<p>One of the things that has set this forum apart from many others is the fact that there can be very high-level discussion and disagreement, without being disagreeable. In the past few days, however, the tome of some posts has become personal and nasty. Personal attacks are a violtion of the Terms of Service, and will not be tolerated.</p>
<p>CD</p>
<p>I really have not seen any posts in the law forum that were personal attacks. Maybe you edited them out. I would point out that anyone who is especially sensitive and can’t withstand some degree of attack, probably does not have thick enough skin to be a lawyer. People who take personally challenges to their positions probably won’t last as lawyers. Conflict is what generates most of the need for lawyers.</p>
<p>This thread is a reaction to my argument in “The 5 Myths of Law School Admissions”. The only real reason for my belligerent attitude was the initial response by a poster who will remain anonymous. I do not wish to seek conflict with the administration of this forum, but the causal chain of events began with her rebuttal, and I personally do not agree with the tacit/implicit disapproval of my reaction in light of that individual’s behavior.</p>
<p>However, I am fine with it, and will not remain obdurate when castigated. Perhaps I lack perspective in this regard.</p>
<p>nspeds: As you correctly note, your posts were amongst those that either caught, or were brought to my attention, and you were by no means the only poster responsible for this thread. BY the TOS, moderating actions/decisions are to be discussed via email or PM, not in open forums. However, because I chose to start this public thread, and more importantly, because of your respectful response, I am happy to engage is a public discussion of proper tone. </p>
<p>Bigmain: I would still suggest that battling over ideas, rather than personalities, is always welcomed here. I would also point out that many of the posters here are not lawyers, but are young adults seeking an informative and friendly place to ask questions and get answers. Perhaps I represent a dying breed of lawyer, but I love to cross swords with my opponents in Court or legal briefs, and cross knives with them at dinner when the case is over. That takes a certain restraint when arguing your case that you never let it get personal. That is the point I am trying to make here.</p>
<p>I, for one, totally agree with the administrative response on this one. There’s some forums where the existence of God can be debated without a devolution into flame wars - this kind of attention to decorum is what makes it possible. Thank you.</p>
<p>
Yes, but they are people interested in becoming lawyers. If I do not have what it takes to be a Marine, I would certain like to know that before I am in the middle of bootcamp. There are many aspects of the law that are a lot like boxing – there can only be one winner and the loser ususally does not look pretty.<br>
The best lawyers are the ones who do not themselves take is personally but who are able to make their opponent take it personally. If you ever see a lawyer who has “lost it” in court, you know he is getting his rear end wipped.</p>
<p>I suspect you long for the days in which law was a true profession where lawyers all treated each other with respect in admiration of their respective skills. Unfortunately, that is not the real world any more given the glut of lawyers. Law is a rough business. It is eat or be eaten. That is true for both obtaining clients and representing them. Were it not for the high ethical standards imposed on lawyers, the practice of law would be pure chaos.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You paint a dire picture of what is apparently a noble craft; the problems you note are not intrinsic to the field of law, but rather stem from the character of lawyers who do not know how to conduct themselves. I am confident that you were aware of this when writing your post, but I wanted to emphasize the accountability of lawyers in this field as the cause for such circumstances, and shift blame away from the field itself.</p>
<p>If we accept this reasoning, however then to argue that crude behavior is justified by the mutual attitudes of others is fallacious. The attitudes and actions of others are not the determinant of what is justified and right. Though others may use force in attempting to persuade me, for example, I am not justified in employing the same tactic against them.</p>
<p>bigmain: I am neither as old as you might think, nor as naive. I did have the good fortune to work for, and study under, a giant in the field – a lawyer who held the respect of ALL of his colleagues because he GAVE respect.</p>
<p>Whatever the modern “realities,” I do not have to stoop that low to properly and vigorously represent my clients. Those who buy into that mind set simply add to the growing lack of civility.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree that you can separate the field of law from the people who are in that field. </p>
<p>Every year the chorus of judges, law schools, and supposed giants in the field preach to lawyers that they should get along better and be more civil. And every year, the cut throat nature of the practice of law pushes lawyers to become less civil, more confrontational, and more unpleasant. For example, all you have to do is observe a significant number of domestic relations lawyers and you can see that the lawyers often don’t like each other and are cordial only when they have to be, such as when they are on front of a judge.</p>
<p>I must admit that I do long for the days when law was a true profession. Unfortunately, with so many lawyers who may have one case together and never see each other again, the picture I paint is not a dire one but one based in reality. The practice of law simply is not for those who cannot withstand the pressures of conflict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That perception is only engendered because of a pessimistic outlook of law. </p>
<p>Even if we grant the assumption that such a dire circumstance is intrinsic to law, to argue that crude behavior is justified on those grounds is still fallacious.</p>
<p>
I am not arguing that crude behavior is JUSTIFIED. Crude behavior is rarely justified. I am arguing that what you see among lawyers who compete is the same (or worse) as what you see among businesses who compete. I am arguing that too many people thinking of becoming lawyers do not realize how vicious the practice of law can be. This forum focuses too much on entrance into law school witout fully exploring what it means to be a lawyer and how difficult the business of law can be.</p>
<p>As I’m not a lawyer, I won’t comment on the profession… however, law school is very intimidating and can be vicious. Some law schools are certainly a lot friendlier than others, but, regardless of where you go, there will be a time when a professor calls your name and commences the longest hour of your life - aka “the Socratic Method.” Get used to defending yourself AND analyzing the flaws in other people’s logic, understanding which flaws are important and which are unimportant, and also being wrong. If you are uncomfortable with being put on the spot (“Okay, Ms. Jones, what precedent did the court cite in this case?”), backing up your opinions (“Cite authority for that!”), or thinking on the spot (“Mr. Brown, what is wrong with Cardozo’s discussion?”), then law school will be a miserable experience. Nevertheless, there is a line between demanding and vicious, and the good schools (and students) will stay on the right side of that line.</p>
<p>I apologize; it seemed to me that you were justifying crude behavior on this forum as a mechanism for acclimating students entering the field of law, due to the climate, as you argue, that is intrinsic to the profession itself.</p>
<p>
Brilliant! Tell that to military recruiters and see what they say. :)</p>