Lawyer influences

July 24, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I wonder if interest in the old TV show “Perry Mason” has increased since news stories about U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor have mentioned how influential the show was in her becoming a lawyer.

After being told she couldn’t become a detective because she had diabetes, she realized maybe she could be an attorney. This decision came after watching hours of “Perry Mason.”

Is it that simple to pinpoint the moment in your life when you knew what you wanted to be when you grew up?

For years, I thought I’d enter the field of sports medicine. I was convinced it was what I wanted to do. I loved sports and the workings of the human body – it was a perfect fit. Then I took chemistry in high school and realized I’m more of a liberal arts girl. Writing was something I always enjoyed, which is how I ended up majoring in journalism.

My decision to enter my profession wasn’t related to a specific moment, person, or influence. It was a gradual realization as I found myself enjoying history and English classes more, and math and science courses less.

But some people have that “ah-ha!” moment when they realize what they’re meant to do. It may have come after watching countless hours of “Law & Order” or “Ally McBeal.” Perhaps a parent is an attorney and you’ve always admired their work. It could be you experienced a situation that made you want to help those wronged by the law.

Maybe you can’t say TV made you want to enter the legal profession, but when did your realize you wanted to be an attorney?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I think this should be a two part question.

    One, what caused you to enter law school?

    Two, what made you decide to stick with the profession once you finally understood what it actually entailed? This latter point was a rude awakening for some of us.
  • Brian - you bring up a good point in sticking with being a lawyer. Perhaps I\'ll explore that more in a future post.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT