Minding Your Own Business: Staying in Your Lane vs. Diversification
Does choosing to focus my practice on only one area of law make me intellectually lazy? Surely, becoming a specialist, honing my craft day-in, day-out, cannot be a negative.
August 15, 2019 at 10:03 AM
5 minute read
Recently, I came across a quote that really made me think long and hard about the nature of my practice. South African author and philosopher Mokokoma Mokhonoana said, “Intellectually curious men become generalists. Intellectually lazy men settle for being specialists.” This statement, in turn, reminded me of Bob Dylan’s lyrics, “He not busy being born is busy dying.”
Every day, I teach my children to push themselves—to try something new—since that is the only and best way they can grow and reach their true potential. Yet, professionally, I sometimes ignore my own advice and stay in my own lane. I am a personal injury attorney, a litigator. I don’t dabble in other areas of law. I do what I know. That said, each week, I am approached by a client in my personal injury practice with “another legal issue.” This query may be a work-related wage dispute, a homeowner’s insurance claim or a myriad of other matters. Often, it would be quickest to handle this new issue for my client. I already have the relationship with the client. They trust me. I am perfectly capable of doing the research, writing a few letters, and even drafting a few pleadings. But, frequently, what is best for my client, and for me, is deferring to the true specialist. It is not a question of intelligence or ability, but rather experience. This area of expertise is what my colleague does day-in, day-out, and my client requires that level of specialization. So, I make the proper referral and return to focusing my practice on what I know: personal injury litigation.
Does choosing to focus my practice on only one area of law make me intellectually lazy? Surely, becoming a specialist, honing my craft day-in, day-out, cannot be a negative. Specialization must make me at least as valuable as one who’s open to handling any matter that walks in the door. Of course, I understand the meanings of the aforementioned quotes: by leaving your comfort zone, by challenging yourself to learn something new, you can realize tremendous growth.
For example, over the years, though primarily working in personal injury, I have also worked as a commercial litigator. The commercial aspect of my practice has changed the way I communicate with my personal injury clients because the commercial clients tend to seek more consistent communications and updates, even if it means simply including them on pleadings and correspondence sent to the opposition. As a result, my personal injury clients feel more invested in their cases, more informed, and more receptive to counsel. Similarly, the pleadings in my commercial cases, which must be tightly worded and directly on point, have sharpened the pleadings I draft in my personal injury cases. This growth toward becoming a better practitioner, was only possible by leaving my comfort zone and working in a new area of law.
How do you identify yourself professionally? Do you think of yourself as a commercial litigator? Perhaps a personal injury attorney? Maybe a commercial real estate broker? What about a corporate tax accountant? Or, do you simply think of yourself as an attorney, accountant or broker?
The more specific labels we self-affix to ourselves, the higher level of specialization it connotes. We are in an age of specialization. Customers and clients crave a specialist—an expert—in their chosen field. They want to know that this is precisely what you do—and it’s all you do. This niche creates confidence in the choice they have made to retain your services. We are, in many respects, bred from our infant days of practice to focus in one field, learn all there is to know within that field, and to separate ourselves from our competition within that field. We are taught to stay in our lanes, which is exactly what we all do—and comfortably.
At the finest restaurants, you will have a head chef, sous chef, pastry chef and sommelier, each charged with a specific role to create a superior meal and dining experience. In culinary school, the head chef surely studied pastry making. While he may be perfectly capable of creating your dessert, he knows his limitations and has chosen to stay away from the pastry world, instead devoting his talents to the meats, vegetables and other ingredients that comprise the courses leading up to dessert. Similarly, you would not ask the pastry chef to prepare your steak.
Inspirational writer and speaker Israelmore Ayivor said, “Specialization, concentration, and consistency is the key to outstanding performance.” By devoting yourself solely to one professional area of focus, learning all the nuances and how to navigate potential landmines, you can become an expert. Your client can have great confidence in knowing that you know what you’re doing in this single realm, which is not only want your clients want, but what they deserve.
It is critically important to keep our minds open to new experiences and to work without blinders. Failing to do so will limit us from reaching our true potential. However, specialization is key for success in today’s world.
Howard J. Weitzner is an attorney with Cutler Rader, a Deerfield Beach law firm with a focus on personal injury and commercial litigation. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMotions for Summary Judgment and Discovery: The 2021 Rule Changes Continue to Emerge
5 minute readAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250