The International Court of Justice at the Hague.
This is our 3,645th blog post and, at least as far as I know, I have never pretty much just re-run a previous blog post, wholesale, without any changes. Sure we have “cribbed” from previous posts, but the subsequent posts are more updates or refinements than a mere copying. But today, I freely admit that the below is just a word-for-word re-hashing of a previous post, with an explanation as to why.
This last week — for some unknown reason — I got more than the usual number of emails from law (and even undergraduate students) asking me what it will take for them to become an international lawyer or a China lawyer. I was out of the country for much of July and my quick responses to their emails was to write me again when I return. Anyway, what I have realized in trying to respond to these sorts of emails is that I do not have any particularly brilliant insights to offer anyone and if I did, I long ago spewed out all of it in posts on here. So my usual answer is to tell these students to search “so you want to be an international lawyer” on this blog. But more often now they are responding by saying that they have already done that but they were thinking that I might have something new to add — mostly because those blog posts are getting so long in the tooth.
So this morning I was going to write a brand new blog post on what it takes to become an international lawyer/China lawyer. And the first thing I did as research was to search out my prior posts. The first post I came across was the one below, and that led me to realize that I certainly had nothing more to say about the attributes that one should develop to become a top lawyer — international or otherwise. I then briefly skimmed my prior posts and realized anew that it’s all already one here. Not saying (at all) that I have all of the answers, because I fully realize that I most certainly do not. But I am saying that I have nothing more in my head to help on this.
Except one thing, somewhat related. Earlier this year, I spoke at a Legal Innovation Symposium at the University of Oregon Law School, and as a part of that, I also wrote an article for the University of Oregon Law Journal, entitled, Finding Your Legal Niche. This article seeks to explain how and why lawyers should find their legal niche, and what they should do to exploit that niche once they do so. I guess it should be considered a later in life add-on to what has previously been written on here.
And so with that, I simply re-post the last post I did on the whole international law career thing, which post includes links to the prior posts. If anyone has any additional tips for international lawyer wannabes or for international lawyers in training, please, please, please add them as comments below.
I have imaginatively titled this post “So You Want To Be An International/China Lawyer, Part VI.”
I wrote this post in April of last year and while going through draft posts just realized that I failed to post it back then, and so I’ve updated it and I am posting it now. That post is So You Want To Be An International/China Lawyer, Part V. Know The Fromm Six.
I get at least twenty emails every week from law students/young lawyers expressing interest in becoming an international lawyer (or a China lawyer) and asking essentially what courses they should take to achieve that goal. My response is always something like the following:
First, do what it takes to become an excellent lawyer, then focus on the international side. In the meantime though, get fluent in a language that matters to you and make yourself international by traveling and by reading.
In other words, get educated, get smart, and get international. Not terribly helpful, I know, but true.
Last April I read an article that really resonated for me. The article was written by William Henderson, a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law and one of the most knowledgeable people alive on the legal profession. The article is entitled, The Fromm Six, and it sets out a “competency model for law students called the Fromm Six.
The article starts out with the following background:
One of the greatest people in legal education that you have never heard of is a man named Leonard Fromm. Fromm served as Dean of Students at Indiana University Maurer School of Law from 1982 to 2012. On February 2, 2013, Dean Fromm passed away after a relatively short battle with cancer.
I want to discuss an innovation that Dean Fromm contributed to legal education — a contribution that, I predict, will only grow over time. This innovation is a competency model for law students called the Fromm Six. But first, let me supply the essential background.
After several years in counseling and adult education, Dean Fromm joined the law school in 1982 to preside over matters of student affairs. Over the course of three decades he quietly became the heart and soul of the Maurer School of Law. Dean Fromm was typically the first person that new students met during orientation — the law school administrator who completed character and fitness applications for state bar authorities and the voice that called out their names at commencement (with an amazing, booming tenor). During the three years in between, Dean Fromm counseled students through virtually every human problem imaginable. His most difficult work was done in his office with his door closed and all his electronic devices turned off. It was private work that was not likely to produce much fanfare.
* * * *
One of the cumulative benefits of Dean Fromm’s job was the ability to track the full arc of lawyers’ careers, from the tentative awkwardness of the 1L year, to involvement in the school’s extracurricular events and social scene, to coping strategies for students not at the top of their class, and the myriad, unexpected turns in our graduates’ professional careers. During his tenure he interacted with nearly 6,000 students and stayed in contact with a staggering number of them after graduation. Invariably, he saw the connection between law school and a student’s subsequent success and happiness later in life (noting, in his wise way, that professional success and happiness are not necessarily the same thing).
In 2008, I started collaborating with Len on a project to construct a law school competency model. Our first iteration was a list of 23 success factors which we constructed with the help of industrial & organizational (IO) psychologists. Although valid as a matter of social science, the list was too long and complex to gain traction with students. In 2010, the faculty who taught Indiana Law’s 1L Legal Professions class got together and reduced the list of competencies to 15. Once again, we found it was too long and complex to execute in the classroom.
During the summer of 2011, as we were debriefing the challenges of another year in our competency-based 1L Legal Professions course, Dean Fromm said, “I have an idea.” A short time later, he circulated a list of six competencies that were appropriate to 1Ls and foundational to their future growth as professionals. Finally (or At last), we now had a working tool! Moreover, none of the professors teaching the Legal Professions course, including me, wanted to revise a single word — a veritable miracle in legal academia.
And thus the Fromm Six was born. This is that six:
Self-Awareness. Having a highly developed sense of self. Being self-aware means knowing your values, goals, likes, dislikes, needs, drives, strengths and weaknesses, and their effect on your behavior. Possessing this competence means knowing accurately which emotions you are feeling and how to manage them toward effective performance and a healthy balance in your life. If self-aware, you also will have a sense of perspective about yourself, seeking and learning from feedback and constructive criticism from others.
Active listening. The ability to fully comprehend information presented by others through careful monitoring of words spoken, voice inflections, para-linguistic statements, and non-verbal cues. Although that seems obvious, the number of lawyers and law students who are poor listeners suggests the need for better development of this skill. It requires intense concentration and discipline. Smart technology devices have developed a very quick mode of “listening” to others. Preoccupation with those devices makes it very challenging to give proper weight and attention to face-to-face interactions. Exhibiting weak listening skills with your colleagues/classmates/clients might also mean that they will not get to the point of telling you what they really want to say. Thus, you miss the whole import of what the message was to be.
Questioning. The art and skill of knowing when and how to ask for information. Questions can be of various types, each type having different goals. Inquiries can be broad or narrow, non-leading to leading. They can follow a direct funnel or an inverted funnel approach. A questioner can probe to follow up primary questions and to remedy inadequate responses. Probes can range from encouraging more discussion, to asking for elaboration on a point, to even being silent. Developing this skill also requires controlling one’s own need to talk and control the conversation.
Empathy. Sensing and perceiving what others are feeling, being able to see their perspective, and cultivating a rapport and connection. To do the latter effectively, you must communicate that understanding back to the other person by articulating accurately their feelings. They then will know that you have listened accurately, that you understand, and that you care. Basic trust and respect can then ensue.
Communicating/Presenting. The ability to assertively present compelling arguments respectfully and sell one’s ideas to others. It also means knowing how to speak clearly and with a style that promotes accurate and complete listening. As a professional, communicating means persuading and influencing effectively in a situation without damaging the potential relationship. Being able to express strong feelings and emotions appropriately in a manner that does not derail the communication is also important.
Resilience. The ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and cope effectively with stress; to be capable of bouncing back from or adjusting to challenges and change; to be able to learn from your failures, rejections, feedback and criticism, as well as disappointments beyond your control. Being resilient and stress hardy also implies an optimistic and positive outlook, one that enables you to absorb the impact of the event, recover within a reasonable amount of time, and to incorporate relevant lessons from the event.
I knew Len Fromm, which is to mean I thought the world of him. And for that reason, I did not want to write this post back in April as I was worried that my sadness at Dean Fromm’s death was clouding my judgment and forcing me to go gaga over his six.
But in re-reading it I realize how great the list really is and how much it deserves further dissemination for reasons that have nothing to do with memorializing a truly decent man.
Dean Fromm’s list just works. Law students and young lawyers, go talk to older lawyers you respect and I am confident you will find that they would agree. And the list works for what it takes to succeed as an international lawyer as well, which should be no surprise, since international lawyering is really no different than any other kind of lawyering. If you want to succeed as a lawyer, work on the six. I particularly love the line about silence, as it took me years to realize how valuable silence can be in getting people to reveal things, even things they never intended to reveal.
The scary thing about the Fromm Six is that we lawyers tend not to be very good at many of the things on the list. Lawyers are trained (maybe even over-trained) to be rational, logical and unemotional and to focus on merit. But life, and thus lawyering, is not always so simple. Dean Fromm’s list thus tilts much more towards EQ than towards IQ, and rightfully so.
For more on what it takes to become a China lawyer/international lawyer, check out the following:
So You Want To Be An International (China Lawyer), Part IV. Do You Really? (2013)
So You Want To Be An International/China Lawyer? Part III (2008)
So You Want To Practice International Law/China Law? Part II (2007)
So You Want To Practice International (China) Law? (2006)
I am still gaga over Dean Fromm’s list and I am going to make it a part of my future email responses. What do you think?
Again, all you lawyers, please comment to add more or to tweak or to reinforce or to criticize.