The struggles that many laypeople have seeing the value in
the defense of those accused of repugnant crimes, including the self-evidently
guilty, is a microcosm of a larger problem lawyers have being understood by
normal people. Although many lawyers themselves struggle with the principle, lawyers are supposed to put defense of client, the zealous pursuit of all
options available within the bounds of professional ethics, above abstract
notions of The Good, The True, The Beautiful. Lawyers are supposed to advocate in
hopes of engendering empathy with a particular point of view, of furthering
specific
interests by situating them in a context and buttressing them with evidence
to show why a certain perspective is more reasonable than another.
Except for a smattering of lawyers who are able to work for
one client who pursues only causes that all would concur are
noble—maybe lawyers who only serve as ad
litem counsel for abused children—all lawyers at some point are called
upon to represent unsavory characters or companies or industries. That is just
part of what lawyering entails. Yet, culturally speaking, people seem to want all
lawyers to be Atticus Finch—or at least our culture is reluctant to find
anything worthy in what lawyers do unless it resembles Atticus’s work.
Atticus defended an innocent man against trumped-up charges
where the real ill was a societal one, the invidious legacy of American racism,
and where the real adversary was a ravenous mob blinded by prejudice, ignorance, and
fear. It sure would be great if all lawyers had the chance and the inclination
to do a little time as Atticus during their careers. But part of being a really
good lawyer involves confronting ugly truths yet not being unduly judgment;
effective lawyering involves finding ways to frame arguments based on the rules
of reason. These tasks require monitoring one’s internal prejudices at every
turn, which is really, really hard to do. Because this work is so challenging, I
suspect that, when civil lawyers routinely represent only one kind of entity on
one side of one kind of legal dispute, those lawyers face special obstacles.
For instance, if you only represent insurance companies who are being sued in
coverage disputes and see your client as nothing but a job-creating victim of
an unduly litigious society, you are probably less likely to give good advice
about when the client should stand on principle, when it makes more sense to
settle, when the client should rethink certain internal policies, etc.
When I was a callow law student, I definitely resisted
embracing the identify of a true lawyer—someone who lives for a good, fair
fight, who is simultaneously a servant of a specific client and of a particular
system. Despite years spent grappling with postmodern philosophy, when I went
to law school, I was still a secret Platonist. So during my first year of law
school, I agonized over cases where the results seemed patently unfair on the
merits, yet I was not supposed to care because principles like standing, statutes
of limitation, forma non conveniens had foreclosed considering the deeper
justice.
While I was trying to figure out whether I could contort my
nature sufficiently to be a good lawyer, I met a really good lawyer who struck
me as especially happy. He explained how much he loved the profession by saying
that nothing would give him greater pleasure than defending someone like Osama
Bin Laden—and this was only a few months after the Towers fell on September 11,
2001. I now smile to think how I was taken aback by his exuberance on this subject. It took a while, but I did come to appreciate this Happy Lawyer’s
perspective.
Perhaps I could have achieved this appreciation much sooner
if I had just thought more about Shakespeare!
One aspect of the Bard’s work that is truly distinctive—not only
from an historical perspective—is his ability to craft psychologically complex
characters. His most compelling heroes, like Hamlet and Lear, are both deeply
flawed and dazzling. His most memorable villains, like Richard III, Macbeth,
Iago, are memorable precisely because they are nuanced. Even though Shakespeare
presents the horrible things that these villains do so that audiences have
little trouble seeing them as vile, he also gives us insight into the bad guys’
motivations—how they have been wounded, how they deceive themselves as well as
others, how they cling to self-justifications in a way that profoundly clouds
their judgment, how they have to see themselves as the good guys (or at least
as victims) in order to act at all.
Othello, for
instance, begins with Iago bitterly describing how he has been passed over for
a promotion. General Othello has brushed off entries from those who recommended
the old veteran, Iago, to serve as his Lieutenant. Instead, Othello has gone
with the pretty boy Michael Cassio, who has “never set a squadron in the field,/ Nor the
division of a battle knows/ More than a spinster.” In making this choice, Othello
has, from Iago’s perspective, violated a fundamental rule of military culture,
making a promotion based on “letter [i.e., book learning] and affection [i.e.,
personal preference]” instead of “by old gradation, where each second/ Stood
heir to the first [i.e., seniority].” Iago’s personal outrage at this small-scale
injustice does not excuse his decision to seek revenge in such a way that leads
to the defamation and slaughter of innocent bystander Desdemona. But, thanks to Shakespeare, his actions make some internal sense.
In short, the insights that Shakespeare provides into how all
manner of human beings tick are useful to all manner of humanity. Precisely
because the bad guys are not portrayed as inexplicable monsters—who
sprang forth from some mysterious abyss to wreak incomprehensible havoc upon a wholly
innocent society—these characterizations are art, not tabloid trash.
So, what do you know? It turns out that, when lawyers labor
to give voice to all manner of folks who have been fairly or unfairly tarred as
malefactors, they are really working in the honorable tradition of William Shakespeare.
I read that Post and got it fine and informative. Bair hugger infection
ReplyDelete