Are All Lawyers Arrogant? Are Lawyer-Bloggers the Exception?

Federalist No. 84 of Crime & Federalism says:

As a group, lawyers are the most arrogant subset of society. How many times have you heard someone say, "This is what we lawyers call a 'brief.'" And, "This book is written with the layman in mind." Imagine if your doctor said, "This is what we doctors call an 'aorta.'" Most lawyers are arrogant and annoying. [However, most blogger-lawyers are very congenial and interesting. Quite a divide.]

I’ve certainly met my share of arrogant lawyers. I’ve even suggested on this weblog that a modest lawyer is hard to find. It’s an overgeneralization, to be sure. But if asked what subset of society is most arrogant, wouldn’t most people answer “lawyers”?

What’s the reason for the bad reputation? It's probably because most don’t know a lot of lawyers personally. This would also explain why lawyer-bloggers seem to be the exception to the general rule: they’re lawyers who you can actually get to know, sort of.

Comments

[Dave!]

I definitely think it is lack of exposure to lawyers "in real life". The first time I ever encountered a lawyer was when I was in an accident in college... he was nice enough, but dare I say, in some respects fit the stereotype of a PI attorney. My next exposure to an attorney was when I started my first development company some years after college. What a contrast! He was very smart, very helpful, and quite a gracious individual. He truly provided *counsel* to our fledgling company.

Since that time, largely because my wife is an attorney, I've met dozens of attorneys. And you know what? There have been a very small number that have fit the stereotype of arrogant, annoying, asshole. However, most of them are smart, funny, and interesting people. Go figure. I really don't think it has anything to do with blogging or not. The attorney I mentioned above who is a great guy, I don't think he's ever heard of a "blog".

I've heard that airline pilots, many of whom are former military, are arrogant, too. I've never met any, so I guess I should assume that to be true.

-Dave!

[UCL]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the excerpt Evan quoted from Crime & Federalism. Is it now "arrogant" for lawyers to even admit that they are professionals? Is "lay person" a derogatory term? If so, someone please find a more politically correct term to define me when I am talking to a medical doctor, engineer, accountant or computer programmer. All such individuals are professionals, and when I'm talking to them about their areas of knowledge and skill, I am myself a "lay person" in that field and not afraid to admit it.

Most people without law degrees do not understand what lawyers mean when they refer to motions for summary judgment, res judicata, in rem, or rule 11 sanctions. Just like other professions, lawyers have their own language that usually needs to be translated into plain English for people-who-are-not-lawyers. On the whole, I think lawyers do a good job of doing that compared to other kinds of professionals, but I don't see how it's arrogant or somehow wrong to preface such a translation with, "In lay terms..."

[Abnu]

It's what we bloggers call a "rant."

[Federalist No. 84]

but I don't see how it's arrogant or somehow wrong to preface such a translation with, "In lay terms..."
>>>>>>>>

Because it sounds like you are talking down to the person. Just explain what a MSJ is without all the "we lawyers" or "in lay terms." It sounds very condescending. Notice I used doctors as an example. They do not say, "This is what WE DOCTORS call [insert medical term]." Computer geeks don't say, "This is what WE TECHIES call html." Math experts don't say, "This is what WE GENIUSES call a 'mathematical proof.'" Etc.

By saying, "In lay terms" or "we lawyers," you are putting up a barrier between you and the other person. You are saying, "I will talk down to you on your level," rather than just talking to the person in his own terms. You are breaking the Number 1 rule of good communication, namely, to show, don't tell.

The best trial lawyers never say such condescending crap. You should listen to Gerry Spence, Milton Grims, Rex Parris, Tom Girardi, Brown Green or some other top trial lawyer talk. With them, the dialog is horizonal, even when dealing with complex subjects.

But then again, maybe they have enough confidence to realize that there is no need for them to put up barriers between them and the "lay people."

[Fed.No.84]

I definitely think it is lack of exposure to lawyers "in real life".
>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, it's the opposite. It's seeing enough lawyers in "real life" that caused me to form my opinion. I constantly hear people mispronounce words and use unnecessarily haughty language in motions and briefs. And let's not get started about lawyers' latin. Hey, if you can't prounce the words, fine. But don't try to correct someone who actually studied the subject!

Indeed, I've worked with some of the best lawyers in the country. (I attended two of Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College Regional Seminars, where Spence himself lectures). That's what gets my goose. If the best trial lawyers in the country drop such garbage, then why can't the hack doing insurance defense drop the arrogance (er, "confidence") down a level.

[Fed.No.84]

This would also explain why lawyer-bloggers seem to be the exception to the general rule: they’re lawyers who you can actually get to know, sort of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, I suppose the problem is that underlying my statement is the supposition that I read the blogs. So, it's kind of like saying, "Lawyers who blog and whose blogs I find worthwhile" are cool. So I suppose I can't really exempt all lawyer-bloggers from my original arrogance post. After all, I like Evan. But for him there could be five other a-holes I wouldn't like.

For the record, I think doctors are arrogant, too. But it's the way that lawyers express themselves (as noted in the post above) that gets me going.

Hey, odds are my IQ is the higest in the room. But is that the kind of thing I want to advertise? Why? Am I so insecure that I need to say, "This is what those of us with X-IQ do on a Saturday night - we play logic puzzles." Or, "Well, I suppose I'll put it in language that someone with a 120 could understand." That's idiotic. And it would come off as horribly arrogant. Plus, it might make some people feel left out. Why would I want to do that to anyone?

So, at best, most lawyers are very insecure (hence, the need to place walls between themselves and the "lay people"); at worst, arrogant. I think it's the latter.

[David Giacalone]

It's exactly the feeling of insecurity -- that is, uncertainty about one's worth or status and -- that creates arrogance, with its need to assert superiority.

Similarly, it is the need to demonstrate that one's profession really does possess special knowledge or power that spurs the use of jargon.

Some truly wise humans have noticed that we tend to be most offended by the characteristics we fear or dislike in ourselves.

[UCL]

I'm still not buying it, and the "it" I'm referring to is Fed's broad generalization. He says "most" lawyers are at best "very insecure" and "at worst, arrogant". I think that generalization is itself extremely arrogant, as generalizations generally (hehe) tend to be. Do I know arrogant lawyers? Yes. Do I know lawyers who over-use useless legal jargon? Yes. But as a matter of logic, these facts don't amount to a conclusion that most lawyers are insecure or arrogant. Most lawyers I deal with (and I deal with a broad variety) are bright, interesting, talented, likeable people.

[Raymond]

Is Ted Frank, the blog Head at Overlawyered DOT Com a nice guy who is not arrogant ?
Well, you might read his insane attacks on another lawyer Cyrus Sania, who exposed the 9th Circuit judge's porno Chamber stash.(the Kozinski challenge, and other displays of the dorkey judge who likes to be wired in on the latest donkey smut) Frank acts like he is the foremost defender of smut in L A.
Seems some blogging lawyers want the courts not to be places for ordinary citizens(access to courts), and thus the notion of Overlawyered DOT COM.( the Federalist Society Sector of the Bar)
I believe if there is some so called exception to blogging lawyers being super nice(Ha Ha so self serving), then Ted Frank is an exception to the exception.
He is a arrogant fool, and a total arse, unusally ignorant despite being some Clerk.
Ted Frank thinks Gerry Spence is a big ranter, and a narrastic show off, as he notes in his irrational bloggings, which are bodering on some lunatic fringe, pased off as some jurisprudence.( something akin to a DOC of JUDAS Prudence)
Then, others attack Spence, such as Norm Pattis, who writes for the blog "Crime and Federalism", all in a big huff over Spence's Trial College, and the fact as he knows it, that Spence is "wealthy", and made a donation of land , no less.
Now, Spence has a blog, and is at it.( he wrote on his friend Argus, who he calls "insane".)
Overlawered DOT Com is sponsored by the Manhattan Insitute, & lawyer hater(Walt), who rants with Ted Frank. He(Walt) is not a lawyer, and flouts his ignornace, not exactly practicing law without a license, but making a fool of himself without a law degree. Utter ignorance. That would be like blogging on a medical blog on heart surgery by Joe the Plumber.
But, blogs allow some to be Bar types(pretend fantasy world), even if they never went to law school, or stood up in a court room for some citizen. And, the blogger subset call them the nice ones.. Oh, such new marketing ploys, it is beyond the pale, it is really a new form of how some vent at the bordem of their grind of some practice, which is largely pushing paper.(motion this , motion that, and motion ad naseum)
Most cases filed never go to court, for a civil jury trail, something like only 2 % of civil cases, or a verly low percentage, matters are bogged down in motion world, the reality of civil practice in the USA--these days.

[john]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the excerpt Evan quoted from Crime & Federalism. Is it now "arrogant" for lawyers to even admit that they are professionals? Is "lay person" a derogatory term? If so, someone please find a more politically correct term to define me when I am talking to a medical doctor, engineer, accountant or computer programmer.

I'm still not buying it, and the "it" I'm referring to is Fed's broad generalization. He says "most" lawyers are at best "very insecure" and "at worst, arrogant". I think that generalization is itself extremely arrogant, as generalizations generally (hehe) tend to be. Do I know arrogant lawyers? Yes. Do I know lawyers who over-use useless legal jargon? Yes. But as a matter of logic, these facts don't amount to a conclusion that most lawyers are insecure or arrogant
that guy too

That guy is probably an attorney or a law student. His demeanor is not as caustic or arrogant as the archetypal attorney you have in your head; however his entire monologue is annoying and stressful, he's berating you on how you shouldn't berate in self-righteous hypocritical hubris. It's people like him that make me not want to be an attorney.
I can personally attest that the attorney I work with; although deceptive(it's the nature of the job) is a very kind and modest person. I also befriended another attorney who is kind and normal as well. Another attorney I befriended was socipathic in a funny way; he talked about shooting a gov't offical if they attempted to use eminemt domain on his house. So I've only met 3 out of the hundreds of thousands of attorneys which practice in the usa.
However I can say that almost every single law student is exactly what you fear.

[E]

I am a law student and I guess I can say I know a lot of future lawyers. Lawyers are arrogant, full of BS and that's because in law school, they're taught that they're the cream of the society. What's funny is that they know squat about society, real life; they live in their little, comfy bubble and look down on each others and on non-lawyers. I've met a very, very. very few humble practising lawyers among my professors. What was the common denominator? Called to the bar a zillion years ago. The young ones? Bunch of pricks who confuse self-confidence or self-esteem with arrogance.