That quote from Charles Lamb about lawyers once being children leads off article "From Atticus Finch to Harry Potter" (The West Virginia Record). The writer interviews Pat McHenry Sullivan (about whom I blogged here before) on the stress of legal practice and the strain on ethics, and about how lawyers can recapture some of the gifts, such as wonder and tolerance for ambiguity, that come with childhood. From the article:
Sullivan believes that most lawyers get into trouble because they try to be perfect, which she claims is an impossible mission. Further, most therapists and spiritual practitioners will say those who feel they must have perfection in their lives are wildly egotistical.
"I've been in firms where the drive for perfection turned into insanity," Sullivan continued. "Lawyers look for every possible fact, every possible angle, every possible document, etc. The result is they are overwhelmed with facts and tasks, so much so that there is no time for refection or thought about the case."
Sullivan described the nothing-is-ever-good-enough types as legal dragons; fire breathers who scream that associates or assistants could have done more, could have done better, or could have done something faster. Describing their verbal weapon as a "paralyzing icy breath", Sullivan remarked that some lawyers dwell on the possibility that every decision could be the wrong one.
A second childhood of freedom surfaces, though, when an attorney is able to make peace with these demons. This type of attorney is one who is able to accept an occasional loss, finds relief in relinquishing worries for another day or to a higher power. The art of losing, Sullivan said, has a powerful influence in the lives of driven professionals. By accepting results as they come, people achieve excellence at work, which then leads to excellence in life.
Click to read the rest of the article.
Note (added August 18, 2008, 12:54 PM Mountain): Response by Professor Alan M. Lerner (posted with permission):
First, let’s put an end to equating zealous advocacy with bad behavior – bad behavior within the context of one’s professional life providing legal representation to others, or bad behavior in one’s personal life. I am sure there are limitless examples, and therefore stories about lawyers who mistake zealous advocacy for ego self-justifying, scorched earth lawyering, whether with respect to adversaries or colleagues, even friends and family, or rationalize such behavior as a necessary component, or at least result of being a competent, zealous advocate. Too bad.
They are wrong. If I needed a lawyer, I would always want a zealous advocate who would consider every fact, every document, every inconsistency, every legal nuance or possibility to advance my legal interests. I would also want one who was scrupulously ethical; therefore, I would want a lawyer who would discuss all of those options with me so that I could participate in making a reasoned judgment about which of those strategies or tactics we would use, and which we would not. And, I would want a lawyer who treated me and everyone involved in the case – judges, court officers, adversaries, associates, witnesses, etc., with appropriate decency, respect, and consideration. Having practiced and taught law for more than 40 years, I know that such behavior not only doesn’t place one’s client at risk, but rather, more often than not leads to a better outcome.
Fortunately, I know, with certainty, that I would have no trouble finding many who fit that description, in most, if not every community throughout the country. But we don’t read about them; they do not seem worth the attention of the media. Except in connection with a specific case, which itself turns out to be noteworthy, who writes about the melding of zealous advocacy and humanity by the thousands of public defenders, legal services lawyers, lawyers for children, the elderly, the disabled, and everyone on the bottom of our economic pyramid, or the thousands of lawyers in the private commercial practice of law, in solo, small and large firm practices who contribute millions of hours per year in free or reduced fee legal services, or who accept appointments from their local courts to represent those who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, or who can afford something, but far less than the going market rate in their community? Apparently not many people except novelists, play writes, and screen writers. Too bad.
As to where law students learn that; perhaps at home, perhaps in their religious or ethical tradition, perhaps in law school, perhaps from senior practitioners in practice, probably in more than one of the foregoing. I surely hope, and believe, that at least in their law school clinical programs we are all working hard to inculcate that knowledge and those values in our students.
Image credit: Chinif.
