The fundamental issue is
that
law schools
are producing people who
are not capable
of being counselors.
They are lawyers
in the sense that
they have law degrees,
but they aren't ready
to
be
a
provider
of
services."
-jeffrey carr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've spent a considerable amount of time in the past few days talking to my lawyer. It seems to me that Carr's criticism is too broad. My lawyer (a 50-something product of Catholic education) is a very good provider of service. And my son-in-law, who was admitted to the bar last month, is humane and sensible.
Let me suggest that the problem with law schools is that they don't see it as their business to humanize their students. If they were compassionate before, they'll be compassion when the graduate. If they're self-interested before, they'll be self-interested afterwards.
For better and for worse, law schools educate their students. They don't change them.
maybe young lawyers are victims of legal functionalism -- much like in the economy there is a loss of the human sense...they've bought into the schtick that it's about due restitution and profit...and not a humble human service which if they'd read plato they'd know
that's what it is and read nichomachean ethics then they'd know
i don't hear scathing lawyer jokes anymore they were all the rage 20 years ago
sir thomas more thought it all a sacred duty but that got him killed
even i can't believe all lawyers are bad the best are as good as any lion tamer
welcome the human tragic
jh
i don't hear scathing lawyer jokes anymore they were all the rage 20 years ago
I can well remember.
I suspect that part of the change is the tremendous growth in the number of lawyers. There are currently about 1.2M lawyers in the US, a number that is growing at about 20K lawyers/year. It's easier to joke about lawyers when you don't know any to take your jokes personally.
Perhaps this growth has been the cause of some dilution of quality, reflecting back on the original post. it seems to me that there are lots of folks who ask themselves, "what can I do that will make me rich and comfortable," and that this leads to careerists without passion or investment. It seems to me that the right question is, "what I am called to do here?" and, "what are my differentiating talents?"
What I saw during the dot-com boom was a tremendous influx of folks into computing who saw a golden lunch ticket. The zeitgeist was: do a start-up, attract venture capital, work 80 hours a week for options, then go public, sell out, and retire a multi-millionaire at 28. It worked that way for a few, but there were a lot of people who lacked the passion. They worked for a few years, and then moved on to other things.
I suspect it works that way with lawyers too.
One problem is the anglo-common law itself. Written by and for Torys, more or less (notwithstanding the few add-ons from the Founding crackers). Contracts---descended from ...knights' jousts
In that regard--catholic/latin tradition--the Napoleonic code--also to be considered (including its errors). Or....maybe make the plebes (including lawyers to be) take latin again (contra ius commune).
Post a Comment