Interesting article, but frankly the idea of an "innovative legal system" is quite frightening. The whole point of the legal system is to be a predictable backdrop against which human activity can take place. I don't want to be able to predict what Silicon Valley will do 10 years from now. I do want to be able to predict what judges will do 10 years from now!
It's not a sign of decay when the legal system uses principles that are 200+ years old, it's a sign of the fact that the heart of the legal system, dispute resolution, involves the same issues today that it did hundreds of years ago.
And yet, for some fines, pleading guilty will lower the amount by ~50% ($550->$350 for a traffic violation in the recent experience of an acquaintance of mine).
(1) Judging cases imposes huge administrative costs. Somebody has to pay those costs; if it isn't you, it's everybody else. Particularly with moving violations, where offenses are so widespread and the cost of admitting guilt is so low and where so many people have interface with the legal system, it makes sense to charge people who force costly adjudication that later proves pointless (which is what a discount for a guilty plea effectively does).
(2) The fines associated with most traffic violations are artificially low. Although any one person who speeds or runs a red light is unlikely in that one instance to grievously harm someone, people who drive carelessly as a cohort impose enormous costs on the rest of society, and those costs simply aren't priced into the $300 you pay for a 55-in-a-35 speeding ticket.
This is a case where I think Cal Newport's arguments are on point: it's not about your passion, it's about your skills. Or as a lawyer friend put it to me when we were working together on a late night at an elite NYC law firm: "Law is only good when you can write your own ticket."
All of the OP's statements are true but also not true. For example: law is about authority, computers reject authority. What is authority? In some sense, it's just network effect. A sufficient number of people have agreed on an argument, therefore it won't be disturbed unless there's a very good reason. Same goes with computers.
Innovation vs. Applying past wisdom: The law's not so myopic to only look to the past. It considers the accumulated wisdom of the past to determine what to do now. In fact, the law is changing rapidly in part in response to technological innovation (and the increasing complexity of government and modern life). The question is whether past rationale makes sense under current conditions. Under that frame, innovation and disruption happens in the law -- consider the law & economics movement, for instance, or critical legal theory.
The question isn't whether law or programming is inherently more innovative, it's where you're situated.
If you're arguing cases before the Supreme Court, you are dealing with the cutting edge of law and you are constantly looking at new cases that come out and analyzing how their rationale opens up new arguments and reflects new ways to attack existing decisions. The problem is that to do that, you have to be the best of the best.
If you're a programmer at a huge corporation working on maintaining a legacy system, you probably think you have the dullest job in the world in a field where nothing changes.
No doubt, real differences exist between law and programming, although they are remarkably similar. Nevertheless, I think Newport is on point when he talks about just how important excellence is to appreciating and enjoying your craft.
> real differences exist between law and programming, although they are remarkably similar.
As someone who (perhaps like you) practices law and does some programming, I wanted to agree with this statement. The fields are remarkably similar. If you gathered a list of "best practices" for writing good code and a second list of prescriptions for writing good legal briefs, it's striking how much advice overlaps. That's because clear thinking about complex systems is the heart of both worlds, and both sets of professionals have to (working within a set of constraints and syntax) work out an elegant solution that can be readily understood by their peers.
As for the OP, the first year of law school has a habit of shattering whatever hazy dreams people bring with them. If he now wants to hone his programming skills instead --- and in this economic climate for lawyers, that seems like the safer bet --- then I wish him well.
I know this is anecdotal, however after topping out salary-wise in the programming field after 11 years, I often wish I would have gone the law school route. Don't get me wrong, it is a good living. Its just not on par with an I.P. lawyer or general council with an equal amount of education and tenure.
I just don't see many options available to a tenured programmer beyond the obvious (stop programming) and the extremely risky (join a start-up w/ equity). Whereas a decade of dedicated service in the right law firm can lead to partner status which often times is a lucrative engagement.
No, you won't make partner. Nobody does anymore. It's more risky to go to law school with hopes of being partner than to join a startup.
You should factor in quality of life, predictability of work hours and number of them, hourly billing requirements, quality of people you will work with (shitty), job security (shitty), and debt ($240k+ at high interest rates!).
IP is hot right now, but it might not be in a few years, and demand for your technical background may wane. Software patents are shaky anyways.
Don't ruin your life. If you absolutely want something else, why not try a top MBA? Technical expertise may help you.
I'm a newly minted lawyer who wishes he went the programming (or maybe IT) route.
Don't forget to factor in 3 years of lost wages, tuition, nd a lifetime of mind numbing, soul crushing, meaningless paperwork. Oh, and 90% of firm lawyers don't make partner. Look at how many rich lawyers there are, subtract off the ones that are actually rick salesmen, and compare to how many rich programmers their are at big cos and liquidified startups, some of whom actually make something cool.
You can do great work as lawyer, as a broke public defender. Or a supreme court justice -- one of nine.
OT: Am I just being an idiot, or is it very non obvious what one has to do to see more than a couple of lines of Google Plus posts on an iPad?
I finally figured out that hitting the share icon brings up the full post and an edit box so I can add my thoughts, but that seems unintuitive to me. I would not normally hit a share link until after reading something. Is that really the way they intend it to work?
It's not a sign of decay when the legal system uses principles that are 200+ years old, it's a sign of the fact that the heart of the legal system, dispute resolution, involves the same issues today that it did hundreds of years ago.