|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
A Modern Path of the Law-- By JanePetersen - 15 Feb 2012Section IAccording to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the task of the lawyer – the good lawyer, at least – is to predict. Accurate prediction is the key to her success, as clients pay her to keep them out of court. Holmes instructs us that the law consists only of the “prophecies of what the courts will do in fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 460-61 (1897). Thus, knowing how the courts will rule, a lawyer will advise her client what action to take or from which to refrain in any given situation. The purpose of this, we’re taught, is to keep her client out of court entirely. What, then, is the role of Holmes’s theory of lawyering over 100 years later, at a time when society has arguably become more litigious? Even though a lawyer may correctly predict a judge’s eventual decision, this act alone may not keep her client out of court. Her client’s opponents may very well have less adequate counsel, with poor ability to predict a judge’s decisions. In this context, her client will get sued anyway. Though she will likely eventually prevail in a court of law, she will end up arguing before a judge first, thereby failing in Holmes’s principle goal. Today’s lawyers, then, must attempt to understand Holmes’ conception of the job of a lawyer in a way that will be as effective now as it was in 1897. Holmes instructs us, “…a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court; and so of a legal right.” Id., at 458. To apply this maxim today, a lawyer must know whether her aim is to avoid her client being sued in the first place, or to win in front of judge in the event of a lawsuit. Though some might reply to such a question, “That’s obvious. Both,” this response overlooks the possibility that a lawyer’s advice to her client might differ depending on which of these two goals she is pursuing. These choices may be mutually exclusive, and today’s lawyers must know which path to pursue. If the objective is to avoid suit entirely, it stands to reason that good counsel would be even more conservative, so as not to enflame the less competent lawyers and more litigious clients who are quicker to sue and less able to accurately predict outcomes in court. In Holmes’ day, this may have been the exception, and thus he avoided basing theory on infrequent occurrences. Today, though, the courts frequently see frivolous lawsuits and many clients factor a certain amount of legal conflict into their budgets. As such, lawyers must be able to advise their clients’ actions given both the possibility of winning a lawsuit, and also the possibility of being sued in the first place.Section IIAn alternate, more modern, school of thought might provide the answer on updating Holmes’ wisdom for today’s lawyers. Robinson in Lawyerland suggests that the lawyer’s job is not only to predict outcomes, but ultimately to do what her client wants. When Robinson discovers that a client of his may actually want to receive jail time, he does the “Popeye dance” to avoid detection and achieve his client’s goals. First, the lawyer must “get the idea” – she has to understand her client’s motivations and goals so she can respond appropriately. Then, however, she does not necessarily make all efforts to “win,” per se; she makes all efforts to achieve the outcome her client seeks. Then, reconciling the implicit advice of these two lawyers, which may yet be compatible, the good lawyer must predict what will get a client sued, what a judge will decide, and what her client desires. Some clients will choose to be more conservative, adopting an approach that avoids the likelihood of suit entirely. Other clients, however, may be less risk-averse; his lawyer will be doing her job when she, as Holmes directs, predicts if her client will be made to suffer by judgment of the court. All of this comes down to a lawyer’s ability to predict, the key element in Holmes’s piece. Without the paramount assets of foresight and sound judgment, she will be hard pressed to deliver on her client’s goal, whatever it may be.You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
