# Briefcase help for new lawyer



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

Hi all. I am a new-ish litigation attorney on the West Coast just starting out (read: young and poor). I've been using my old Filson waxed canvas brief, but has seen much better days. It doesn't look at all presentable with a shirt and tie, so I want to buy my first "real" briefcase.

Lawyers here are very casual and black nylon bags are the norm. I've even seen a lawyer wear a fanny pack to court. I just can't bring myself to do that. When I go to trial, I use a "pleather" litigation case on wheels (only practical way to go), but for quick appearances and depositions, I need something more presentable.

I have a few requirements: (1) needs to be leather, (2) needs to be of a high enough quality that it will last years, even with the abuse of being knocked around in court and the office, (3) it needs to hold actual "legal" sized documents, folders, and note pads [too many designer bags won't], and (4) I want to spend around $400 or less [remember I am poor and just starting out].

I bought a JW Hulme "brief bag" that was perfect, except it was too narrow to fit 8x14 pads and folders without bending them.

I am torn between these two bags:

https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF96102A_1_40000000001_-1style=96102A

The top one is another Hulme, but it is $500. The bottom one is $400, and it is made by Atlas in the US (didn't know they still existed and can't find them online anywhere). I like the top one, but that is a lot of money to spend on something that will just hold papers and my iPad. The bottom one is cheaper, but I am worried about the quality. It doesn't say what kind of leather (top grain or full grain), and I can't tell if it will last.

What do you all think? Thanks for the help!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

I have one of these and I've been very happy with it - plus it's currently on sale right at your price point:



If you want to see one in person and check if legal pads fit (never tried it, but I'm 90% certain it will....just), you should be able to see them at your local Allen Edmonds store.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Congrats on your new vocation.

I have a Custom Hide bag that is absolutely wonderful.

check it out here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?204391-Custom-Hide-1945-US-Army-Briefcase


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> I have one of these and I've been very happy with it - plus it's currently on sale right at your price point:
> 
> If you want to see one in person and check if legal pads fit (never tried it, but I'm 90% certain it will....just), you should be able to see them at your local Allen Edmonds store.


Thanks for the link. I did see that in-store, but I'm not a huge fan of the zipper going all the way around. I like a top zip or flap top. I'm assuming the quality is similar though.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

has a number of options that are a little lower in finesse, but quite able to take abuse without looking worse.


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

Concordia said:


> has a number of options that are a little lower in finesse, but quite able to take abuse without looking worse.


I looked at Saddleback, but I have some reservations. First, I'd really like something made in America, and second, Saddlebacks are a little too "rugged" for my taste. I don't like how beefy they are.

Any experience with either Atlas for AE or JW Hulme?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Hulme is OK-- more refined than Saddleback, not necessarily better quality, a fair bit more expensive. Fair value for the right buyer. I have one of their briefcases and I don't hate it.


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

Concordia said:


> Hulme is OK-- more refined than Saddleback, not necessarily better quality, a fair bit more expensive. Fair value for the right buyer. I have one of their briefcases and I don't hate it.


Thanks Concordia. Do you think for $500 a Hulme is good value for the money? I just don't know where the law of diminishing returns kicks in with briefcases, i.e. is there really THAT much of a difference between a $300 and $500 briefcase, or a $500 and $5000 to justify the price?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Either of the options you list, c.p., is fine. If I were a young and poor lawyer, I think I might want to spend my money on clothing rather than a bag. Seems one could always get by for a while with a casual bag, especially in the casual work environment you describe. Spend that $500 on some good work attire, no?


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

If you just want a briefcase for short appearances, I would buy a vintage hartmann. I have one just like this one and I love it: 



The old hartmanns are very well made. Mine gets tossed around and has stood up very well.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

That's a very good buy on a Hulme, which usually sells for a fair bit more. Hulme has a very good reputation, although I've never owned one. I have owned an Atlas, and it was okay. If my options were only those two bags I would opt for the Hulme hands down.

You may want to look at this Put This On Post, which may give you some suggestions you hadn't thought of.

https://putthison.com/post/102537408553/the-great-pto-briefcase-roundup-whether-because

You might consider looking at canvas options, too. That opens some nice possibilities at your price point (eg, Filson). I would much rather have a nice quality canvas bag (with leather trim, handles, etc) than a bad leather bag.

I hate nylon bags.


----------



## corey (Oct 30, 2005)

Did you check out AE's messenger bag? Might not be the style you seek...

There's also LederMann w/in your price point. For example:

Duluth Trading has a couple decent bags: https://www.duluthtrading.com/store...417761&pdv=c&gclid=CKqbpr-n88QCFSVo7AodXEoACg


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I have a canvas-and-leather Hulme duffle bag and it is amazing. Guaranteed for life, and it's easy to see why.

You're young. You're just starting out. Whatever you do, don't pinch pennies. You want something that you'll still be using 30, 40 years from now. Such bags exist. Spend a bit more, if that's what it takes, and get one. If you cannot afford one just now, make do with what you've got until you can. Don't compromise on anything, get exactly what you want. You will be glad that you did. A briefcase is to a lawyer what a hammer is to a carpenter. You will be using it a ton, and every time you pull a piece of paper or a pen out of the bag, you will quietly celebrate the purchase. If you compromise at all, you will feel it for decades.


----------



## randomdude2 (Apr 29, 2014)

Jack Georges briefbag?


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I have a canvas-and-leather Hulme duffle bag and it is amazing. Guaranteed for life, and it's easy to see why.
> 
> You're young. You're just starting out. Whatever you do, don't pinch pennies. You want something that you'll still be using 30, 40 years from now. Such bags exist. Spend a bit more, if that's what it takes, and get one. If you cannot afford one just now, make do with what you've got until you can. Don't compromise on anything, get exactly what you want. You will be glad that you did. A briefcase is to a lawyer what a hammer is to a carpenter. You will be using it a ton, and every time you pull a piece of paper or a pen out of the bag, you will quietly celebrate the purchase. If you compromise at all, you will feel it for decades.


32, that's exactly what I was thinking. I'd rather spend the extra $100 if it means a briefcase that will last me most, if not all, of my career. I really like the idea of breaking the bag in myself, rather than buying something used.

I played with getting another canvas bag (a la the Filson I already have), but the problem is the canvas doesn't look very "put together" when it is worn. It looks great with jeans and an OCBD, but way out of place with a shirt and tie.


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

Duvel said:


> Either of the options you list, c.p., is fine. If I were a young and poor lawyer, I think I might want to spend my money on clothing rather than a bag. Seems one could always get by for a while with a casual bag, especially in the casual work environment you describe. Spend that $500 on some good work attire, no?


Duvel, I'm doing the same with my clothing. I don't have a ton of clothes, but what I do have, I buy quality because I want it to last. Here, sportcoats and blazers are more the norm for appearances, so I have a few very nice blazers that I use frequently. Every other day it is just wool slacks, dress shirt, and tie. I buy brooks bros shirts and slacks (serviceable for the price) and Turnbull Asser ties (because a tie can last a long time).


----------



## corey (Oct 30, 2005)

Citation, off-topic, but what sort of litigation do you specialize in? I'm a private equity/m&a attorney, but often have wished that I'd gone the litigation route. If I started over (and I very well might!), I'd partner up with a solid injury lawyer and learn the P.I. ropes, I think. I believe the upside of contingency arrangements beats the heck outta the billable hour... Sorry to digress...


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

I've used one of these for years for Court. Solid bag for the money.



randomdude2 said:


> Jack Georges briefbag?


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I have a canvas-and-leather Hulme duffle bag and it is amazing. Guaranteed for life, and it's easy to see why.
> 
> You're young. You're just starting out. Whatever you do, don't pinch pennies. You want something that you'll still be using 30, 40 years from now. Such bags exist. Spend a bit more, if that's what it takes, and get one. If you cannot afford one just now, make do with what you've got until you can. Don't compromise on anything, get exactly what you want. You will be glad that you did. A briefcase is to a lawyer what a hammer is to a carpenter. You will be using it a ton, and every time you pull a piece of paper or a pen out of the bag, you will quietly celebrate the purchase. If you compromise at all, you will feel it for decades.


I think the romance associated with a lawyer and his first briefcase is a little overstated. I remember thinking the same way. I need to have a wonderful briefcase. Unfortunately, as a litigator a single briefcase serves very little purpose in modern litigation. Big Honking catalog cases are more the norm now. OR big plastic tubs hauled in on a dolly. I am not exaggerating. The last trial I had we needed BOXES and BOXES of stuff. Now, the most important thing for lawyers is their computer. 
About the only time I carry my briefcase is for very simple matters. I could usually get away with just a leather portfolio.

But, if you want a new briefcase, then the Jack Georges briefcase linked to above is very handsome. But, if you plan to litigate much, you need a big sturdy catalog case like this: https://www.amazon.com/Mancini-Wheeled-Leather-Catalog-Case/dp/B00373TAIU

Its not that handsome, but it works and holds a lot and you can roll it. You don't want to be hauling it around very often. A smaller briefcase will, unfortunately, get used very rarely and will spend most of its time next to your desk.


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

corey said:


> Citation, off-topic, but what sort of litigation do you specialize in? I'm a private equity/m&a attorney, but often have wished that I'd gone the litigation route. If I started over (and I very well might!), I'd partner up with a solid injury lawyer and learn the P.I. ropes, I think. I believe the upside of contingency arrangements beats the heck outta the billable hour... Sorry to digress...


I do all types of civil litigation, with a focus on PI cases on contingency. You're right though, it's great not living in six minute increments!


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

Nobleprofessor said:


> I think the romance associated with a lawyer and his first briefcase is a little overstated. I remember thinking the same way. I need to have a wonderful briefcase. Unfortunately, as a litigator a single briefcase serves very little purpose in modern litigation. Big Honking catalog cases are more the norm now. OR big plastic tubs hauled in on a dolly. I am not exaggerating. The last trial I had we needed BOXES and BOXES of stuff. Now, the most important thing for lawyers is their computer.
> About the only time I carry my briefcase is for very simple matters. I could usually get away with just a leather portfolio.
> 
> But, if you want a new briefcase, then the Jack Georges briefcase linked to above is very handsome. But, if you plan to litigate much, you need a big sturdy catalog case like this: https://www.amazon.com/Mancini-Wheeled-Leather-Catalog-Case/dp/B00373TAIU
> ...


I agree, there is no way I would want to/be able to take a typical briefcase to trial. I have an ugly black nylon case on wheels for that, very similar to your link.

For most hearings or depositions though, all I have is my file, some paper exhibits, a legal pad, and my iPad. Unfortunately, all of my files are 8x14, hence the problem with most briefcases.

I really appreciate all of your suggestions!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

CitationPilot said:


> I do all types of civil litigation, with a focus on PI cases on contingency. You're right though, it's great not living in six minute increments!


Just sent you a PM.


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

CitationPilot said:


> I do all types of civil litigation, with a focus on PI cases on contingency. You're right though, it's great not living in six minute increments!


As Clarence Darrow once said, "The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries."


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Don't attorneys have assistants who can carry all that stuff for them? Why be encumbered?


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

Duvel said:


> Don't attorneys have assistants who can carry all that stuff for them? Why be encumbered?


is that like your staff that shines your shoes and mows your lawn? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Yes. I thought one had staff?



Nobleprofessor said:


> is that like your staff that shines your shoes and mows your lawn? :rolleyes2:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Nobleprofessor said:


> As Clarence Darrow once said, "The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries."


Meh. Darrow was overrrated--ask Leopold or Loeb. Or Scopes. Darrow took cases to juries, sure, but he lost. The best lawyers are lawyers who don't lose, or lawyers who negotiate favorable pleas so they don't face the uncertainties inherent in jury trials. Darrow. Rhymes with "show boat." Now, if you want a good trial lawyer, go hire Gerry Spence. Or, RIP, Johnnie Cochran, whose clients stayed out of jail.


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Meh. Darrow was overrrated--ask Leopold or Loeb. Or Scopes. Darrow took cases to juries, sure, but he lost. The best lawyers are lawyers who don't lose, or lawyers who negotiate favorable pleas so they don't face the uncertainties inherent in jury trials. Darrow. Rhymes with "show boat." Now, if you want a good trial lawyer, go hire Gerry Spence. Or, RIP, Johnnie Cochran, whose clients stayed out of jail.


I'm sure some of Johnny's clients went to jail. And Gerry Spence didn't always win. A couple of the older lawyers at my old firm beat him back when he was in his hey day. No lawyer always wins. One of my former partners and good friends was 68-0 at trial. Then he lost one. I think he lost another one a few years ago. But, his wins have also accumulated.

I'm undefeated so far. But, it's a matter of time. You can't win big cases if you don't try big cases. And eventually everyone loses.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Spence has never lost a criminal trial, so, yeah, his clients have stayed out of jail. And he hasn't lost a civil case since 1969. Then again, he doesn't have a huge caseload, at least, not anymore. I'm not so familiar with Cochran's record, but he did pretty well on the high profile ones. Certainly, neither OJ nor Michael Jackson complained.

Part of it, of course, is case selection. If you concentrate on PI, as Spence has, it's a lot easier to amass a sexy-looking record than if you concentrate on representing people who are charged with crimes. If you're in criminal defense, you are going to lose if you take every schlub who walks through the door--no one is so good that they're going to win every criminal case they defend. Cops and prosecutors, after all, don't pick defendants from phone books. And if you do criminal defense in the federal courts, where a U.S. attorney who bats .900 is doing poorly and negotiators are tough, you are going to lose. Regardless of venue, most cases don't go to trial. So, if your client pleads guilty and gets probation when the prosecutor wanted five years, is that a loss or a win? I'd argue the latter. It's all about getting a good result, and that's relative.

I'd argue that a criminal defense attorney who wins--and by win, I mean gets his clients off the hook entirely, no plea bargains, no guilty pleas, either acquittals or charges dismissed--half of his cases is a better lawyer than a PI guy who wins every time. In fact, I doubt that there is a criminal defense attorney--a true defense attorney who earns his/her living doing nothing but criminal defense--who gets half of his clients completely off the hook. Which is why all this Darrow worship has always mystified me. Darrow lost his most famous cases, although the case can be made that he did a good job in obtaining life sentences for Leopold-Loeb instead of the electric chair.


----------



## CitationPilot (Jul 27, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Spence has never lost a criminal trial, so, yeah, his clients have stayed out of jail. And he hasn't lost a civil case since 1969. Then again, he doesn't have a huge caseload, at least, not anymore. I'm not so familiar with Cochran's record, but he did pretty well on the high profile ones. Certainly, neither OJ nor Michael Jackson complained.
> 
> Part of it, of course, is case selection. If you concentrate on PI, as Spence has, it's a lot easier to amass a sexy-looking record than if you concentrate on representing people who are charged with crimes. If you're in criminal defense, you are going to lose if you take every schlub who walks through the door--no one is so good that they're going to win every criminal case they defend. Cops and prosecutors, after all, don't pick defendants from phone books. And if you do criminal defense in the federal courts, where a U.S. attorney who bats .900 is doing poorly and negotiators are tough, you are going to lose. Regardless of venue, most cases don't go to trial. So, if your client pleads guilty and gets probation when the prosecutor wanted five years, is that a loss or a win? I'd argue the latter. It's all about getting a good result, and that's relative.
> 
> I'd argue that a criminal defense attorney who wins--and by win, I mean gets his clients off the hook entirely, no plea bargains, no guilty pleas, either acquittals or charges dismissed--half of his cases is a better lawyer than a PI guy who wins every time. In fact, I doubt that there is a criminal defense attorney--a true defense attorney who earns his/her living doing nothing but criminal defense--who gets half of his clients completely off the hook. Which is why all this Darrow worship has always mystified me. Darrow lost his most famous cases, although the case can be made that he did a good job in obtaining life sentences for Leopold-Loeb instead of the electric chair.


I have an incredible respect for criminal defense attorneys (and prosecutors for that matter), especially PDs. They have a mastery of trial work that few full-time civil litigation attorneys can touch. Most are so busy, they don't have the months, or even years to prepare for trial like civil attorneys do. That, and they do it for relatively little money and often little thanks from their clients.


----------



## Starting Late (Apr 26, 2010)

I have been a trial lawyer for 36 years. I'd keep the Filson.


----------



## Congresspark (Jun 13, 2007)

The thing about Darrow is that like this thread his interest goes beyond the immediate topic. I highly recommend this book, in which CD is only one of the fascinating cast drawn together by a conspiracy trial: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Trouble-...=1429026904&sr=8-1&keywords=Big+trouble+lucas


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Spence has never lost a criminal trial, so, yeah, his clients have stayed out of jail. And he hasn't lost a civil case since 1969. Then again, he doesn't have a huge caseload, at least, not anymore. I'm not so familiar with Cochran's record, but he did pretty well on the high profile ones. Certainly, neither OJ nor Michael Jackson complained.
> 
> Part of it, of course, is case selection. If you concentrate on PI, as Spence has, it's a lot easier to amass a sexy-looking record than if you concentrate on representing people who are charged with crimes. If you're in criminal defense, you are going to lose if you take every schlub who walks through the door--no one is so good that they're going to win every criminal case they defend. Cops and prosecutors, after all, don't pick defendants from phone books. And if you do criminal defense in the federal courts, where a U.S. attorney who bats .900 is doing poorly and negotiators are tough, you are going to lose. Regardless of venue, most cases don't go to trial. So, if your client pleads guilty and gets probation when the prosecutor wanted five years, is that a loss or a win? I'd argue the latter. It's all about getting a good result, and that's relative.
> 
> I'd argue that a criminal defense attorney who wins--and by win, I mean gets his clients off the hook entirely, no plea bargains, no guilty pleas, either acquittals or charges dismissed--half of his cases is a better lawyer than a PI guy who wins every time. In fact, I doubt that there is a criminal defense attorney--a true defense attorney who earns his/her living doing nothing but criminal defense--who gets half of his clients completely off the hook. Which is why all this Darrow worship has always mystified me. Darrow lost his most famous cases, although the case can be made that he did a good job in obtaining life sentences for Leopold-Loeb instead of the electric chair.


My reference to Clarence Darrow was only because of the quote regarding trial lawyers. I did not quote him because I think he is the greatest lawyer that ever lived. BUT, your argument that he is not a great lawyer because he lost his most famous case lacks merit. The fact that he lost is what brought so much attention to the issue. Nearly everyone acknowledges that the jury got it wrong. Your argument that because he lost, therefore he is not a great lawyer is analogous to arguing that Dred Scott's lawyers were not good lawyers because they lost their most famous case. Every legal scholar acknowledges that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, represents a historically significant stain on the Supreme Court's legacy and helped to foment the civil war. Similarly, Scopes was wrongly decided and everyone acknowledges it.

Finally, your argument that the criminal defense lawyers that win are "better lawyers" than a personal injury attorney that wins is also a ridiculous argument because there is no way to determine who the better lawyer is and your argument is designed to do nothing more than argue for arguments sake.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Nobleprofessor said:


> Finally, your argument that the criminal defense lawyers that win are "better lawyers" than a personal injury attorney that wins is also a ridiculous argument because there is no way to determine who the better lawyer is and your argument is designed to do nothing more than *argue for arguments sake*.


It's what some folks around here do best....


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Starting Late said:


> I have been a trial lawyer for 36 years. I'd keep the Filson.


+1. Except, he says it's waxed canvas, which, if true, sounds a little strange. Maybe they do offer a waxed canvas version (not sure why), but I love my regular canvas Filson 257, and plan to use it forever.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I don't mean to argue, but I don't think that the jury got it wrong in the Scopes trial. The law said that you can't teach evolution. The defendant admitted teaching evolution. It was a show trial designed to demonstrate that the legislature, perhaps, was wrong. But the jury got it right. It's not a jury's place to decide whether laws are right or wrong, just or unjust. They're supposed to rule according to laws as written, and that's what the Scopes jury did. On appeal, Scopes' lawyers didn't argue that the jury got it wrong. They argued that the law was unconstitutional.

And I'll stand by my statement: A criminal defense lawyer with a typical caseload who gets half of his clients either acquitted or gets charges dismissed is a better lawyer than a PI guy who wins every case he chooses to take. And I doubt that such a criminal defense lawyer exists. I know a fair number of very good criminal defense guys. They'd give eye teeth to bat .500.



Nobleprofessor said:


> My reference to Clarence Darrow was only because of the quote regarding trial lawyers. I did not quote him because I think he is the greatest lawyer that ever lived. BUT, your argument that he is not a great lawyer because he lost his most famous case lacks merit. The fact that he lost is what brought so much attention to the issue. Nearly everyone acknowledges that the jury got it wrong. Your argument that because he lost, therefore he is not a great lawyer is analogous to arguing that Dred Scott's lawyers were not good lawyers because they lost their most famous case. Every legal scholar acknowledges that Dred Scott was wrongly decided, represents a historically significant stain on the Supreme Court's legacy and helped to foment the civil war. Similarly, Scopes was wrongly decided and everyone acknowledges it.
> 
> Finally, your argument that the criminal defense lawyers that win are "better lawyers" than a personal injury attorney that wins is also a ridiculous argument because there is no way to determine who the better lawyer is and your argument is designed to do nothing more than argue for arguments sake.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

32rollandrock said:


> I don't mean to argue, but I don't think that the jury got it wrong in the Scopes trial. The law said that you can't teach evolution. The defendant admitted teaching evolution. It was a show trial designed to demonstrate that the legislature, perhaps, was wrong. But the jury got it right. It's not a jury's place to decide whether laws are right or wrong, just or unjust. They're supposed to rule according to laws as written, and that's what the Scopes jury did.


I haven't had the pleasure of hearing about this in law school, but it was always my impression that one could have said the same about Dred Scott. Article Four of the United States Constitution, Section 2, Clause 3 is pretty clear about the necessity of delivering fugitive slaves back to their owners. So as distressing as the case may have been, it would have been logically decided.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Concordia said:


> I haven't had the pleasure of hearing about this in law school, but it was always my impression that one could have said the same about Dred Scott. Article Four of the United States Constitution, Section 2, Clause 3 is pretty clear about the necessity of delivering fugitive slaves back to their owners. So as distressing as the case may have been, it would have been logically decided.


I can't speak to Dred Scott, but I know that Lincoln felt that the court got it wrong. Bowers v. Hardwick is a good example of the court getting it wrong, then righting that wrong in less than 20 years with Lawrence v. Texas--nothing in the Constitution had changed, only the socio-political climate.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

My 2 cents on the briefcase, I'd stick with what you have for a while. You said that the general culture is to be informal and it sounds like what you have is within the norm and perhaps at the high end of it. I don't see any reason to stretch yourself financially for a new briefcase. I think you'll find that new lawyers spend more time and money on things like briefcases than more experienced ones.

My 2 cents on rating lawyers: 

- Trial lawyers are just one group of a very large profession with people of varying skills.

- It is impossible to come up with criteria likes wins/losses to assess the skills of a lawyer. Matters are too unique for objective metrics to be applicable. This is one of the reasons it is so important to choose carefully when selecting a lawyer, and to speak with the right people.


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> My 2 cents on the briefcase, I'd stick with what you have for a while. You said that the general culture is to be informal and it sounds like what you have is within the norm and perhaps at the high end of it. I don't see any reason to stretch yourself financially for a new briefcase. I think you'll find that new lawyers spend more time and money on things like briefcases than more experienced ones.
> 
> My 2 cents on rating lawyers:
> 
> ...


I agree on both topics. Well said.


----------



## StylePurgatory (Jun 3, 2013)

I think you should try a boxer brief case. It'll give you more support.

(Please resume useful conversation)


----------



## sunjh2004 (Dec 31, 2010)

I think Filson briefcase looks quite nice either with suit or a blazer. It has that casual but smart look that I like. Just like a sport jacket with some well made clean canvas tote from Jack Spade would look great as well (looks particularly nonchalantly good for young professionals under 40).

Otherwise my dream bag is from Brigg Westminster 2 (in darker brown - Havana). I have to carry laptops on a daily basis so this bag doesn't suite me otherwise I would get one at this minute.


----------



## SCsailor (Jul 2, 2008)

I've been a trial lawyer for 14 years now. I carry an aging Orvis canvas briefcase. My associates carry the files, which are large. I love my briefcase and that it is fraying at the corners. Orvis also makes a leather briefcase that is the same style. It's nice but I like the old green canvas battenkill bag I've been carrying for years. Consider keeping you filsin. Take a look at what Orvis offers. Don't go dropping a mint on a leather bag. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jch7149 (Aug 5, 2014)

Junior litigation attorney here (mainly coverage and some defense work) - I went the eBay route and bought two matching dark brown Coach briefcases, one medium sized and one large sized. The medium size is a one compartment that can fit a laptop, notepads, briefs, and charger along with other extras, but not a redweld. I use this one basically every day at the office. The larger bag has three compartments, and can fit a single large redweld for appearances. I spent a total of around $230 for both. Fully expect that they will last most of my career.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

Anyone Familiar with this outfit?

https://www.htleather.co.uk/category/briefcases


----------



## DJO1961 (Dec 9, 2012)

rwaldron said:


> Anyone Familiar with this outfit?
> 
> https://www.htleather.co.uk/category/briefcases


Yes. I have a Tomkins briefcase light with a tang buckle closure. It is unlined. It is really quite sturdy. I use it daily. The handle is marvelous. It is machine stitched-I had my cobbler re-stitch part of it that had raveled (or unraveled?). No big deal. At the price, I recommend it highly. I have had mine for about five years. I would recommend the addition of the extra compartment on the backside. The tang buckle is inconvenient to open and close when on the move and the compartment would be convenient.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

DJO1961 said:


> Yes. I have a Tomkins briefcase light with a tang buckle closure. It is unlined. It is really quite sturdy. I use it daily. The handle is marvelous. It is machine stitched-I had my cobbler re-stitch part of it that had raveled (or unraveled?). No big deal. At the price, I recommend it highly. I have had mine for about five years.


I don't know about the OP, but I think this is where I'll be purchasing mine from!


----------

