice many associates 'adapt' their beliefs/hobbies/interests to fit that of a partner or client they are trying to impress. This to me points to a lack of integrity; however, imitation is the best form of flattery and given many partners/clients have huge egos, this approach probably works with more than a few. My second point is that you need to be diverse, you do not choose your colleagues so you have to be tolerant of their beliefs in a way you wouldn't have to be with friends and family.
It largely depends on your own personality.
If you're the sort of person who, when an opinion is expressed which goes contrary to your own beliefs, immediately jumps down the throats of those expressing it and berates them for having the temerity to differ from you - then no, absolutely not. 'Sticking to your guns' in that context sounds like 'telling people what to think, and telling them off for not thinking as you do'. I've worked with such a woman and she was an absolute bore - and what's more, she made a fool of herself every time she opened her mouth.
On the other hand, if you are the sort of person who, when asked for their opinion on an issue under discussion, is capable of expressing a dissenting opinion graciously and tactfully without bullying or belittling anyone, then yes, feel free to express that opinion.
Just remember that all people (clients, colleagues, juniors, seniors, family, friends) like people who make them feel good about themselves. If you're capable of letting people maintain their illusions about themselves whilst still being true to your principles, then do so - but don't be surprised if some people don't respond well if they feel as though you're criticising them!
Law is about reason. If you have accurate facts, then you can present a good debate - truth always surfaces; but because two or more people are needed for a debate it is necessary to also be patient to hear the other side before jumping to a conclusion. Also be prepared for people who you think are not going to agree with you to actually come over to your side and possibly agree with you, or you can air your debate intelligently and walk away agreeing to disagree on the other person's stance. However, there is always a right and wrong answer - getting it absolutely right is very difficult, especially when the other side may be better equipped at the put-down, or the sarcastic comment which may throw you. Politicians learn how to deal with these skills - but Socrates was the great master of the dialectical debate via question and answer technique - just remember he also drank hemlock as a consequence of losing the trial.
It does not pay to have opinions if you see promotion as your goal.
I had a reputation in my previous workplace as someone with a charitable bias. This was because I used to lobby politicians and the media and tell them that it really is possible to rid the world of hunger and poverty.
I still believe it is, but I don't do the campaigning any more.
In my previous workplace my opinions were seen as curious, odd even. I ended up being steered towards work for not-for-profit clients. I never made it beyond associate, because I could never meet billing targets because they wanted me to work for not-for-profit clients at reduced rates.
I've had an interesting life, but my opinions have almost certainly cost me partnership in the past.
My advice is: sure, have opinions. But keep them to yourself in the workplace. People really don't want to know. And clients really definitely don't want to know. I never had a client saying they did not want to use me because of the lobbying (it was in the public domain as I would go to the local press and radio), but I never had one who said they used me because of what I did either.
In my view, most clients have very little interest in what makes you tick as a person. They just want a solicitor who can do the job properly, on time and to budget.
Latest Jobs
