The discussion about the relative merits of Biglaw versus public interest careers is definitely valuable. However, please don't forget that government (at all levels), small firms, academia and - after some firm experience - in-house positions all offer alternative practice options. Personally, I found government litigation to offer a great combination of early trial experience, work that I believed in and a pay / hours combination that facilitated a good lifestyle.

-- PetefromOz - 09 Feb 2009

A critique of Rawls can be found in Gerald Cohen's book "Rescuing Justice and Equality" (2008).

Rather than looking at where one is born, perhaps a better way is to consider Pierre Bourdieu's idea of social capital, symbolic capital and cultural capital. An individual who possesses or has access to these forms of capital has won the lottery too!

A person who is a part of the power elite in Bangalore or Soweto need not worry about going hungry, unlike some people I've seen in the US.

-- AlfianKuchit - 09 Feb 2009

During class, I also thought about Rawls. This is a nice article for people who may want to read something about Rawls and the Original Position: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

The idea that we all won the (material-wealth) lottery by being born in America does provoke difficult questions about what we can do with the idea that life is random, and that we are all the same before we are assigned a role by a bingo wheel.

As suggested by Lauren, Rawls suggests we can create a theory of justice, focused on justice as a mechanism of institutions. Because few of our institutions reach the archetypal impoverished world citizens (third world children, perhaps), turning thought into action is difficult (arguments could be made that we do actually interact with such institutions, coca-cola for example, but we have little perception of control). So we are left wondering: what can we do by accepting this idea, nothing?

I suggest we can shift our definition of ‘fairness’. If we think that individual advantages are a matter of chance, Rawls would suggest that we should only benefit by them as far as they are of benefit to all (which may be helpful with the idea of a non-dichotomous selfish/selfless divide). From here, we can use the ‘original position’ to measure governments, and a standard of “fairness” for creating institutions, policy, and law. If changing existing structures is too ambitious, we can guide our lives toward jobs within that benefit others. Justifications for progressive-taxation, estate-taxation, public education, foreign aid, rehabilitative prison systems, and public health services are all furnished by this Rawlsian ideal.

Such social programs face opposition. Arnold would, I think, argue that the opposition comes from a psychological attachment to the :American Businessman” as an ideal, and a belief that “enlightened selfishness” produces the best results, and to suggest otherwise is heresy. Everyone is aware of these arguments; perhaps best stated by Joe the Plumber, an unlicensed handy-man earning 40k/yr., who took great offense to repealing a 4% tax cut on individuals making more than six-times as much money as him. Arnold’s argument, that we base political decisions on ‘creeds’ and ‘folklore’, helps explain this.

As a separate note, the ‘92 Clinton execution was mentioned in class, and I thought some background material might be useful. First, I am against capital punishment. I am especially opposed to the state killing people with diminished mental capacity. Mostly, the idea of state killing for political gain is repulsive. However, I am uncertain whether this instance of state-mandated killing was worse than others, perhaps because I went to college in the town where the victim shot several strangers over three dollars--- killing one of them. Then, after saying he wished to turn himself in, he murdered a police officer and shot himself in the head, causing the brain damage which made his eventual execution controversial.

-- AndrewMcCormick - 09 Feb 2009

Selflessness is Overrated

I think we are making a big mistake if we frame our career search as a choice between selfishness and selflessness: wealthy, soulless corporate lawyer or poor, noble public interest lawyer. For the many of us who do not have interests which fit neatly into the rubric of public interest law, this kind of thinking is probably only going to lead only as far as a couple of short guilt trips before we accept a career path with long hours, uninspiring content, and zero creative control.

Instead of constructing this false dichotomy, I think we should be asking ourselves, first, where is my community? Once we've figured that out, the second question is, how can I develop a legal practice which benefits my chosen community? Framing the question this way makes a couple things clear:

1. The first question is the hard question.
2. The first question is not actually a professional question at all; it's a personal one.
3. The reason why we all end up going to big firms is not that we're evil, or even selfish, it's that we haven't answered the first question. We are all so busy getting A's on our homework and getting into the next big school that we never quite get around to the first question. And once there's no more school to go to, and somebody's willing to give us a safe paycheck and a safe answer to the first question, we take it.
4. After devoting our whole lives to maximizing our own potentiality and keeping our options open, answering the first question requires that we stop asking ourselves what we can do to become more powerful and starting asking ourselves questions like: “what interests me? What kinds of people do I want to be around? What kinds of day-to-day activities do I want to do with those people?"
5. Answering the first question should take us to a place where we feel excited to be, not guilty about not being
6. The second question is probably pretty easy. Everyone needs a lawyer. Once we each figure out where we fit, it should not be hard to figure out how to make a living off of our trade.

There have been some comments made above concerning the value of using our potential wealth as lawyers to fund efforts of promoting justice versus working as lawyers for the public interest ourselves. On the one hand, it is true that money is powerful in today's world. Surely many organizations working to promote justice are strapped for cash and could accomplish more if they were better funded. On the other hand, the true strength of any organization comes from the power of the minds behind that organization. You can fund a cause with as much money as you want, but unless the right talent is behind that cause nothing will ever be accomplished. When we talk about "winning the lottery," I think we should focus more on the fact that we have been given the opportunity to develop our minds into effective tools for promoting justice rather than that we have been given the opportunity to be financially well-off.

-- JustinPurtle - 08 Feb 2009