To study law or not to study law?

School, College and Child development
1

Are there any lawyers, law students, or aspiring law students in the crowd who wouldn’t mind discussing what led them to choose the practice of law and what values they consider(ed) important in getting there?

I am a 3rd year student in a BA program (Classics) who is considering a PhD in my field or a career in law. I would highly value any contribution anyone can make to my decision.

What I value in the practice of law (from my very basic understanding of the subject) is the rigorous logic and argumentation that must be used, oratorical skills, and an excellent grasp of the legal system, its workings and evolution - something which greatly interests me as a student of past societies. But I am concerned that my interest in law may be too theoretical (ie. such as philosophy of law, or simply romantic, ie. following in the footsteps of Cicero) and that lawyers too frequently find themselves in situations which are ethically compromising.

2

[…]I would highly value any contribution anyone can make to my decision.

What I value in the practice of law (from my very basic understanding of the subject) is the rigorous logic and argumentation that must be used,[…] But I am concerned that my interest in law may be too theoretical (ie. such as philosophy of law, or simply romantic, ie. following in the footsteps of Cicero) […]

I am not a lawyer. I do have questions and suggestions that might help.

  1. When you say you are concerned that your interest in law may be too theoretical, what do you mean? Too theoretical for whom – you, your employers, the world at large?

  2. What do you mean by “romantic” here? Is that a way of saying that your idea of what you would be doing as a lawyer (or attorney at law) has not been drawn logically from the facts of the way lawyers actually work? If so, beware of listening to lawyers who might not love their profession or might tell you mostly about the unpleasant sides of the profession. (Every line of work has some unpleasant threads running through it.)

Besides these questions, I have a suggestion to think about: Even a “theoretician” must practice something, that is, must do something if he is to earn his keep. A “theoretician” in any field acts as a consultant to practitioners, that is, those who specialize in putting into practice what theorists develop as theories. The theoretician may write reports, magazine articles, or books. He may teach classes or seminars. He may be an advisor to whom others go for answers to pointed questions.

Further, in the field of law is there a distinction between theoretician and researcher? A theoretician, in my vocabulary, would be one who studies or develops whole theories, but a researcher – who might be a full-time specialist in a large firm – does not represent clients but does the look-up research for the attorneys-at-law in the firm. Such a researcher, over a period of years, would become an expert in law without ever representing a client.

Last, I would suggest you consider a different – or additional – approach to selecting a particular career field as your central purpose in life (CPL): Define criteria first. Then match possible fields to your criteria.

My criteria for selecting a CPL are:

(1) Is this career path ambitious but achievable for me?

(2) Does this field offer me the probability of success, considering the society in which I live and my abilities? (Success should be defined in professional terms not in salary; pick the right field first, and then find a way to make the most money doing what you love to do.)

(3) Does this career path offer me a range of activities that I know from experience – or objective imagination – make my heart beat faster. This is the values test. (Of course, the values should be drawn logically from fact, and you may need to investigate that.)

The idea underlying these criteria is objectivity: Does a particular career choice best fit the facts of who I am, the world in which I live, and my deepest personal values?

P. S. – Have you read Dr. Harry Binswanger’s brief article, in The Intellectual Activist, on philosophy of law? Every specialized science needs a “philosophy” underlying it, that is, a set of principles that form the foundation of that particular science but which are applications of general philosophical principles that apply to everyone and all knowledge. Dr. Binswanger has made the briefest of beginnings. Much work needs to be done in philosophy of law – and all other specialized sciences – with Objectivism as the ultimate foundation.

3

Though I don’t satisfy your filtering criteria, I’ll respond anyhow. There is plenty of room for a theoretical interest in law (as opposed to day-to-day private practice), and engaging in that theoretical practice would be a good thing (if you have the right theory – Objectivism, naturally). Supreme Court justices, for example, went to law school, same with law school professors.

The main ethical problem that I suspect you would face is conflicts between what you know to be right vs. your obligation to the client or the state. You have to be willing to prosecute a drug possession charge or antitrust case even if you know that these laws are wrong; you have to vigorously defend a murderer who actually did the deed using all of your legal skills even if you know that such-and-such a defense (such as blaming the victim) is reprehensible. YMMV on such issues, and if you find such prospects too daunting, that may indicate that you should avoid criminal law.

4

In the April and June 1983 issues of The Objectivist Forum (“TOF”), there is a panel discussion with three Objectivist Attorneys (Robert Getman, Arline Mann and Charles Sures), moderated by Harry Binswanger. One of the items they discussed is why they chose the practice of law and what they like about it.

(TOF is probably still available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore in bound form. It’s definitely worth having.)

There was and maybe still is an organization of some Objectivist attorneys, called The Association for Objective Law (“TAFOL”). They used to publish a newsletter which applied Objectivism to current legal issues.

All of this leads me (a non-lawyer) to believe that the practice of law is something that an Objectivist could find rewarding today. If the field was so corrupted that one was constantly required to compromise his principles, I do not think there would be Objectivist attorneys.

I’ve always thought that the best motivation to go into the field of law would be a love of justice.

5

BurgessLau, thank you for the detailed response - as usual, I find your comments very insightful.

When you say you are concerned that your interest in law may be too theoretical, what do you mean? Too theoretical for whom – you, your employers, the world at large?

I meant too theoretical for practicing law (ie. arguing cases before a judge) but suitable for the academic world (ie. comparing legal systems, the purpose and role of law, etc.)

What do you mean by “romantic” here? Is that a way of saying that your idea of what you would be doing as a lawyer (or attorney at law) has not been drawn logically from the facts of the way lawyers actually work?

Yes. I am not familiar with the day to day work of a lawyer nor have a very detailed understanding of specific types of law (criminal, corporate, constitutional, etc.) and their practice in real life. All I’ve gathered so far is information from introductory books. So by “romantic” I meant that perhaps my knowledge of legal work is too idealistic or detached from reality.

Thank you for the CPL criteria, I will try to apply it to my thinking. I will also be sure to take a look in The Intellectual Activist archives.

6

You have to be willing to prosecute a drug possession charge or antitrust case even if you know that these laws are wrong; you have to vigorously defend a murderer who actually did the deed using all of your legal skills even if you know that such-and-such a defense (such as blaming the victim) is reprehensible.

Are you sure about that? Can’t a lawyer refuse to defend or prosecute someone on ethical grounds?

7

Jay P and DavidOdden, thank you for your insights as well.

I’ve always thought that the best motivation to go into the field of law would be a love of justice.

That is of course one factor driving me to law. However, even the American justice system is far from ideal and an Objectivist lawyer may encounter many laws and precedents which are unjust. This could mean a severe strain on one’s ethical principles. That being said, a constitutional lawyer may find he can be very influential by interpreting the Constitution through an Objective lense.

It is a consolation that in the Common Law, jurists have the ability to create new laws through precedent.

8

Are you sure about that? Can’t a lawyer refuse to defend or prosecute someone on ethical grounds?

A defense attorney has much more leeway in selecting his cases, but a judge may appoint counsel to the accused. As for a Crown Prosecutor, I doubt he has a choice about which cases he can select.

9

Let me chime in here. I went to law school and although I did not end up practicing, I found the experience to be ultimately very intellectual rewarding. I say ultimately because it was tough sitting through 3 years of every corrupt philosophical justification for countless wrong laws imaginable. But the study of jurisprudence (the science of law) is fascinating and there are so many areas for an Objectivist to pursue. I’ll bullet point a few of them:

* You could become a law professor and specialize in any one of a number of important legal areas. Look up Adam Mossof on the various Objectivist web sites. He is an Objectivist law professor at the Univ. of Chicago. He specializes in the history of property, real and intellectual. He has written some amazing articles which trace the various property rights doctrines from the times of the ancients through the European Natural Law thinkers up to the corruption of the modern day. As a law proffessor you would be able to do valid research which could lead you towards writing a treatise. And you could do this while educating a new generation of legal thinkers. The university environment will be difficult but the more Objectivist law professors there are, the greater influence Ayn Rand will have on legal theory.

* You could practice for a legal institution dedicated to objective law. There are a few of them. One of them is the Institute For Justice. Prominent Objectivist Michael Berliner’s daughter works for them. They are dedicated to fighting for the rights of property holders against government regulations and takings (usually environmentally inspired) as well as other private property areas. This could be very rewarding as you will have a chance at securing some level of justice to actual individuals here and now. While you won’t be able to change current legal philosophy wholesale, you will be able to inject some sounder legal doctrines into the system one case at a time.

* If You are truly heroic, you could take the path towards being a judge. This would require clerking for a judge for a number of years and probably also being an academic. This will require involvement with politics which would probably mean you would have to align yourself to some extent with some conservative organizations. This would not be easy to stomach for an Objectivist, but it would be nice to know that an Objectivist actually broke through to that level.

* You could always go into private practice in a field that you like and can personally stomach and make a very good living. There are going to be bad laws no matter what specialty you choose but there are some areas that are “healthier” than others. Wills and Trusts might interest you not to mention that they are lucrative.

* You could be a tax attorney and help clients safeguard as much of their money as possible, although the problem here is that you will have to be very pragmatic most of the time and use whatever legal loophole is available to help your client. And few clients will want to challenge the government on principle.

These are just a few options. Basically you can be an academic or a practioner. If you practice, you can choose the where and what for of your practice. If you work for an institue dedicated to fighting for objective law, you will invariably have a chance at Constitutional practice as many of these cases will apply for Certiari (to be in front of the Supreme Ct.) If you are more theoretical as you indicate, then become a legal intellectual and be one of the first Objectivist Lord Blakstone’s and write legal treatises that will serve as foundational legal philosophy for future centuries.

Best of luck.

10

Can’t a lawyer refuse to defend or prosecute someone on ethical grounds?

The operative restriction here is “client” as opposed to “potential client”, i.e you have agreed to represent the person. I don’t understand the specifics, but once you have taken on a client, you can’t just dump him when you discover that he’s a bum. The Ohio code of ethics for attorneys says “A decision by a lawyer to withdraw should be made only on the basis of compelling circumstances, and in a matter pending before a tribunal he must comply with the rules of the tribunal regarding withdrawal. A lawyer should not withdraw without considering carefully and endeavoring to minimize the possible adverse effect on the rights of his client and the possibility of prejudice to his client as a result of his withdrawal”, and also “Compelling reasons do not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved in the case, the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a criminal proceeding is guilty, or the belief of the lawyer regarding the merits of the civil case”. There are conditions where the attorney is obliged to withdraw (is fired, is physically unable, would be in violation of rules to continue representing the client, knows the client’s action is malicious harrassment), but otherwise “a lawyer may not request permission to withdraw in matters pending before a tribunal, and may not withdraw in other matters, unless the request or withdrawal is because…”, whereupon follows a long list that does not include “is in the attorney’s judgment guilty as sin”, or anything like it.

11

What I value in the practice of law (from my very basic understanding of the subject) is the rigorous logic and argumentation that must be used, oratorical skills, and an excellent grasp of the legal system, its workings and evolution - something which greatly interests me as a student of past societies.

My father made a distinction between lawyer and attorney. A lawyer is one who studies and masters knowledge of the law. An attorney is one who represents someone. One kind of attorney is an attorney-at-law (which my father was, for civil law – mostly wills and divorces).

This distinction, if valid in the current use of terms in the U. S. and Canada, may be clear to you Alon, but perhaps not to some of your youngest readers of this thread.

What you have said so far – except for the comment about oratorical skills – leads me to think that being a lawyer is what fascinates you. As others have pointed out, that can be practiced in many forms outside of courtrooms and arbitration sessions: researching, teaching, writing, consulting, and assisting (as with legislators and judges). And everyone needs oratorical skills to some degree.

One final point. Some of the most personally satisfying careers are those which combine two interests. History of law is an example. A BA in Classics, a law degree, and a masters or PhD in History. What a combination not only for your personal satisfaction but also for job opportunities!

12

argive99:

Thank you for that very thorough response. You’ve certainly made clear the many options available to a law school graduate, which will help me a lot in the coming months. But I suppose the most serious problem remains unsolved; I don’t know much about the daily life of a lawyer or what exactly legal work entails.

A Harvard law grad actually recommended (through Amazon) two works of fiction to better understand the practice: the Rumpole series, and The Just And The Unjust by Cozzens. There doesn’t seem to be much nonfiction except for books on life in law school.

I was also curious to know, do you think a practicing lawyer (not a legal scholar) could be influential in shaping the legal system by the precedents his cases set?

13

BurgessLau,

Thank you for making that distinction clear, I was not aware of it.

One final point. Some of the most personally satisfying careers are those which combine two interests. History of law is an example. A BA in Classics, a law degree, and a masters or PhD in History. What a combination not only for your personal satisfaction but also for job opportunities!

Indeed! I will definately look into the field of legal history. I have also noticed, by searching through the faculty listings at the law school of my university (the University of Toronto), that many law professors do their PhD in a different field and then teach law with merely an LLB (one professor received a PhD in Classics, but teaches in the law faculty with an LLB). This looks to be an excellent option for me.

14

I note that you’ve commented a couple of times that you do not have much first-hand experience with the day-to-day life of a practicing lawyer. I HIGHLY recommend that you see what you can do to educate yourself about that.

I have practiced civil litigation law (generally on the defense side) for the past 16 years. I do not regret my decision at all, and at its best it is very satisfying and rewarding.

HOWEVER it is also true the ethical issues are very real, and it is critical that you not get yourself so financially burdened that you cannot afford to walk away from those temptations.

Also, maybe on a psychological level, you have to keep in mind that you are essentially spending all your time dealing with other peoples’ problems that are not of your own making. I regularly think about the fact that the work is very different from that of a Howard Roark or a John Galt in dealing with the physical sciences (architecture or the physics of engineering). I wonder if you’re already a little concerned about that in commenting that you are more interested in the theoretical side. You won’t be building buildings like an architect. Somehow the phrase: “I don’t practice law so I can have clients – I have clients so I can practice law!” doesn’t have quite the same ring as it did in the original context. :slight_smile:

I think you’d be very well advised to spend some time, perhaps visiting family or civil court to watch hearings, if litigation is an area that interests you. It gets very frustrating at times how demanding, short-sighted, and irrational clients can be, and there are limits to what you can do once you’ve signed on to a particular case.

I realize that my comments so far are rambling – I’d be glad to address any particular questions you might think I could address for you. Law can be very rewarding – I have found it to be, and can’t really imagine doing anything else. But while it is true that you are dealing with ideas, those ideas are inextricably bound to particular people and situations, and if dealing with the messes that people get themselves into doesn’t suit your personality, you’ll have to be very careful about the field you choose.

15

I don’t know much about the daily life of a lawyer or what exactly legal work entails.

I was also curious to know, do you think a practicing lawyer (not a legal scholar) could be influential in shaping the legal system by the precedents his cases set?

As to the daily practice of a lawyer, the best thing you could do is work for a law firm as an assistent in some capacity. You will learn that most of lawyering involves preparing and filing documents with the court. Outside of trial experience (or appellate work), law really is largely papper shuffling. So if you don’t like the office type of environment and working many hours behind a desk, then don’t go into law. Now there is the research part of the job and you will have to get used to spending long hours in a law library or behind a computer using legal search engines (Lexus & Westlaw). And much of what you research will not be as intellectually stimulating as you would like, especially if you are researching federal or state regs in which case watching paint dry is more fun. But that’s part of the job. From your research, you will choose a legal theory to advocate on behalf of your client and then you will try to persuade the court or to persuade opposing counsel (say for a settlement). If you like the specialty you are in, you will be able to deal with the details because it will have a broader meaning to you.

Also realize that much of legal practice in the modern setting is professional linguistic distortion. It sucks but thats the reality. For example, if you have a case arguing for a client that wants to get a building permit to build a bar on his property, you will have to consult the zoning statutes. Now in those statutes there may be a provision that allows an exemption to the code if your client can prove that his proposed bar will not increase “traffic flow” past the limit set by law. Well how do you figure that out? You’ll have to go through three building inspectors a fire chief and a county superintendent to get the actual numbers. It will take months and your client will understandably be complaining to you every week. But each time he calls you, your boss (the senior partner) is going to force you to charge him for every phone call, when in reality he was on hold more than half the time. Then you will have to spend another six months trying to bend the definitionless term “smooth traffic flow” to fit the facts of your client’s situation while the county will be bending it to fit its “facts”. At the end of the whole thing your client will not get his permit but it will come out that in actuality, the county didn’t want his bar there because they wanted the real estate owner to contract with a multiplex because it would be popular with constituents and bring in added tax revenues. (This is an actual case from when I clerked for a state judge.)

This is what I mean by saying that you will have to have the stomach for this.

Now as for being influential in shapping legal precedents, my brief answer is that you will not be able to in any meaningful way. You will learn if you haven’t already that among the last things to be changed in a culture are the laws. Legal change always lags behind ideological change. The best you could hope to do is to work for an organization like the Institute For Justice and try to win isolated cases and slowly inject some pro-capitalistic precendents in the legal system. But my experience tells me that you will only succeed on the superficial level. You will not be able to force the courts to recognize a constitutional right protecting freedom of contract, or the right to do with one’s property what one sees fit (non-itiatory force rule obeyed of course). That will require a philosophical revolution not a legal one (which will follow).

So if you are truly more theoretically oriented, I would say become a law professor. Become a master of your specialty. Write law review articles and eventually a treatise incorporating Objectivist philosophy and in that way you will be able to influence the precedents of the future. But sadly, only in that way. I fear the legal system along with everything else will get alot worse before it gets better.

16

Alon try maybe objectivist.net or .org or something like that and you should come about a lengthy article of an Objectivist and his thoughts on the current legal system and why he stopped practicing law.

I’d find it for you, but currently my computer is not handling more than one page at a time—I think the subtitle for the website is the “unofficial objectivst site.”