|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Friday, January 17, 2003Musings such as yours on lawyers kept me in hot water during law school. The law in america is a 12th century construct with overlay of high middle ages guild thinking and a religious gloss over it. Lawyers can best be thought of as "free companies" ie mercenary knights of the 12-14th centuries. It believes in trial by combat(the adversarial process), the duty to zealously defend the client, no duty of the attorney to tell the truth(they are not under oath), a referee who can reverse any decision if it does not feel right ( equity taking the role of the archbishop), protection of the professionals (lawyers and judges) from the rules imposed on the rest of society(the serfs or us), and a refusal to acceed to control from outside the caste (the supreme court is always right, especially when its wrong). I often contended that the legal cannons are an almost perfect definition of evil, ie no responsibilty for any of your actions no matter how reprehensible(I was only following orders). The legal process has not yet come to grips with the enlightnment or scientific revolutions. Most legal process is indistinguishable from the process of the middle ages. A telling point on legal ethics is that all law reviews check each footnote in a legal article because of how commonly lawyers lie about facts. Anglo-american law holds that the highest right anyone has is the right to sue anyone else for anything. That actually trumps everything else. The judges view law written by the legislature as suggestions, after all only the judges can say what it really means. A bad legislative law can be reversed, reversing a bad supreme court is almost impossible. Yeah, and no one seems to be interested in reforming the legal profession. They cry foul at attempts to reform the tort system, but make no sort of motion to rein in the lawyers who abuse the system for personal gain. Consider, for example, the lawyer’s oath: I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of (insert state); I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God. Now, how does that square with the legal advertisement on the back of my local phone book? The ad has in big bold lettering across the top: “Medical mistakes kill thousands,” and “Wrongful Death,” then underneath in bold letters - “Fight Back.” And, the lawyer says he makes free hospital visits. Of course, in the oath there’s plenty of wiggle room for a good lawyer. There’s an awful lot of “which appear to me” and “which I believe” in it. Perhaps the legal profession should set standards to which it could hold its lesser brethern. posted by Sydney on 1/17/2003 07:56:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
