I never quite understood this phrase. I mean, I get the concept. You want a young surgeon for her/his up-to-date knowledge gained from medical school. The medical school is on the cutting edge (pun intended), ergo the young surgeon will know the latest techniques etc.
When it comes to lawyers why are “old lawyers” best? It has to do to specializing says the Northern Michigan Review. An attorney with 25 years experience stated in this article:
one of the first questions a client should ask is whether the attorney has ever handled a case like this before, and if so, provide some examples…you don’t need to reinvent the wheel after 25 years in practice. There probably isn’t anything I haven’t done at least once … The truth is, you want your surgeons young and your lawyers old.
I’m not that young anymore. I’ve been practicing law since 2000. I’m pretty sure I disagree with this article’s core theory. Depending on the case you want an attorney who knows how the law affects a client’s problem.
A “young” attorney shouldn’t be tossed aside for merely being “young”. If the attorney, knows the issues, the law and really understands the problems a client is going through isn’t that all you can ask for in a lawyer?
I have the luxury of “youth” and experience. I’ve always worked for a law firm. I’ve always had another attorney to bounce ideas off of. In hindsight, I think I did the right thing by working for a general practice firm for my first few years out of law school. I hope I understand a little bit about a lot of areas of the law. As an attorney for injured people I deal with a lot of issues that stem from these injuries. I hope I bring a little age (i.e. experience) along with my “youth”.