While directed primarily at civil litigators, particularly personal injury lawyers, two posts, here and here, have generated a small mountain of comment that all lawyers should read. No, not simply because they show the anger and hostility toward lawyers and the law in general. That’s old news.
The significance is in how little non-lawyers know or understand about the law. Sure, we’ve got one flavor or another of Law & Order on TV every night, not to mention another half dozen lawyers shows that come and go, but people aren’t buying.
There are two primary problems raised by the content of the comments: All lawyers are painted with the same brush, and the law and its practitioners is some vague and fuzzy evil thing. To address, post by post, the factual errors would have been overwhelming and pointless. People are angry at lawyers and believe that they know something about the law based upon their water cooler discussions with others whose knowledge of the law equals their own.
Perhaps the most obvious irony of this steam vent is the failure to recognize that there are two sides in every dispute, and that both sides often adamantly believe that they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. They refuse to accept the premise that being a litigation loser might have something to do with being on the wrong side of the law. Instead, the only possible answer is that lawyers are evil and the law is a scam, since it couldn’t possible have anything to do with their conduct.
This problem isn’t limited to the ignorant. Many of the comments are intelligently written, but fundamentally ignorant of the facts. A great example of this can be found in this post, via the Turk, The writer, Dr. Sam, goes on at great length about what is wrong with the legal system, summed up neatly here:
First, what is the root of the problem? I think at it’s heart it is basically a matter of myopic self-centered greed on the part of a significant portion of the legal profession, supported by the willing participants who make up a small but significant part of our population.
It is about folks willing to say, “To hell with justice. To hell with right and wrong. To hell with society and tough crap for any damage done to society as a whole. I see an opportunity to get some cash and I’m gonna pursue it, no matter who gets hurt in the process.”
If we assume that Dr. Sam is indeed a physician, which appears to be the case, then we must similarly assume that he’s a well-educated man, capable of rational thought, deliberation and fact-based analysis. Yet when it comes to the law, he goes on a tear that’s sheer, ignorant emotion. He don’t need no stink in’ facts. He’s not gonna take it anymore!
The PI guys will attribute this pervasive hatred to years of promotion by the insurance industry to undermine the purpose of their efforts. Others may be inclined to look to Dickie Scruggs, Mel Weiss and other scandals that have brought the legal profession into disrepute, whether deserved or not. But this misses the point.
We are way past the point where there can be a rational discussion of why these visceral attacks on the law are wrong, and the countervailing reasons for the rules that apply to our society but seem foolish without further explanation. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody cares anymore.
Nor can we take comfort in the fact that our clients “love” us, and that we didn’t do anything to cause all these contentious lawyer-haters to feel as they do. There are two themes that appear throughout the comments. First, that regular people can’t afford lawyers. Second, that they are far less than impressed with our services than we think. The latter is somewhat obvious: In litigation, there’s almost always a loser. The loser doesn’t believe that it’s a product of his conduct, but of his lawyer’s failure to win.
We have a lot to do with this attitude. The self-promoting lawyers try to sell the notion that they are so brilliant and wonderful that by merely paying them money, a client is guaranteed a good outcome. When that doesn’t happen, we have another very angry person.
Of course, there are people who come by their hatred of lawyers honestly, meaning that they are taken advantage of, they are abused, they are lied to, they are mistreated. We all know these lawyers, and rarely do we do anything about it. Yes, the law is the only professional to sue its own. Yes, our disciplinary boards take their job seriously and lawyers are regularly disciplined and even disbarred. But for some reason, the public isn’t getting the message and thinks that we cover-up for our brethren. Unfortunately, this is largely true. While the most overt legal malpractice and ethical violations are addressed, the garden-variety incompetence is almost always ignored. Even by judges, who have come to expect no more than garden-variety incompetence from the bar.
I have posited that this is a by-product of supply and demand. We churn out way too many lawyers, far more than our society needs or can handle, and these excess lawyers find imaginative ways to earn a living at the expense of the public. The old joke, that it’s the 99% of incompetent lawyers that make the 1% look bad, really isn’t that funny anymore. The bar association cheerleaders will react with platitudes about the majesty of the law and dignity of the profession, but this is meaningless rhetoric to the public.
One commenter stated that the lawyers can either clean up their act or the public is going to do it for us. I believe he is right. And it doesn’t matter that criminal defense lawyers don’t have anything to do with the problems that have caused all this anger; The public sees lawyers as one, big, ugly cancer on society, and criminal defense lawyers are just part of that amorphous mass.
So they don’t understand. They don’t want to understand. And they aren’t going to understand. They are wrong about everything. So what? This ignorance of how the law works, what the law is, why we do what we do, is pervasive. It has become an article of faith, and no TV show is going to educate the public.
The maxim, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” no longer applies. We may disagree about the root cause of the mess, but we can no longer justify sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this problem is just going to go away on its own. We can, and should, have a dignified profession of truly competent lawyer serving the public. It’s up to us to make it so.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
While your piece overall is fairly well written, and to a large extent one I agree with, I must say that your comments suffer some loss of credibility when you mis-represent reality.
You paint my post as simply an emotional tear coming from someone with no first hand exposure to the legal profession, and seem to imply that my comments are simply the result of being on the losing end of litigation.
For what it’s worth (not much I realize), I’ve never been on either end of any litigation, having never sued anyone and having never been sued.
I’m not an attorney and certainly don’t have the same first-hand experience with the profession that an attorney has.
That said, I am married to an attorney. I have a sister who is an attorney. I have several other extended family members and close friends who are attorneys.
When I have discussed my opinions with these people, they have been overwhelmingly met with agreement.
I do not hate lawyers or the legal profession at all. I have a deep respect for the overwhelming majority of lawyers and the legal profession.
I do contend however that our legal system has some major problems and they are not all simply a matter of ignorant public perception or PR failures on the part of the profession.
In my opinion, they mostly boil down to a lack of professionalism on the part of too many in the profession, and tolerance of this from too many others.
The medical profession is increasingly suffering from this same phenomenon. I think my profession is simply not quite as far along this path as is yours. We are catching up rapidly however and personally, I would like to see that trend reversed.
In any case, as mentioned in my blog post that you linked to, I sincerely welcome feedback from people with more knowledge of the law and the legal profession than I possess.
If you wish to dispute some of the stuff in my blog post, or all of the stuff in my blog post for that matter, then please leave a comment.
Also as mentioned however, please avoid meaningless ad hominems, red herrings, and straw man arguments.
Mine was by and large an opinion piece, rather than a fact-filled dissertation, but if as you imply, you think I’ve got some specific facts wrong, then please educate me. Point out those specific facts. Point out where they are wrong. Steer me to the truth. I sincerely welcome that. If I’m wrong about something, I want to know about it so that I can get right.
If it is simply a matter of my opinion differing from yours, rather than specific verifiable incorrect facts however, then please acknowledge that.
Please avoid simply mis-characterizing me as some ignorant fool who hates all lawyers, don’t need no stinkin’ facts, and ain’t gonna take it anymore.
That’s simply dishonest and does discredit to your otherwise mostly well-reasoned article.
Cheers,
Sam
Sam,
I’m sorry that this post has upset you so, but it really wasn’t about you. You were merely an example of an otherwise intelligent fellow who engaged in a vapid rant demonstrating how reason was overcome with anger. Your post didn’t show any particularly egregious ignorance. It was rather pedestrian, which is why it made a great example.
But I certainly agree with you that next time you decide to go on a rant, it would behoove you to learn a little something about the substance before launching. Unfortunately, it’s not my job to educate you, and I lack even a minimal interest in doing so.
Take heart Scott.
Your post really did not upset me at all. I regret that I apparently left you with the impression that you had angered or upset me. This was certainly not my intention.
There is really no need for you to apologize like this.
I merely felt a duty to try and help my fellow man by pointing out to you where you were damaging your own credibility with your mis-characterization of my blog post.
I fear I may have actually done more harm than good however as I see your response to my comments seems to simply be doing more self-inflicted damage.
Therefore, I’ll refrain from commenting further.
I do appreciate your apology however and most graciously accept it.
Cheers,
Sam
Great to hear. Thanks Sam.
Perhaps, Sam, if your post had some actual empirical data in it to support the rant, it would be better received.
I’m not anti-lawyer. Some of my best friends, etc.. But there is an unfortunate genre of legal blawg commentary of which this post is a part, either knowingly or not, where lawyers complain that non-lawyers are all ignoramuses who are simply biased against attorneys and whose criticisms have no merit merely BECAUSE they’re not themselves lawyers.
Attorneys can be a particularly insular bunch, especially working courthouse lawyers, and more than a few are particularly prone to an unjustified arrogance based on the belief than no one without a J.D. can understand the things they do. (It’s easier to believe that, as an attorney, than to accept there are portions of the legal canon that harm people more than help them and are virtually impossible to rationally justify.)
Also, I’d strongly dispute criminal defense lawyers aren’t part of the source of public anger against attorneys. Incompetent lawyering for indigents, e.g., is a disgraceful problem that can only be laid at the feet of the criminal defense bar.
IMO a big problem with the legal system today is its structure assumes, as you say, “there are two sides in every dispute.” But that’s not true. Sometimes there is only one legitimate “side.” Sometimes there are a dozen or more. Sometime those harmed most aren’t even parties in the case. But the prosecutor vs. defendant structure of the system creates that impression, which is less a reflection of reality than of old British common law.
For the most part, the law is written by non-lawyers, and anyone who thinks it’s too complex for the public to understand cannot then reasonably expect the people to abide by it. The law belongs to everyone, not just attorneys, and I think barristers underestimate the extent to which the public generally resents implications otherwise.
You’re in a unique position on this post, Scott, because you are as much of a lawyer as a nonlawyer can be. And I agree with you in part, which I thought was clear in the post but may not have been. We are, including criminal defense lawyers, responsible for the publics’ anger and resentment.
As for the ignoramus part, the public is and isn’t. My purpose was to relate back to the specific comments, and preclude other lawyers from looking at them at picking them apart because of the public’s mistaken understanding of the law. It is bad. They don’t get it. There’s just no way around that fact. The public doesn’t understand the law or what lawyers do.
But that doesn’t relieve lawyers from the things we do poorly or wrong. And within the bar, we have a substantial group of cheerleaders who refuse to admit that lawyers do anything wrong. They too are wrong.
I don’t know that I would agree that laws are written by non-lawyers. Many legislators are lawyers, and most have counsel to do the actual drafting of laws. But that also doesn’t change your point, that it unreasonable to expect the public to abide by laws when the don’t get it. There’s a very real reason why laws are written to be as complex as they are, which the public won’t understand, and a very real reason to make laws simple enough for people to understand.
But the underlying point remains the same: Non-lawyers really don’t understand the law, and they are “legal” examples are usually laughable. But their point is correct, that as a profession we do a lousy job of serving the public and our clients, their anger is justified, even if they aren’t always able to express the reason well, and that’s what lawyers need to understand.
We don’t hate ALL lawyers; just the BAD ones – and the GOOD ones who let them operate!
When we speak of the evil which T&E lawyers and other fiduciaries do, we try to use adjectives – “unethical” lawyers and “corrupt” judges – to distinguish!
Another area of law that I’ve always found distasteful. But how do you tell the good from the bad?
Interesting Post. In my experience recently… The issue I have experienced is not good. With a case I will likely be arguing myself, since there is no actual precedent or specific law regarding my situation, It is too much a bother for something that is not a guaranteed win. They have made claims as to why I do not have a case, and when I quote law and await a rebuttal, they don’t seem to be familiar with the law as much as one would expect. Granted, there are attorneys out there that do know laws in their area of expertise, but I’m finding the more attorneys I speak with, the less I believe it to be so.
It’s funny, Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, however in Arizona vs. Miranda… Ignorance of the law was enough to overturn a murder conviction. The Justice system needs to be revamped. Not only that, certain amendments to the constitution in the early 20th century need to be repealed.