In a recent post, Buffs of Buffs Law described a recent conversation in Legal Ethics class about why "everyone hates lawyers, and why lawyers hate themselves"--
Commentators blame the loss of lawyers' independence in the lawyer-client relationship, the fact that law students graduate with incredible debt and so practicing law suddenly becomes a money game, a decline in civility and professionalism, a lack of true community service, poor access to the legal system for indigents, inane complexity everywhere you turn, and so on.
The classroom conversation turned to the ways in which law school changes law students. Some reported being more money-driven; others had lost their ideals; still others found themselves focusing on negatives. In the post, Buffs offered an explanation: "When you learn the intricacies of an amoral system, and you learn to manipulate that system, you yourself become a little more amoral. And when law school rewards amorality if not immorality, you naturally move in that direction."
Is this right? (I'm selectively quoting, so if you're interested, read the entire post at Buffs Law.) One definition of "amoral" is "not caring about right or wrong." Buffs gives this example: on law-school exams, the right answer is usually to sue a potential defendant for every possible cause of action even though, if you were allowed to let real life intrude, you'd say that it was really the plaintiff who was to blame.
Of course, law school exams are largely make believe. No one really practices law by making decisions as if he were answering an exam question. In real life, for example, rather than bringing every possible cause of action when it's the plaintiff who's to blame, you'd tell the plaintiff that you're unable to represent him. While Buffs worries that law school changes law students, my recollection is that once I was out of there, the feeling that I was seeing the world upside-down rubbed off pretty quickly.
Recent Comments