Law, Lawyers, and Responsibilty

[penda]

Some of you knew that I've been working on a manifesto of sorts since I was in Thailand that would crystallize my political and moral stances into a single cogent message. As time has progressed I've become less willing to willing to put it all to paper, and I've found that the primary reason for that is that I don't want to preach. While I have very strong beliefs regarding the subject of my contemplation in Thailand, I also strongly feel that nothing is accomplished by preaching. As such, I've torn down my writing inch by inch until there was nothing left but the original idea. There is no grand essay on changing the world, I'm not igniting the page with revolutionary fervor, instead I've just returned to the concept at it's simplest form. I will share the idea with you, as it is something that is so close to me it feels as if it is written on my soul... so to know this is to know me. If you have questions, I will answer them but I will not write a massive essay on the subject and push it on people. There is no wisdom in that.

We, as lawyers (and lawyers to be), have a responsibility to the people of this nation and to the people of all nations to guide society based on ideals. No one wields as much power to change as a lawyer, we determine the fates of individuals and the masses with each case we try. But the majority of our number make decisions on cases and arguments based on monetary values rather than considering the social impact of our actions. We must wean ourselves from the teet of materialism and make our decisions based on something higher than a paycheck.

Our code of ethics carries with it an unspoken subtext that appears to have been missed by many people. We are expected to be more than human. In some respects we are modern day knights (champions for our clients) and in other ways we are priests (offering counsel, guidance, and some degree of sanctuary). We must embrace the truth of the profession we have joined (the truth that this is more than a job, it is a calling) and take responsibility for the power we hold.

We should be saviors. We should be heroes. But heroism only comes with fighting for a belief, and if you don't fight for a cause you believe in you're simply a mercenary. Acknowledging that, it isn't surprising that we're a hated profession. If we were to use discretion and wield our power wisely, however, we'd be elevated.

I don't care what you believe. I don't care where your politics or morals lie. Just exercise them when you wear the mantle of Officer of the Court, regardless of what is most profitable. Our voices, our conflicting voices, could lead society to Utopia if we could just withstand the urge to sell ourselves to the highest bidder.

Comments

[maramaye.livejournal.com]

One question.

"...to guide society based on ideals."

Which ideals?

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

Any ideals. I'm not so arrogant as to think that I have the answers to everything. I don't demand that lawyers take up my banner of social reform. I just want them to believe in something, anything, and utilize that in their practice. As it stands right now, the only belief that is getting mileage from most lawyers these days is the belief that they want a bigger house and need money to buy it.

If we were to act on our ideals, and to develop them, we will probably never agree... but simply acting on those ideals would do a tremendous amount to reform society into something beyond the corpotocracy that has devoured us. Not everyone would agree that we're going in the right direction all the time, but that direction would be chosen by the will of the masses rather than by funding and deep pockets.

[maramaye.livejournal.com]

While I agree with the sentiment, I might point out that ideals do not necessarily pay off student loans.

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

And it's that attitude that has led this profession, and this nation, to the state it's in. It's a slave mentality.

[maramaye.livejournal.com]

Agreed. That doesn't make it an untrue statement.

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

Then don't you think it makes it all the more important to resist the shackles of debt that the corporate run schools and government place on us and pursue what is right rather than what is easy and comfortable?

[maramaye.livejournal.com]

Is it easy and comfortable to assume $120k worth of debt and go through three years of law school? How does one go to law school in a manner that 'resists the shackles of debt' without being independently wealthy first?

I'm not disagreeing with your ideal. I'm just saying that idealism without a base in feasibility is not useful.

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

But you're operating on an assumption that if I do not sell out to a corporation that I will not be able to pay off my student loans. The world isn't that black and white. Hell, I could pay off my loans by going back to tech writing. I dont need to become hugely rich to fight. In fact, I'd argue that if I became hugely rich that I wouldn't fight because I'd have too much to lose and I'd be part of the problem.

But you're getting off track here. I'm not suggesting that all lawyers need to have socialist ideals and encourage the country to slouch towards socialism. I'm just saying that they need to pick their employment, cases, and types of arguments based on their beliefs rather than on who is offering the most money. that is, unless you believe only in the power of money. In that case, you're operating under your beliefs. However, I think very few people go to law school thinking that the only thing they want out of money is a fat paycheck. If they look back far enough, and deep enough, they'll remember that they wanted to change things for the better.

They should focus on that, and take work based on those wants and needs. Doing things like that would prevent Enron like scandals for the most part since most lawyers would remember that *gasp* they don't believe in defrauding thousands to benefit a few.

It isn't a matter of "either I sell out to a corp, or I go hungry." The world is more complicated than that, and in this instance I /can/ make my loan payments and still resist doing work that would conflict with my moral stance.

[silentclarity.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure when Eve said "ideals don't pay student loans" she didn't mean "Lawyers should sell themselves out to the highest bidder."

Like most things in life it's a matter of balance. All the ideals in the world won't buy you a Starbucks coffee if you don't have 3.50. Idealism is great, it's what inspires us to make things better - but if it's not tempered by practicality all it ends up being good for is stirring rhetoric and not much else.

Nice try

[hazenhammel.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with inevitability that lawyers need to look at their work as a "calling", not just a job. I had to affirm an oath when I was admitted to the bar that ended with this sentence: "I will never reject from any consideration personal to myself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice." I think I've kept that promise well, and I managed to pay off my loans.

Your manner of expressing this, however, leaves a lot to be desired. Ideals? Crusaders, slaveholders, Nazis, Communists... all these people had "ideals", some of them still considered good. But history suggests that even "knights" and "priests" can be oppressors. See, e.g. the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Lawyers represent criminals, in service of a "higher" ideal of justice, and likewise I suppose someone could rationalize getting a job doing insurance defense work (where the whole point is to delay people's causes for "lucre") though personally I find this utterly repugnant and wrong. The question of which "ideals" prevail over others is not a trivial one you can dismiss with "I don't care what you believe." Practicing law often involves intricate conflicts between "ideal" and "real", and requires you to articulate precisely what you believe and how your values relate to one another, which values are paramount, when you are going to defer to authority and when not, and so forth.

Re: Nice try

[inevitability.livejournal.com]

Personally, I find it dangerous to add any statement where lawyers must believe one way or another. Perhaps you've attained a level of enlightenment I haven't, but I don't have all the answers and wouldn't presume to tell anyone what they should and should not believe. Nor do I think that would be effective.

Frankly, I think simply acting on a belief that trancends simple greed is enough. Sure, there are some bad seeds out there who have wicked beliefs, but they are the minority and would be drowned out by the cacophany of good people. And at least people would be fighting for what they believe in rather than acting as mercenaries.

Have more faith in humanity. People are good, sometimes they just have to be reminded of it and given the opportunity to show it.