LET THE LAWYER-BASHING BEGIN . . . Now that the election is over, it's time for the lawyer-bashing to begin. Here are two representative quotes from today's Investor's Business Daily--

• "Election Day: Lawyers can vote, but they have no right to meddle in the system" (cover blurb for an editorial inside the paper);
• "Elections should be decided by an army of voters, not an army of lawyers who seem ready in this election, as before, to contest the results" (editorial on A12).

In the same paper, a cartoon shows a polling place beneath a sky filled with vultures. "Lawyers," the caption explains.

I get the point. But do the writers understand that the lawyers aren't operating independently, but are working on behalf of individuals or groups who have hired them? Sometimes lawyer-bashing leads to muddled thinking.

Comments

[L.U.]

Maybe you don't get the bigger point? Sometimes lawyers are acting independently of their clients, and cooperatively with other lawyers. How else does one explain the cooperation among members of the bar to thwart an inquiry into conflict of interest related to hundreds of millions of dollars of legal fees, and an even larger amount of hedge fund profiteering? How does any lawyer defend the acknowledged comments made by a lawyer when attempting to dissuade his client from the pursuit of information which could harm large and profitable law firms?

[Ed Poll]

Well said. Lawyers do not act independently. They're hired. And, if all lawyers are vultures, why is the comment not appropriate for the Bush supporters' lawyers as well? Because lawyers are advocates, not triers of fact.