From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:44:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <92268.165034TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu (Tracy A. Freeling, who obviously has _MUCH_ to learn) writes:

> Remember Dan Quayle at the Republican convention saying that America
> has 70% of the world's lawyers?  Everyone was amazed by this figure
> since we account for less than 10% of the world's population.

Well, not everyone (though perhaps the ignorant were).  The claim is
not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is something that
has been bandied about for years -- though there is certainly quite a
bit of controversy about it.

> Quayle went on to point out that Japan has only a few thousand, while
> we have more than a half million.

> Well...take a look at Mike Royko's syndicated column today.  [For
> those of you who can't or won't do this, I will summarize his column.]

> Royko talks about two academics--Ray August, a law professor at
> Washington State Univ., and Toshika Kitawaki, a professor of law at
> Nihon University in Tokyo--who investigated this claim.

> According to these gentlemen, Quayle's claims are NONSENSE.

Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
latter, then this question becomes spurious.

> We do not have 70% of the world's lawyers.  We have LESS THAN 10%.
> Many countries--Japan, West Germany, Italy, and much of South
> America--have more lawyers per capita than the US.

Again, by what definition?

> The only way Quayle could have gotten the 70% figure is if he juggled
> the figures--kinda like Bush claiming that Clinton had raised taxes
> 128 times but he himself had only raised them once.

Bush would do better to say that he unwisely went along with the tax
plan forced upon him the democrat congressional leadership.

> You see in the US you become a lawyer by going to law school and
> passing a state bar exam.  Once this is done, a lawyer can do
> anything--argue cases, execute wills and contracts, etc.

By being admitted to the bar, the lawyer becomes an officer of the
court.  (And I don't think that a law school education is a necessary
prerequisite -- but good luck trying to pass the bar without one.)

> In most other countries--including Japan--things are done differently,
> though.  For instance, in Japan about 60,000 students graduate from
> law school every year.  About half of them take an exam to get a
> license.  This license allows them to set up a law practice and argue
> cases in court.  Fewer than 500 students pass the exam, however.
> Those who do not pass go to work in corporate legal departments or
> hire on with the government.  They negotiate contracts and deals.  In
> fact, they can do all the things that we here in America asssociate
> with lawyers EXCEPT argue a case in court.  [Many of Japan's corporate
> executives and government leaders are law school graduates.]

So if "lawyer" is defined as one who has the right to argue in court
on behalf of another, then the figures quoted by Quayle are probably
accurate.  [Yawn]

> The situation is similar in Britain where there is a distinct [sic]
> made between barristers and lawyers.

Where a lawyer prepares a case and a barrister (e.g., Rumpole) argues
it in court wearing a white wig.

> In France and Germany, there are more than two categories of what we
> call lawyers.

> Quayle--or more likely his handlers since I personally don't believe
> that he could count past 5

And I personally believe that you're a moron, inasmuch as I feel that
only a moron would suppose that the people of Indiana would elect to
the office of Senator a man who can't count.

> [Royko gives him more credit.  He said that Quayle probably couldn't
> count past 20.]

Royko must be a moron, too.

> --conveniently omitted to count these categories in other countries
> event though they perform the same type of work as most US lawyers and
> by are standards are lawyers.

I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
figure was arrived at.

> So you see...as usual Dan's aquaintance with the facts is iffy.

Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
accomplished?

> But as I say frequently [...]

Why should anyone care what you have to say?
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||