Walking the Walk, Second Try
Over the weekend, I did a post that I intended to be directed to the failings of lawyers. I didn’t quite get there, as my example was too prominent in it. You can read it here. Read the comments, especially Dilf’s and my response.
Here’s what I wanted to say in the post, which may not interest you, as it’s really a narrow, “professional” thing:
I’ve been a lawyer for now almost twenty-one years. To be a lawyer, you have to have a license. To get a license, you have to graduate from an accredited law school, and pass the bar exam and the background check. You then become a member of the “Bar.” I have a nice little laminated card that I’ve used exactly once, to avoid the line for the magnetometer in a municipal court, something you can’t do since 2001.
To misuse a legal phrase, quid pro quo, something for something, requires a return of some quo for the quid we have.
As lawyers, we see ourselves as privileged. There’s an unspoken noblesse oblige’ thing going on. Maybe it’s broader, a matter of “professionalism.” Here’s an online definition of the word that I kind of like:
“An occupation, the practice of which directly influences human well-being and requires mastery of a complex body of knowledge and specialized skills, requiring both formal education and practical experience.”
Whatever the genesis, lawyers have a tradition of giving back. No boos now. Almost all lawyers that I’ve known over the years do free legal work – pro bono – for the good. But not always, and too often, we leave it to “the system.”
I’m as guilty as my brethren. I do pro bono, not criminal, usually helping someone with a problem that economically doesn’t justify hiring a lawyer or helping someone that flat can’t afford to hire and pay a lawyer. I give money to the legal aid folks. But I don’t go out and find people that need help.
Then someone like Gary Hilton comes along. The poster child, albeit of the “Chucky” variety, for the need for lawyers to live up to their obligation as lawyers. To return to the example of the weekend’s post, there shouldn’t be a need for a law that requires the State to provide him a lawyer when he needs one. We, the lawyers should step in. We didn’t and that’s a failure.
4 comments:
I understand what you're saying.
If not for lawyers and juries, we'd have a system where the government makes an accusation, the government decides guilt or innocence, and the government decides on a penalty; no checks, no balances.
If you take lawyers out of the equation, you've got David going against Goliath. (As far as I know, David only won that one time, and people are still talking about it.)
Thomas, I'm getting peeved. You're always able to say what I say more eloquently, this time in two sentences and a paranthetical. And, you made me laugh out loud.
David does win against Goliath on occasion. Trouble is, nearly all successful Davids wind up becoming the new Goliaths.
Society should sleep better at night when they convict a criminal who did have good representation. But all too often, people seem not to care about this stuff - witness the general lack of outrage about Guantanamo Bay detainees being held indefinitely without trial.
Post a Comment