Law as a noble profession Forum

[Newberry642]

It is interesting to read some of your responses. While I am happy to see that some of you share my passion for this profession, it saddens me to see that many of you do not.

In response to the person who claimed that law firms only engage in pro bono work as a marketing tool, this is simply not true. I won’t deny that there are a few lawyers at large law firms that do not prioritize pro bono work, but these lawyers tend not to last very long. Several years ago, almost a third of our summer associates were not asked to return to my firm after graduating due to their reluctance to engage in pro bono work and due to their negative attitudes. They were seen as a liability that would reflect poorly on the firm and the profession. Similarly, although I won’t deny that law firm hiring has declined slightly over the last few years, I believe that the main reason why my firm has hired slightly less attorneys has been because so many of the candidates recently interviewed have had very poor attitudes. It must be remembered that law is not simply a means of making lots of money.

Many of my friends from college went into medicine and investment banking. While I won’t deny that my friends in investment banking work very hard and contribute a great deal to our country’s economy, I do not believe that they reach out and help their communities in the same way or to the same extent that lawyers tend to. Similarly, while I won’t deny that doctors are very hard working and can potentially help people a lot, I do not see the same level of “nobility” in that profession. Law, at its heart, is a search for truth, an attempt to bring justice, and an attempt to help those who cannot necessarily help themselves, costs and hours be damned.

[Patriot1208]

Your firm didn't no offer a third of the class because of reluctance to do pro bono work.

[WayBryson]

Complete fail. I give up on trying to upload images

[Grizz]

How is "argue both sides of the issue" a search for truth.

Your firm didn't no offer a third of the class because of reluctance to do pro bono work.

Also this.

I call flame.

[A'nold]

Maybe the law as a profession isn't noble b/c those going into it are cynical, self-absorbed a-holes?

[BackToTheOldHouse]

I wish this wasn't a flame, but I know it is.

the comparison to doctors is just too bizarre.

[Verity]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

[Patriot1208]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

I bet your a hit at parties. Use jejune in an interview or at a callback and enjoy unemployment.

[Verity]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

I bet your a hit at parties. Use jejune in an interview or at a callback and enjoy unemployment.

So send a strongly-worded letter to the OED editors and ask that it be removed in the next edition, since you dislike it so much.

[Patriot1208]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.
I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

I bet your a hit at parties. Use jejune in an interview or at a callback and enjoy unemployment.

So send a strongly-worded letter to the OED editors and ask that it be removed in the next edition, since you dislike it so much.

I refuse to believe that you are so dense that you don't understand the point of this exchange.

[soaponarope]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

Did I hit a nerve? As of today, you know nothing about the law. 0. zip. You have no legal experience yet think you know what you're talking about. The funny thing is, I don't know who you are but I could tell that you're a 0L. You're like that guy in my torts class, 1st semester. He thought he knew everything and always raised his hand every class. Yea, well... he shut up after the 1st semester...be prepared...you'll be humbled soon enough.

[quakeroats]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

Jejune is inappropriate because you're using an uncommon word to convey a simple idea. Uncommon terms are only appropriate if they serve a purpose--e.g., conveying additional meaning, clarifying an uncertainty, distilling many words into few--beyond puffing up otherwise straightforward ideas.

[PDaddy]

I like to think that it is. Even personal injury attorneys, who most people crap on, do some amazing things for people.

It also depends what day you catch me on. The pride I feel for this profession is at its highest when, say, a conservative or liberal justice goes against what would be politically beneficial to their cause and rule according to the law or according to truth and justice.

In contrast, feelings of pride are at its lowest when I see opinions that back an agenda when any rational interpretation would bring the justices to another conclusion.

I believe (or at least am optimistic) that I won't waiver in my belief that this profession is noble and that we should do all we can to keep it that way.

Cheesy I know.

This! What I have recently learned is how political the law is. No one can fathom it until he'she views it up-close. For example, the federal courts are wrought with judges who simply choose to try cases that interest them and seek ways to dismiss on summary judgment (or directed verdict) those cases and/or litigants they do not favor - regardless of the facts or merits of cases. Summary judgment is far overused and should be abolished, because it now serves as a case-management tool rather than a mechanism for eliminating cases that lack merit.

Too many meritorious cases are dismissed via summary judgment, an instrument that violates the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury. Federal appeals courts are no better. For example, federal "mediators" have an agenda that requires minimizing at all costs the number of cases that reach appellate panels. They convey dim statistics to plaintiff-appellants to instill doubt in their cases, or broker settlements far below what cases (which are often meritorious but wrongly dismissed on SJ) are worth...all to keep the federal appellate dockets from being over-stuffed. That's not justice.

Contrary to what OP thinks, the law is not about "truth" because those who administer it are not interested in truth. The law is about convenience and politics. That does not mean justice does not occur...it just means that justice is a rare occurrence.

The courts are not interested in "truth", they are interested in seeing which side tells "the best story". Only once in awhile do those two things coincide, and it is even less frequent that the people involved (judges, lawyers, juries, etc) recognize it. Perjury is often committed but rarely prosecuted, even when committed by attorneys in their pleadings. It is all par for the course.

That having been said, the legal profession is still noble because of its stated aims and the people who, through all of the BS, maintain an idealistic belief in justice. Although far from perfect, there are mechanisms that, when properly used, promote justice for those who are wronged. The professsion is also noble becaause of its facilitative/preventive functions...incitivizing people to "get along" better than they otherwise might.

[spanktheduck]

I like to think that it is. Even personal injury attorneys, who most people crap on, do some amazing things for people.

It also depends what day you catch me on. The pride I feel for this profession is at its highest when, say, a conservative or liberal justice goes against what would be politically beneficial to their cause and rule according to the law or according to truth and justice.

In contrast, feelings of pride are at its lowest when I see opinions that back an agenda when any rational interpretation would bring the justices to another conclusion.

I believe (or at least am optimistic) that I won't waiver in my belief that this profession is noble and that we should do all we can to keep it that way.

Cheesy I know.

This! What I have recently learned is how poliotical the law is. No one can fathom it until he'she views it up-close. For example, the federal courts are wrought with judges who simply choose to try cases that interest them and seek ways to dismiss on summary judgment (or directed verdict) those cases and/or litigants they do not favor - regardless of the facts or merits of cases. Summary judgment is far overused and should be abolished, because it now serves as a case-management tool rather than a mechanism for eliminating cases that lack merit.

Too many meritorious cases are dismissed via summary judgment, an instrument that violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Federal appeals courts are no better. For example, federal "mediators" have an agenda that requires minimizing at all costs the number of cases that reach appellate panels. They convey dim statistics to plaintiff-appellants to instill doubt in their cases, or broker settlements far below what cases (which are often meritorious but wrongly dismissed on SJ) are worth...all to keep the federal appellate dockets from being over-stuffed. That's not justice.

Contrary to what OP thinks, the law is not about "truth" because those who administer it are not interested in truth. The law is about convenience and politics. That does not mean justice does not occur...it just means that justice is a rare occurrence.

The courts are not interested in "truth", they are interested in seeing which side tells "the best story". Only once in awhile do those two things coincide, and it is even less frequent that the people involved (judges, lawyers, juries, etc) recognize it. Perjury is often committed but rarely prosecuted, even when committed by attorneys in their pleadings. It is all par for the course.

That having been said, the legal profession is still noble because of its stated aims and the people who, through all of the BS, maintain an idealistic belief in justice. Although far from perfect, there are mechanisms that, when properly used, promote justice for those who are wronged. The professsion is also noble becaause of its facilitative/preventive functions...incitivizing people to "get along" better than they otherwise might.

Please explain how summary judgments impact a person's right to a jury trial under the 6th amendment.

[PDaddy]

Please explain how summary judgments impact a person's right to a jury trial under the 6th Seventh amendment.

Oops! Fixed.

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Many scholars agree that summary judgment is unconstitutional. Go to the links.

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/vie ... ilogy:+The"

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/sathomas/summ_judg.pdf

http://www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/ilr/Thomas1.pdf

--LinkRemoved--

Not only do judges invade the province of the jury by issuing summary judgments before issues are ever heard by juries, but they often fail to properly follow and apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting mechanism that supposedly permits judges to do so. Furthermore, SJ is applied far too often in civil rights cases (as an example), which, by nature, tend to require jury trials more than other cases because live testimony is often needed to reach a valid conclusion concerning the merits of the claims. But I disagree with SJ on principle for any case. Unless a case obviously has zero merit - and I don't know what mechanism can be used to sift through such cases - SJ should not be employed.

Relevant evidence in such cases is often under the control of the employer or landlord who discriminates, and civil rights violators make an unstated but well-known deal to misrepresent facts and destroy evidence. The victims of discrimination tend to be those citizens who are least able to fight back due to lack of resources, social connections or administrative power. For those reasons, discrimination cases are unsuited for summary judgment.

[shoeshine]

I hope this isn't a flame. I hope there is someone out there that truly believes that working in a large law firm is noble.

I think you would have to truly redefine noble to include the entire profession of law under that description. Yes pro bono work is noble and some of the things lawyers defend can be noble but overall it is a scummy profession that is driven more by greed than a strong moral compass. If law were noble then most legal services would be free.

Lawyers asking other lawyers or perspective lawyers why they think the profession they have all undertaken is noble is the professional equivalent of a circle jerk.

[Retiarius]

Law is a noble profession 50% of the time.

The other half of the time, you're representing the wrong side.

[firemed]

--ImageRemoved--

[fatduck]

Law is a noble profession 50% of the time.

The other half of the time, you're representing the wrong side.

i think it goes a little deeper than guilty or innocent, bro

[Retiarius]

Law is a noble profession 50% of the time.

The other half of the time, you're representing the wrong side.

i think it goes a little deeper than guilty or innocent, bro

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

But I have trouble believing that when I'm arguing for the exact opposite as an opponent, we can both be fighting for justice and a noble cause.

It's just another zero-sum game.

[shoeshine]

Law is a noble profession 50% of the time.

The other half of the time, you're representing the wrong side.

i think it goes a little deeper than guilty or innocent, bro

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

But I have trouble believing that when I'm arguing for the exact opposite as an opponent, we can both be fighting for justice and a noble cause.

It's just another zero-sum game.

Yeah but not every case is just guilty and innocent. There is gray area in both life and in the law.

[A'nold]

Who said the legal system couldn't? Point is, if you're a 0L you should tone down your conclusory opinions. And "jejune" ? Speak English... using legalese in lawl school does not impress professors and your classmates will think you're a douche. Tighten up kid.

So, I'm right, but I should be less confident? Wow.

"Jejune" is English, it's not legalese, we're not in "lawl" school at the moment, and it's the apt word. If we're going to debate usage, your using "conclusory" (underlined by spell-check; this is actually borderline legalese; the dictionary definition of this is actually "conclusive," which is far more common) should be criticized.

I shouldn't have to be schooling you on this.

Jejune is inappropriate because you're using an uncommon word to convey a simple idea. Uncommon terms are only appropriate if they serve a purpose--e.g., conveying additional meaning, clarifying an uncertainty, distilling many words into few--beyond puffing up otherwise straightforward ideas.

TITCR.

[sundance95]

Jejune is inappropriate because you're using an uncommon word to convey a simple idea. Uncommon terms are only appropriate if they serve a purpose--e.g., conveying additional meaning, clarifying an uncertainty, distilling many words into few--beyond puffing up otherwise straightforward ideas.

I...completely, 100% agree with quakeroats?

Is everyone sure the apocalypse hasn't begun?

[A'nold]

Law is a noble profession 50% of the time.

The other half of the time, you're representing the wrong side.

i think it goes a little deeper than guilty or innocent, bro

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

But I have trouble believing that when I'm arguing for the exact opposite as an opponent, we can both be fighting for justice and a noble cause.

It's just another zero-sum game.

eh......

[sundance95]

^ I'm glad someone else picked up on that, A'nold. Law is not inherently noble, therefore it is a zero-sum game? Fail.