I am having some difficulty figuring out how to apply the lessons I took from Robinson’s Metamorphosis to my own life and goals. I admire Robinson in many ways, as he is an immensely capable attorney, with a strong knowledge of how the law works, and a creative way of applying it. At the same time, he does not lose focus on the social consequences of his actions and his clients’ behavior. But he is also not very likeable, and has the personality that makes many people dislike lawyers.

The Legal System is a Losing Game

I want to base my career on doing direct legal services, most likely in public defense. I learned in Civil Procedure and Criminal Law that over than 90% of cases either settle before trial or involve a guilty plea. Obviously there are ways of structuring settlement deals and plea bargains to best benefit your client, and I am sure Robinson would be able to do that effectively. He would probably know the prosecutors and judges, and recognize when to advise clients that their best route is a guilty plea.

However, in many ways the legal world, especially for poor people, is a losing game. Simply getting involved in the system is an inherent bad. Most people feel an injustice, guilty or not, when they are accused of a crime, taken to jail, booked, processed, and forced to pay legal fees. A lawyer that reduces a client’s sentence does not mean the client will be satiated. By the time a lawyer gets involved, the client has already had the power of the state used against him. Even in the best case scenario, where a he is found not guilty and is acquitted, he often might not feel a sense of justice.

Family Experiences with the Law

Growing up, I only really looked at the law from the other side of a lawyer-client relationship. At least with my own family members, their perception of the legal system and justice was not solely outcome-focused. My aunt was accused of a crime in which both her and her accuser felt they were justified in their actions. Defying the odds, the case against my aunt was thrown out. By all accounts she should have felt that justice was done, but she did not. Her view on the subject was entirely colored by the negative experiences she had with the system. She complained about her lawyer, owed various people money, spent time in and out of court and meetings, had to go to jail, and fronted bail money.

Options for my Future

As a law student looking ahead to a career in pursuit of improving the public welfare, I see two possible routes: use my law license to focus on bettering clients’ experiences in the criminal justice system, or do not use my law license and try to actually change the system. Because of my own personality, and lack of management skills, leadership, or power, I do not think I will be at all effective in changing any sort of system. Instead, something I can actually do and hopefully will do effectively, is to provide direct services and ease clients’ lives while they deal with something largely out of their hands. Ideally I will be able to win more cases and have better outcomes for my clients than if they were represented by someone else. But in many ways what I want to focus on and do effectively is easing their lives while they deal with the system.

Robinson and Getting Things Done

This is where I believe I split with Robinson. He seems like an immensely competent attorney. I personally would want him as my lawyer if I got accused of a crime, as he seems the most likely to actually win. But lots of indigent, disempowered people do not view the system that way. Regardless of their case’s outcome they are going to lose, and have and will continue to suffer injustice. I really doubt that someone as outcome-focused as Robinson is going to improve his clients’ sense of whether or not justice was served except at the margins. This is in part because most of his clients will end up in bars anyway, and in part because they are getting screwed over even if they do not.

On the other hand, shepherding clients through the criminal process nicely is playing into the system that disempowered them in the first place. By not focusing on the results of the case as Robinson does, and instead merely worrying about my client’s feelings and building positive emotional bonds, I am little more than a benevolent prison guard. This is obviously a false dichotomy, made easy by the fact that Robinson is an ideal. Hopefully I can be both outcome-focused and try to improve my client’s perceptions of their experiences in the system.

However, I am still struggling with whether there is an inherent good to outcomes, regardless of a client’s perception of that outcome. An omniscient third party would likely say yes, it is better for a person to get out of prison in nine years rather than ten, even if he believes he was subject to injustice at the hands of his own attorney. But I am not sure the client would feel that way, especially because he does not definitively know the alternative. I appreciate Robinson, and I hope to emulate him in many ways, but I also think the attorney-client relationship is just as important as the result of the client’s case.

The draft describes a feeling. The description is somewhat repetitive, so one could edit the draft to keep the feeling while freeing up space to consider the questions raised by the feeling.

In the first place, is the social-worker activity you propose for yourself consistent with the actual conditions of practice? At what caseload would that be possible, never mind worthwhile, and at what caseload does it become infeasible? What caseload level do you expect that the taxpayers actually wind up funding? There are facts available, so you can find them.

In the second place, what psychological premises are you employing and what establishes them? To say that people would rather serve ten years' imprisonment and feel justly dealt with than nine years in a hostile system is not—to put it gently—self-evident.

In the third place, how do you conclude that the criminal defense lawyer's role should be "friend"? I've never thought that even Charles Fried could be convincing on that point. Perhaps that's because I have in fact represented people charged with or in danger of being charged with crimes.

Given how much of "the system" is used to process a rather small part of the population—which looks far darker in color and poorer than the rest of us—what does "changing the system" mean, if not addressing its racist and class-oppressive priorities in prosecution and punishment?

---

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:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JohnDeBellis
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.