Had any other blawger written this post, it would have, at best, been ignored and, at worst, ripped to shreds for its shocking superficiality and lack of substance. Instead, it was worthy of note by Bob Ambrogi.
Am I the only one to think this?
Has the blawgosphere become more enamored with the messenger than the message?
And will I get skewered for not praying at the alter of a superstar?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m afraid it’s not just the blawgosphere. This is the one big underlying truth in Web 2.0…
What? You mean I should not have fired all my associates and gone out to hire eight year olds?
Eighth-grader, not eight year old. How do you think you’re going to trial with an eight year old, unless they’re a nurse? Sheesh.
I think you need to be artsy-fartsy when reading Spence. What is he really saying? Is he speaking literally or metaphorically? The truth is not always obvious.
When you’re as accomplished as Spence, you’re entitled to artistic license.
This isn’t about artsy-fartsy, but some sort of pseudo-psycho-existential crap. This isn’t Sartre. No one takes this literally, but its got a long way to go to rise to the level of metaphoric. For now, it’s just philosophy for the hard-of-thinking.
That’s awfully harsh. I get the metaphors. Children see simple truths.
Incidentally, the “child as truth-teller” metaphor is an old one. Plato said there is truth in children and wine. And I’ll challenge you to point to a deeper set of metaphors than those contained in “The Little Prince.”
I’d agree that much of Spence’s writings on freedom are “some sort of pseudo-psycho-existential crap.” But his metaphor of child as truth-teller is something entirely different.
I wasn’t limiting it to the child “metaphor”. Any explanation for the rest of it?
His take is that lawyering is about telling stories rather than debating cases. He is being extreme because law school is extreme: Law school teaches that case-briefing rather than storytelling rules.
As you can probably gather, I care a great deal about case briefing. So of course I don’t agree with everything he wrote. But I appreciate why he takes a dramatic position. He’s is every bit as dramatic as his law school enemies.
And while I value case analysis, I know a lot of rich lawyers who can’t write for shit; and who don’t know the difference between the facts and the procedural posture – let alone the difference between the holding and dicta. Somehow their cases are making it to trial – where they are able to get huge verdicts.
Like Spence, a good story teller can build a pyramid. At the top is the story teller. At the levels below are the case crunchers. The slaves get the cases to trial, and the pharaoh wins the big verdicts.
Every successful plaintiffs firm I can think of is a pyramid scheme. And when you look at who is getting the biggest draws in plaintiffs’ firms, it ain’t the case crunchers.
Thus, there might be something to what he wrote. If you want to be rich, learn how to tell great stories. You can always hire flunkies to do your motion work.
I can read what he wrote. It’s just that it’s foolish hyperbole. Do you think that being able to tell a story, and nothing more, makes for a lawyer? Do you think that laws schools “defraud” students because they don’t teach them to tell stories? Of course not. It’s just foolishness.
I get you–but Spence is right about lawyers not quite getting the culture they have inherited. Hyperbole–we all use it. It gets stuff read.
It’s the extreme hyperbole with the total lack of depth.
There are some comments by people I (ahem) respect that blow smoke at this post when they have written on the subject with far greater thought and depth than this. One (who shall remain nameless) gushingly agrees, even though she has argued vociferously to the contrary that new lawyers fresh out of law school are fully prepared to be competent solo practitioners.
As the lawprof commenter notes, how does this apply to lawyers in practice areas other than criminal defense? It doesn’t. Yet it’s an overarching indictment of law school.
So what’s his point: Instead of law school, should we go to raconteur school? Then who will draft contracts. Should we all be psych majors or read Chaucer instead of Marbury v. Madison?
Or, if this was an argument done competently and thoughtfully, is the point that law schools avoid stifling creativity, encourage broader integration of the arts and sciences in the law, and spend greater effort to teach students inclined toward trial work the art as well as the science of lawyering?
I could (and have in the past) go into greater depth, but this is what the post failed to do. Instead, our new 800 pound gorilla is getting his butt kissed right and left for his grandiosity, encouraging him to avoid substance and think that crap like this is all he needs to post in order to gain the adoration of the blawgosphere. I respect the man’s accomplishments as well as everyone else, but the post was embarrassingly bad.
Hey, Scott, if you’re not going to mention my monumental reply to this posting over at f/k/a, I guess I’m going to have to do it myself. See
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2008/08/01/living-legend-law-blogging-and-the-cult-of-gerry-spence/
I apologize profusely for not mentioning it David. I simply assume that everyone who read Simple Justice will of course read f/k/a.
And if there is anyone out there who has not as yet read David’s post, please do so. It’s terrific.
Thanks, Scott. I’m flattered that you would think your readership finds its way to my weblog very often without a nudge from you. Alas, the overlap is probably minimal most days (just those Gals Named Anne).
I sure hope “terrific” is a stepping stone to “legendary.”
I would assume that no one would miss a single post of yours. I know I wouldn’t. And I only used the word “terrific” because I appreciate your modesty. Frankly, you were legendary before I ever found my way to the blawgosphere.
Aw, shucks. No fawning allowed.
Even if you don’t like the way he wrote it, the truth is there is no reason that law school is three years and REQUIRED to be three years other than a way to get more money out of law students. It is sad but true, being a criminal lawyer, didn’t you figure out that law school is about preparing future associates of big firms, not prosecutors and public defenders and people dedicated to some higher cause than money??? Thus, law schools emphasize skills useful to assocites (briefs, etc.) and not prosecutors and criminal lawyers (trial litigation). Of course, while not true for all law schools, even those law schools that do emphasize trial work—why three years??? We certainly don’t need three years.
The subject of law school, and the 3rd year in particular, has been discussed here many times. That wasn’t the issue. Perhaps you could try to use those strong analyitical skills you’ve developed as a prosecutor and figure it out.
Around the web, August 7
Dickie Scruggs reports to prison [Eric Gilkey, Claims Magazine via Rossmiller comments] Gaseous hyperbole + “Gerry Spence” byline = treasury of legal wisdom? [Greenfield] Robert Blakey and Alan Dershowitz, hired by plaintiffs in gigantic Russian suit against Bank of New…