Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
Cosmedy
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:48 pm

Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Cosmedy » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:01 am

To clarify, it's not intended as an insult. According to a survey conducted by psychologist Kevin Dutton (the Great British Psychopath Survey), results showed that lawyers were the second profession most likely to attract psychopaths (the first being CEOs). Would you say from what you've seen from other lawyers or law students that the legal profession tends to attract a certain type of personality? Would you agree or disagree with this survey's results?

For reference, a psychopath is not a "crazy person" and can lead productive lives in society. Psychopaths are characterized by antisocial behavior, diminished empathy, detachment from conventional morality, etc.

User avatar
zombie mcavoy
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:11 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby zombie mcavoy » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:26 am

Cosmedy wrote:lawyers were the second profession most likely to attract psychopaths.

Ah but recall that a profession refers only to those groups of men pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service -- no less the public service because because it may incidentally be a means to a livelihood; the pursuit of the learned art in the spirit of public service is the primary purpose.

You seem to conflate "profession" with "occupation." Indeed, one's insinuation that learned attorneys tend to be psychopathic to a greater degree than, say, rubbish collectors or employees of houses of ill repute is so absurd an idea as to be dismissed out of hand. Good day.

User avatar
fisheatbananas
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:26 am

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby fisheatbananas » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:08 am

Have you read ME Thomas' Confessions of a Sociopath? It's an autobiography of a self proclaimed sociopath who attended law school, worked at a firm then switched over to academia. I'm a 0L but would be interested to hear the opinions of others with more experience as well

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 21859
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Nebby » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:30 pm

I think it's more a chicken and egg scenario. I think the profession can make people amoral, and doesn't necessarily attrack those that are amoral. Value systems are partially built on habit; and if your habit is 10 hour days in BigLaw representing a corporation trying to get out of products liability, or etc., then invariably it's going to take it's toll on you and amorality can develop as a coping mechanism, or alcoholism.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22779
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:33 pm

I don't think people representing corporations are invariably going to end up amoral. There are lots of reasons to think it's worth defending against product liability that are compatible with moral codes.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 21859
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Nebby » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:07 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think people representing corporations are invariably going to end up amoral. There are lots of reasons to think it's worth defending against product liability that are compatible with moral codes.

That's why I qualified it with "can." There are always moral propositions conflicting each other, and just giving up on reconciling them is a coping mechanism, both consciously and not.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14376
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:12 pm

Definitely. I'm not sure how one can try to put rapists back on the street and claim they are acting in the public interest.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22779
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:14 pm

Dude, that story is so old from you. And wrong.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14376
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:18 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Dude, that story is so old from you. And wrong.


I can confirm that public defenders go to applebees and get a bunch of appz after they let a rapist off.

User avatar
Other25BeforeYou
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Other25BeforeYou » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Definitely. I'm not sure how one can try to put rapists back on the street and claim they are acting in the public interest.

The public definitely has an interest in criminal defendants having a zealous representative. We have an interest in an adversarial system to ensure that people aren't falsely convicted when going up against the awesome power of the state.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14376
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:04 pm

Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?


In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby BeenDidThat » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:36 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?


In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.


Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:26 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?


In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.


Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)


Who said anything about withdrawing?

You don't have to lie to represent a guilty client. Make sure the government crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. Make them prove the elements. And, most importantly, make sure you present your client in the best light possible for sentencing.

Just don't lie. Dont knowingly put on false testimony. Don't attack victims who you know are completely innocent. Don't try every misleading trick in the book to get your guilty client off. Show me where you are ethically obligated to do that..?

Everyone deserves representation, not victory at all costs.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Do you see a correlation between psychopathy and lawyers?

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:19 am

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
BeenDidThat wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?


In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.


Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)


Who said anything about withdrawing?

You don't have to lie to represent a guilty client. Make sure the government crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. Make them prove the elements. And, most importantly, make sure you present your client in the best light possible for sentencing.

Just don't lie. Dont knowingly put on false testimony. Don't attack victims who you know are completely innocent. Don't try every misleading trick in the book to get your guilty client off. Show me where you are ethically obligated to do that..?

Everyone deserves representation, not victory at all costs.


Suborning perjury is obviously a no-no. Testing complaining witness' memories is fine. Poking holes in prosecution theories is fine. Not sure what you have against defense lawyers forcing the government to prove the government's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (you seem to think making arguments with shaky factual foundations is "lying" per se). Sounds like an inquisitorial system would suit you better.

You also said "punt." Not sure what you could mean other than not accepting rep or withdrawing after accepting.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest