Do you ever get the feeling that someone, somewhere, is playing a joke on lawyers and we’re just not getting it?  Doug Berman, in a fit of pique after Dan Filler knocked over his snifter full of cognac at the  Faculty Lounge and refused to apologize, decided to make him pay by rubbing his nose in dog poop.

It seems that the other lawprofs sitting around in their tweed jackets think that too much emphasis is placed on the death penalty in law school because it’s hot and sexy, which represents a small portion of sentencing issues, rather than the more mundane but far more extensive issues surrounding general sentencing. 

Aside:  If they did a better job teaching constitutional issues in criminal law, maybe they wouldn’t have as many sentencing issues to begin with because criminal defense lawyers would win more cases.

In retaliation for their Philistine thoughts, Doug decided to  dredge up the newest, latest and coolest of law school course offerings:  Animal Law!  Take that, you social utility snobs.

I am drawn back to these comments today upon tripping across this law school website that indicates that nearly 100 law schools have a course on animal law.  The website explains: “Nearly half of US law schools teach an overview course and a growing number of schools now offer clinical opportunities. Lewis & Clark Law School has the most developed animal law program offering six courses, including summer courses, moot court, and the Animal Law Clinic.” 

So how do you do the intake at the Animal Law Clinic?  Seriously, what if you’re a cat person and a dog walks in?  Do you just pooh-pooh his complaint?

Now this isn’t the first I’ve heard of the burgeoning practice of animal law.  Indeed, even commercials have come out in this highly competitive specialty.

For Doug, this is no laughing matter. 

I suppose it is a sad and telling commentary that many law schools have devoted more resources toward having students question the legal treatment of animals than the legal treatment of criminal offenders.  Perhaps advocates for sentencing and corrections reform need to find some incarcerated people with sad puppy-dog eyes so that humans locked in cages will evoke as much sympathy in elite law schools as animals locked in cages.

For those of us who may not have had the experience of participating in the Animal Law National Moot Court Competition, we are likely to lack a full appreciation of the seriousness of the plight of animals.  On the other hand, since we do such a lousy job with humans, maybe we should focus a little harder on dealing with our own species in law school and leave Fido to walk it off.

I apologize in advance to any animal lovers out there who find this post outrageous, ignorant and offensive.  But frankly, I’m with Doc Berman.  We have enough problems trying to make our legal system work well for people, and finding new yet silly ways to waste scarce resources just strikes me as ludicrous.