Popular Threads on Solosez
Are Solo Attorneys Losers?
Page W11 of the June 23, 2006 edition of the Wall Street Journal contains a column written by Cameron Stracher, publisher of the New York Law School Law Review and the author of "Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair."
In his article, Mr. Stracher puts forth his belief that the ranks of lawyers is shrinking, notwithstanding the entry of 40,000 new lawyers per year and presenting no solid evidence that 40,000 or more lawyers are dropping out of the profession each year.
The best evidence he can offer as to the shrinking ranks of lawyers is this:
"The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D."
I was flabbergasted when I read this. According to Mr. Stracher, all 2,000 members of Solosez are paralegals and we just don't know it. I'd like to have him subscribe to this discussion group for a month and then see what is his opinion.
Here is a link to the article, *http://tinyurl.com/qzsgp*<http://tinyurl.com/qzsgp> * , *although it might not work if you are not a subscriber to the online Wall Street Journal.
I think this may rate a letter from one of our higher ups at the GPSOLO division or perhaps even of the entire ABA. When a highly regarded national publication denigrates some 40% our profession (solos) and what must be close to the same percentage for small law firms, someone has to speak up.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts.
David Leffler, New York, New York
To be fair, I think he glossed over lawyers who do not work in big firms, but keep practicing law (i.e., solos, state prosecutors, public defenders, etc). In the jobs he apparently holds in low esteem, none of those are jobs that must be held by lawyers.
That said, I do not agree with his premise. Apparently if you do not work at silk stocking biglaw, you are not an elite attorney, and only elite attorneys are worthy of having the appellation "attorney". I guess the rest of us are hacks, and woe unto them who have a J.D. and who work in "quasi-legal" jobs.
I suspect he is not the first one invited to parties.
Barry Kaufman, Florida
I can't access the article so I hate to make assumptions concerning Mr. Stracher's thoughts about solo practitioners. That said, if what David says accurately portrays Mr. Stracher's views, Mr. Stracher is one of the reasons lawyers are viewed with such disdain in society. Mr. Stracher is a member of a society that depends upon the continued lemming-like behavior from its sycophants to insure its survival. My experience in law school was that professors generally came from the ranks of lawyers who never practiced law or who practiced at very large firms. Each year , they extol the many reasons why good grades beget high paying, big firm jobs, without any thought whatsoever to the fact that many of the people in law school are there to gain the knowledge necessary to help those in our society who do not have a voice. The circle is complete when these professors comprise the committees that meet to select and approve the new professors who naturally come from the same place that they did.
What is missed by this cadre of misguided non-practicing lawyers is that much of what is good in the law each and every year comes from the ranks of solo practitioners. Many individual rights cases succeed each year because of the hard work of big-hearted, small person, advocates who toil away under the radar of ivory tower occupants like Stracher. Without regard to your personal beliefs, Gideon v. Wainwright and Roe v. Wade are two of the biggest cases to come along in the past century and each came about because a solo practitioner cared enough to fight for the little man. I sure there are dozens of other cases, but Sunday afternoon and the golf tournament on TV, don't allow my mind to come up with the others. I know you folks will add to the list of solo practitioner cases that made large impacts in the lives of people.
Gerry Spence and Melvin Belli come to mind as solos who make and made a difference. Atticus Finch wasn't bogged down in corporate practice. Stracher needs to investigate the many good things that solos do year in and year out. That is a subject that is not likely to happen because it would minimize the contributions from big firms and ivory towers.
Robert W. "Robby" Hughes, Jr., Stone Mountain, Georgia
I wouldn't dignify his remark with a response, which more likely than not will simply bring more attention to it. My guess is he was just speaking off the cuff. He did say "most" of the elite go to BigLaw, not "all" of them.
Also, I'm happy to let the legal profession continue to think that the elite don't go solo. That'll just encourage more "elite" law grads to keep going to anthill law firms where the great majority of them will spend 8-10 of the prime years of their life slaving away on meaningless projects for all hours of the clock, experiencing higher-than-normal divorce rates, having their kids forget who they are, and, the coup de grace, being rejected for partnership. And all of this for a salary that peaks at around $300k year (which for some of the successful solos I know is a laughably small amount). If people think I'm exaggerating, by the way, think again. I came from BigLaw and I can name multiple former co-workers of mine who stayed in BigLaw whom the preceding describes quite accurately. I'll never forget how one co-worker told me that, every time he came home, his toddlers would start shying away and crying at the sight of him. Then he shrugged and said, oh well, but the pay is good. And I thought, pay is good?!! oh my god, I need to get out of this place.
If the elite were to suddenly realize how attractive the solo route is, think of how much more competitive the situation would become for us! Just the other day, a friend of mine at BigLaw was trying to convince me all through dinner to apply for a senior associate position at his firm in San Diego. I said, but why, I'm already a partner.
Cheers,
Gene Lee
A few thoughts:
(1) When Mr. Stracher writes about those jobs that don't need a J.D., does he include Junior Associates at Big Firms who spend the bulk of their billable time reviewing documents?
(2) He says all but one of his friends have dropped out of the profession to do such things as act or write novels. Interestingly, Mr. Stracher went to Harvard Law School. Not to knock that fine institution along the banks of the fair river Charles, but perhaps HLS doesn't offer the most diverse cross-section of the legal profession, especially in socio-economic terms. I would hazard a guess that HLS probably attracts a disproportionate amount of the "why the heck not?" law students because daddy can pay for it. HLS ain’t your ham 'n egg St. John's type law school where people go because they want to be lawyers, and not because they have some trust-fund money to spend down. I apologize to the Harvard solos I've just offended. You are the exceptions.
(3) Legal academia is really two professions: those who teach at Ivy League law schools, and everyone else.
Dave Galalis
Thanks Robert for the article. Now, I can respond to the inane arguments Mr. Stracher makes. He makes several leaps in logic that cannot be supported with any empirical evidence. He first states that "The same group, however, tends to have less stellar credentials and to have graduated lower in their class than their colleagues at big firms, leaving them fewer options, and suggesting that these attorneys are even more dissatisfied than their big-firm contemporaries." This gives rise to the myopic view of the law that he and apparently most of his friends, and new law students possess, and that is that really smart people go to law school so that they can become lawyers and join the upper class and make a lot of money. He does not recognize that many people, and presumably a majority of solo practitioners, have more altruistic views of the law. Anyone who goes to law school because he can make a great salary deserves to be out on his head shortly. Stracher then throws more fuel on his fire by demonstrating why his hypothesis is true. "the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else." Money generally will not make you happy, and Mr. Stratcher's article merely magnifies that short-sighted view. If we were to get rid of all the people who enter the practice because of the money, those of us who love the practice and honor the profession, could make a decent living. "It's certainly possible that tier-three graduates tend to gravitate toward lower-paying public-interest and government jobs". Stated another way, Mr. Stratcher is saying that maybe people who do not give a shit about their grades, but instead concern themselves more with learning the law, gravitate towards jobs where they an make a difference. I think he hit the nail on the head with that one. Finally, the coup de gras, Stratcher states that "Every year I'm surprised by the number of my students who think a J.D. degree is a ticket to fame, fortune and the envy of one's peers -- a sure ticket to the upper middle class. Even for the select few for whom it is, not many last long enough at their law firms to really enjoy it." This is because they were chasing the money. The big firms run them out of their practice if they don't make the partner track in 4-6 years. They sell their souls to the big firms. They give up their identify, their ability to help individuals, and become a fungible good. No one likes being fungible. Then, he demonstrates the truth about the money chasers. "Every year, I face a new class of eager law students, ready to take on the world, but after a couple of years of practice, many have lost their youthful glow." Those who chase money will be forever miserable. Just ask Midas.
Robert W. "Robby" Hughes, Jr., Stone Mountain, Georgia
Perhaps I am the eternal optimist, but I don't read the article's contentions as bad for solo practitioners. There are a lot of new law students and new lawyers. However, only a portion of them have what it takes to succeed at Big Law, or at a smaller firm, or as a solo. The rest gain the benefit of good 3-year liberal arts education, from which they will presumably gain some value in their non-law careers, and their lives in general.
Abe G.
HEY! Those junior associates don't just review meaningless documents you know. They also write pointless memos no one ever reads.
Give them some credit, won't you?
F. Joseph Gormley, Annapolis, Maryland
It has long been evident to me from my big firm days that big corporate firm lawyers look disdainfully on solos and small firm lawyers as being lawyers who couldn't "cut it" at big firms. It later became evident to me that the best of the solos (such as the top personal injury lawyers) were making more money than the snotty big corporate firm lawyers. It also became evident to me that the solos and small firm lawyers were generally nicer and happier people (perhaps a gross generalization).
David Finger
Yes, I understood this to be his proposition, too. I think this perspective is pitiably limited, but what's new from an HLS-grad-turned-law-professor?
And I frankly agree with his conclusion: There is something wrong with a profession that commands $38K per year (average) for three years in preparatory education, then puts graduates into jobs that they hate and causes them frequently to walk away from the profession altogether. That's F*@&ed up, people! Most law school graduates have No Clue what is involved in actually being a lawyer until they are there. And that is the failure of the system that the author is a part of: Ivory-tower academia that eschews practical experience as a requirement for legal training.
(More tragic and damaging are those who want to leave the profession, but don't/can't. That's another article entirely.)
BTW -- I love this profession. Its just having my job that gets me down some days.
Mary L. C. Daniel Winchester, Virginia
Yes, we have lost out on quite a few things:
-- Spending the first couple of years getting the lousy cases literally dropped on our desks. I really miss that. -- Working late for someone else when I really should be with my kids at their play, game, recital. -- Working 2000 billable hours a year. -- Being billed out at $X but receiving $0.5X or so. The partners don't seem to mind. -- Being able to say that I'm a lawyer with Snobleisch, Whitestocking, and Spiff instead of just CJ Stevens Law.
Yeah, sigh, I really lost out on that.
CJ Stevens, Lolo, Montana
At the moment, I'm working on a massive case with 4 Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorneys, a solo in San Francisco, a three person firm in Pasadena, and big crews from Heller Ehrman (San Francisco and Los Angeles offices) and Lerach Coughlin (San Francisco and San Diego offices). The small folks respect what Heller and Lerach bring to the table, but the big guys have no problem respecting what we little ones bring to the table. We work well with each other, we like each other.
Perhaps an aberration, perhaps not, but solos/small firms can get along just fine with the bigs.
James S. Tyre, Culver City, California
Plenty of the experienced lawyers in the big firms have full respect for their peers in smaller firms. They know what they can do. I'll post some other examples when I have a moment.
Often it seems to me that the false assumptions are most common at the lower levels of the big firms, where they need to validate their own positions more.
Norman Solberg, Osaka, Japan
This is a very interesting topic. So many strong feelings. In a sense, Mr. Stracher is correct. There is a "tiered" system in the legal profession. In south Florida we have a lot of lawyers, running the full gamut from enormous- firms, to small firms, to solos working out of their house.
There is a "niche' lawyer for every legal need. If a tenant is being evicted from their home, and needs representation, they are not going to go to a Big Law firm. If Pfizer is defending a class-action lawsuit, they are not going to go to the guy working out of his house.
People like Mr. Stracher are elitist and believe that attorneys who serve the needs of small businesses, homeowners, individuals, etc... are not as much "lawyers" as those that represent big business.
David A. Silverstone, Hollywood, Florida
Somehow I did think anybody was going to response to this question in the affirmative, and I think each of us took their own pathway to becoming a solo or small firm practitioner. I'll chip in my 2 cents worth by offering for your consideration the following thoughts from the Dean's address at the recent Columbia Law School graduation.
"[Y]ou can take comfort in the fact that, professionally, there in no single path to success. There are many ways to excel. Remember that Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt* did not spend their careers at a law firm, so, if that's not what you love, find something else. You should also be prepared for setbacks. Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt failed as a rancher? It's a good thing too, because he learned that what he really loved was public life. The truth is, if you succeed every time, your goals aren't ambitious enough."
For many of us, one reason that we are solo practitioners is that family and relationships are more important than greenbacks, and I think Dean Schizer addressed these concerns as well:
"In this increasingly competitive world, your jobs will consume a great deal of you time and energy. . . .You will constantly struggle to balance your work and personal lives. It will be tempting to short-change the people you love--because you can count on loved ones to understand. Indeed, you have leaned hard on the people that you love in order to get through the past years, and we should take this opportunity to thank them no. But be careful about asking too much for too long, because even the strongest relationships can be strained. It takes energy, patience, and understanding to be a true friend, a loving spouse, and a dedicated parent. At the end of the day, nothing is more important, but that does not make it easy."
I don't have any empirical data to support my suspicions, but I wonder how many of those law school graduates that went on to "big firms" and made partner not only found themselves professionally unsatisfied but, more importantly, found their marriages shattered and themselves estranged from their kids. Who are the real losers again, Mr. Stracher?
Bob Merring
* Both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt attended, but did not graduate from, Columbia Law School and were earlier mentioned in the Dean's speech; hence the later references to them
And be sure to pose the question to piss ant Stacher just how many big firm lawyers actually get before a judge or, heaven forbid, an actual jury. I suspect the ratio is actually higher for solos than it is among bigs.
Craig McLaughlin, Irvine, California
Look:
First, there is what I term the "jacques cousteau" syndrome; When I went into college to study oceanography, my perception of oceanography was based on what I saw on Jacques Cousteau specials; oceanographers spend all their time on shipboard, diving, doing exploration, and generally having a grand old time. About midway through my degree program I came to the realization that most oceanographers spend most of their time sailing desks, on land. The people who actually go out and do the collection stuff are technicians; who hand the samples to other technicians back on land, who run the tests, who hand the results to degreed oceanographers. I'm not saying oceanographers never go out in the blue water, but few of them spend much time out there.
The problem with law students is that they don't realize what is involved in the practice of law; most of the time, at least new lawyers don't spend a bunch of time in the courtroom; most media does not portray the hours at research, drafting, and generally doing a lot of scut work; they also portray most lawyers as well paid. Most law students have a very unrealistic idea of what law practice is.
Second; peoples motivation for going to law school varies; some people are in it strictly for the money, and for some people that is an adequate motivation; some people are there because they don't know what else to do; they've graduated and don't really want to go out and get a job; some people are called, and want to practice law for a variety of 'noble' reasons; and of those, some of them are going to be disillusioned PDQ.
Also; if you've never done anything else for a living, if you went from college to law school to a legal job, I can see where it would be seen as stressful. If you've had a variety of jobs before becoming a lawyer, you have some perspective on it; I've loaded trucks, run a baby powder production line, been a sheet metal worker, been a warehouse worker, been a welfare caseworker, done data entry, been a mechanic, shoveled kosher salt into a bucket, carried the bucket up 15 feet of steps, emptied the bucket into a hopper that shaked salt onto pretzels that were entering a gas oven to get baked, hiked down the steps and went to the next oven in line to start shoveling more salt and done that for 8 hours for 8 gas ovens right in line with each other. It's hot over a gas oven. When you get low on salt grab an 80 lb. bag of salt, hike up the steps, and dump it in the hopper. By the time you get done with number 8 it's time to go back to number 1. Dang, I used to love it when they were running salt-free pretzels; I'd be put on cleanup and sweep the floor and empty the trash.
Ok, you done that sort of thing for a living, being a lawyer looks pretty darn good.
Point I'm getting at is, professional satisfaction depends on your expectations; I get to wear a tie, I don't have to do any heavy lifting. and I'm compensated reasonably well. I set my own hours, almost never work weekends, and work with my mind instead of my hands.
Ronald A. Jones, Florida
While that point might be of some comfort to those who consider being in court essential to being a lawyer (and many transaction lawyers would disagree), that is of no consequence to big firm lawyers (I speak as one who worked in that environment). The type of work done by stereotypical big firm lawyers is not of the type that has any moral value. I worked in the heyday of hostile takeovers, and no one really cared whether company A or company B ended up taking over company C. All that really mattered was winning and billing (not necessarily in that order). Precious little big firm work falls in the category of "soul satisfying." (Then again, the same might be true about small firms and solos -- after all, much of what we do we do because we need to pay the bills, too, and a lawyer is lucky if he or she gets a case that has a strong morally satisfying component). But my experience is that (as an over-generalization) big firm lawyers are satisfied by money and ego, and things such as being in court matter very little indeed.
David Finger
I don't really understand how Stracher can claim that attorneys not in big law firms don't do work that require law degrees, most of what I do everyday is work that requires having a law degree as I spend a lot of time in court (strangely it wasn't my goal to actually spend that much time in court when I decided to go to law school). But in any event, why should anyone care what Mr. Stracher thinks about attorneys that don't work for big law firms. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks this, but I find the elitist views of some people that graduate from ivy league schools (and not all people from said schools have these elitist views, I am just referring to the ones that do) to be irritating and ignorant, as if you are nothing if you don't do exactly as they did. Almost like they believe everyone should go through the same torture that they go through or they're not the real thing.
Lesley Hoenig
Actually, that’s not what Cameron said. He said "The legal profession is really two professions: the elite lawyers and everyone else. Most of the former start out at big law firms. Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D."
Notice, he said MOST of the former (elites) start out at big law firms. Most, as i recall means 51% or more. So, that leaves at most, 49% of the elites as starting in places OTHER than big law firms. So, what’s the big deal?
Michael A. Blake, Milford, Connecticut
My issue with this article is that he seems to say that those who leave biglaw are somehow worse off. I personally left with great joy!!
What really makes me sad about this article is that I have friends at biglaw who are very unhappy, but when considering their options they really do not consider working for a small firm or going solo. They consider two options outside of biglaw: being in-house at a large corporation or quitting law all together. I try to tell them how different law can be if you are in a tiny firm, but hey, I only know so many people! So the part that makes me sad is I got the impression the author is a law professor, and he is really in a position to expand his student's horizons as to the job possibilities. Instead, he seems to see the world as success or failure.
I guess I really question his basic assumption, however -- is it so bad if people go to law school and do not end up practicing law? There is no shortage of attorneys, and if people choose to use the thinking skills they learn in law school in other areas, why is that a problem? Of course, making a big deal out of this and talking in dichotomies got this dude a wall street journal article and publicity for his book, so maybe it works for him. It does not work for me, however -- I prefer to see the world in color, not black and white.
Finally, just a little nyah-nyah-nyah. First, second, and often third level associates at biglaw do paralegal work. Sooooo...... how does that fit in?
Amy E Clark Kleinpeter Pasadena, California
I don't think the author was dissing solos. I think he was referring to the type that "defaulted" to law school planning to work for Big Law, did not get a Big Law job, and is not cut out for small practice/solo work. Or just never consider it. Having just graduated from a pretty decent law school, I know the type. Everybody goes in thinking they'll be top of the class and employed with a big firm. Those who are not are flummoxed, and never consider going solo. Perhaps that's better for everybody. Kudos to all on this board for having the courage to go solo. Many, many, lawyers would never even try, and limit their options accordingly.
Abe G.
In support of what Amy said at the end of her post, many was the time that I was asked to train a 1st or 2nd year associate to either do my job or assist me because the BF ("big firm") didn't have either enough work for them or the youngster needed experience in understanding the procedural requirements of IP. Many are also the calls I've received from attorney friends lamenting at how they wish they had the guts to leave as I did.
"What? I'm a paralegal."
"Yes, but you don't have to put up with the BS anymore."
"Oh that. True."
Lyza Sandgren, Paralegal
It seems to me that to be "an elite lawyer" you would need to be at the very highest levels of the profession. So, based on your analysis, 51% of those start out at big law firms. Ok. No problem so far. Now, how about the "non-elite lawyers"? According to the article, "Many of the latter never find gainful legal employment. Instead, they work at jobs that might be characterized as "quasi-legal": paralegals, clerks, administrators, doing work for which they probably never needed a J.D."
There seems to be a huge number of us working in the legal field who are not "elite" yet are certainly not working in "quasi-legal" positions.
Jim Mills, Sarasota, Florida
I do not intend to comment on merits of the article by Stracher whatever they are. However, it does strike me funny and pretty obvious that big law firms come from small firms and/or solos. Go figure.
Gary F. Witting, Scottsdale, Arizona
For those who are interested, Professor Stracher (who was my writing prof in law school and is generally a good guy) responds to the brouhaha he has created:
In deciding whether to go to law school, here is the question you need to ask yourself: What do you want to be when you grow up? If you want to be a lawyer, then by all means go to law school. If you want to defend the poor, work in public service, be a civil servant, go to law school. But if your only reason for going to law school is because you want to be rich, or because you are confused and someone has told you it will “keep your options open” STOP RIGHT THERE, and read on.
Yes, some lawyers are rich. Some lawyers are also movie producers, and Wall Street Journal columnists, and investment bankers. But, statistically speaking, your chances of becoming rich (or becoming a banker, etc.) are greater if you have gone to a top ten law school. This doesn’t mean that students from non-elite schools can’t become wealthy lawyers or even wealthy movie producers, but the odds are against them. Put another way, the bottom of the class at Yale still has a degree from Yale. The bottom of the class at many other schools may not even have a job.
This is not my fault (as one of my students suggests in his/her post). It is simply a fact. One that is often ignored by students, and glossed over by law school faculty and admissions deans. We don’t control the market, but the market may control your future. No one would ever go to medical school to “keep his or her options open.” Why have we perpetuated this myth about law school? Perhaps because many law faculty are refugees, themselves, from law firm practice. Perhaps because we have a vested interest in educating as many students as we can. Perhaps because students look at the most visible writers/producers/bankers and think anyone can do it, even if they can’t.
I suspect we are at a transition point in our educational system not just for law schools, but for business schools, MFA programs, and other graduate rackets. At some point, given the cost of continuing education, students will behave like rational economic actors and decide it is not worth it. Then again, I could be totally wrong because we live in a society where degrees any degrees are literally worth their weight in gold, and soon even your plumber will need a JD before you let him into your house.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/06/26/law-school-does-it-keep-your-options-open-part-ii/
Hope this helps.
Dave Rakowski, Allentown, Pennsylvania
Can we all agree that this was a poorly written, poorly researched article? Regardless of whether you agree with his "elite" vs. "non-elite" law school graduates theory, he did several other things wrong. Specifically, he overgeneralizes and stereotypes our profession (and thereby also overgeneralizes and stereotypes what are or are not legal services). For example, in Illinois, there is a case that says that anything beyond filling in the blanks in a real estate contract by anyone other than a lawyer constitutes UPL. So, is negotiating the terms of that contract or making changes non legal work in his theory? It is legal work under Illinois law.
What should be more shocking to us all, instead of the content of his article, is how an article like this makes it into a major newspaper in the first place? What is the editor's motive?
I think it is indicative that (a) poor journalism now passes as acceptable; and (b) the legal profession continues to be a target, particularly of the media.
I think we should all be proud that we are doing good work as solos or members of small firms and that most of us are proud to either have never been or no longer be associated with a large firm.
TJ Thurston, Huntley, Illinois
If his point is that going to law school to make money is perhaps a losing proposition, then he may be right. I have been practicing law for close to 30 years. Has it been worthwhile? Yes. Have I made money? Well, enough to pay the expenses. But, to be honest, most of my net worth today is a result of real estate investments, not from the practice of law. Would I do it again? In a heartbeat.
Lisa Runquist, California
I think it is a mere truism that going in to any field only because it is purported to be lucrative is a bad idea. I'm sure you would find the same advice among medical doctors, surgeons, dentists, accountants, actuaries and nearly every other field that is supposed to be relatively well paying.
If that is his only point, I doubt he is saying anything new. I heard the same thing ten years ago when I was in law school and I'm sure others, who are much, much older, 
heard the same thing long before that.
Jim Mills, Sarasota, Florida
I think there is an unspoken view among business-people and entrepreneurs that lawyers do not generate anything of value, and therefore, their economic gain is illegitimate. Moreover, it is additionally perceived that every dollar of gain for a corporate lawyer is a dollar lost by the business that hires the lawyer.
You have to understand the WSJ's laissez-faire bend--if most laws are superfluous and over-reaching, then so are the lawyers necessitated by those laws.
That is why the WSJ leaps at the chance to publish anything that casts a cynical light on the practice of law.
Dave Galalis
|
|
Books
Click on the book for more info