From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:54:46 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Aug12.012638.23083@eskimo.celestial.com>, 
kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) said:

> One of the rules that presumably guides the physician (however
> adhered to or violated in practice) is "do no harm."  Is there a
> corresponding guideline for lawyers?  It would seem to me that
> lawyers are adept not at conflict resolution (by the method of
> litigation, as opposed to other methods or schools of conflict
> resolution) but at conflict prolongation and aggravation, motivated
> by sheer self-interest.  Quite often, it would appear to me,
> conflicts are initiated, and negotiations between conflicting
> parties befuddled solely for the benefit of the contending
> attorneys.

My experience in the real world of law is limited -- I've done two
three-month co-op stints so far (gonna start my third in a week) and
one of those was in the somewhat specialized area of the Office of the
General Counsel for a large university (Boston U.).  The other was
in a small (six-lawyers and one overworked temporary clerk [me]) civil
litigation office.  Based on (a) my brief stint at that office, (b)
anecdotes I've heard from other law students with co-op experience and
(c) anecdotes told by real-world practicing attorneys serving as
adjunct professors at Northeastern, I'd say the following:

(1) Conflicts between parties are almost always already fully-grown by
the time any of the parties gets to the lawyer's office.  Whatever the
nexus of the dispute may be -- an automobile accident, a failure to
pay for delivered goods or services, lead-paint poisoning, an
insurer's refusal to pay off on a claim, a misdiagnosis by a
physician, whatever -- has _already_ happened, as has the failure of
the parties involved to settle the dispute among themselves without
resorting to lawyers.  "Do no harm" doesn't mean "never do anything"
or "don't get involved."

(2) Attorneys usually try pretty hard to work out settlements between
the parties.  If nothing else, it's usually quicker and easier than
fighting a long drawn-out battle (I've heard the lawyers for whom I've
worked frequently grumble, bitch and moan about many a "case that
would not die"; I've never once heard one of them gloat about having a
long-running "cash cow" of a case).  The quicker a mutually acceptable
settlement can be reached, the happier everyone is.  And for every one
pit-bull-type litigation lawyer who just loves a good court fight,
there seem to be zillions of 'em who'd really rather avoid the whole
ulcer-inducing, time-consuming headache.

(3) Often the biggest stumbling block in resolving a dispute is one of
the parties.  Practicing attorneys understand that settlement requires
some degree of compromise; clients often cannot or will not accept
this, because either (a) they feel that they deserve to get 100% of
what they're seeking (which they may, but that doesn't mean that
they're going to actually _get_ it in the real world) and/or (b)
there's such a strong sense of personal animosity involved that they'd
prefer to see everybody in the dispute go down in flames together than
give an inch.

I admit it -- I'm biased.  I don't see lawyers as the problem.  To
paraphrase Douglas Adams, the problem, basically, is people.  That,
and entropy.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory