The Doctor-Lawyer Debate: Why the Legal Profession Rules

Ross Essay Contest

The Doctor-Lawyer Debate: Why the Legal Profession Rules

Posted Jul 16, 2008, 04:41 pm CDT
By Eva W. Cole

This year’s Ross Essay Contest—asking ABA members to address the topic “Why do you believe the legal profession is the greatest profession in the world?”—brought in so many good entries that we have several we want to share. The contest and $5,000 grand prize is supported by a trust established in the 1930s by the late Judge Erskine M. Ross of Los Angeles. The contest is administered by the ABA Journal. A winner will be announced and published in the August magazine.

Here's another of this year's finalists:

During my third year of law school, my then-boyfriend (now-husband) was planning to go to medical school. As a future litigator, I thoroughly enjoyed using the future doctor to hone my skills by what I called “debating” (and he called “fighting”) over just about anything.

Though we engaged in many heated “debates” that year, ranging from whether we should move in together to the merits of the death penalty, one in particular stands out in my mind: Which profession is greater—law or medicine? As the daughter of two doctors, and soon to marry another, perhaps I felt a greater than usual need to win the debate, which is perhaps why it escalated into something a little less than civil so quickly.

The future lawyer: “The law exists on every level of society—and as a lawyer, you can choose which level to focus on. … The possibilities are endless.” The future doctor: “Yes, but you know the saying ‘Without your health, you have nothing,’ and doctors ensure that everyone—even lawyers—have their health.”

The future lawyer: “And lawyers—by creating laws, the very backbone of our social order—ensure that the world functions without devolving into total chaos.” The future doctor: “Well, medicine exists on the most fundamental level …”

The future lawyer: “So what?! Medicine is in the details. But, the law, well—the law is everything!”

In my four short years of practicing law, I have learned to be a bit more sophisticated in advocating for my client’s positions than I was on that day advocating for my own. And, although my husband still makes fun of me for my grandiose conclusion—“The law is everything!”—I have also learned that it holds true with just a slight adjustment. The law is in everything and has a little bit of everything in it, which is why the legal profession is the greatest profession in the world. No offense to the doctors.

First, from a global perspective, the law is, indeed, in everything. It structures society from the most basic level to the most complex. It permeates every aspect of life from birth and marriage to business and politics. It allows different cultures and countries to come together on matters of global importance like free trade, fair competition and human rights. We have seen it triumph over things like gender and race discrimination in this country, and we see it working to triumph over things like human trafficking, terrorism and poverty both here and abroad. Those in the legal profession not only participate in discussions on these issues and many others but—by organizing, revising and maintaining a system in which achieving justice becomes possible—also help shape the future of our world.

In addition, from a more detailed practitioner’s perspective, there is a bit of everything involved in the practice of law. One must be part researcher, writer, strategist, psychologist, manager, businessperson and scholar, just to name a few. No other profession allows—and in fact requires—its members to be so versatile. Each case, each contract and each deal brings with it a new set of facts, necessitating an understanding of a different industry, a different individual or a different set of relationships.

For these reasons, I am never bored, consistently stimulated and always grateful that my profession is one that both demands that I be and allows me to be so involved in … well, everything.

Eva W. Cole is an associate at Dewey & LeBoeuf in New York City.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Neil - 1 month, 3 weeks, 19 hours, 26 minutes ago

Law is little more than a collection of beguiled, self-serving arguments made by the powerful to subjugate the masses. An extreme example was the Wannsee conference on January 20, 1942, near Berlin. Nazi lawyers legally created the “final solution” that was the Holocaust. It began a few years earlier with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, the so-called blood and honor laws. In our own country “the law” kept Negroes in slavery for hundreds of years. It was only after public sentiment changed toward slavery that the law eventually followed, albeit kicking and screaming in parts of the south until recent memory. And lets not forget one of our nation’s favorite dictators to disparage, Fidel Castro, a lawyer. American jurisprudence stinks, it is a foul, obscene abomination that for the most part only serves the interests of lawyers, judges, and those who pull their strings. Law is a gentleman’s profession where men and women practitioners become inhumane conspirators undermining humanity. Behind every unjust corporate policy that wrongfully denied a patient health care, or sold someone a bad mortgage, there was a lawyer giving that odious policy his or her blessing. My uncle once said that in choosing a career, look for the most despicable profession, enter it, and work from within for reform. Law fits that bill, it is the worst profession. Are there any law schools really dedicated to changing the status quo?
Posted by Chris Bradley - 1 month, 3 weeks, 16 hours, 17 minutes ago

To Neil,

You should have capped off your post with a handy Shakesperian “first, let’s kill all the lawyers!” misquote. That would have been perfect.

The law as it was in Nazi Germany is a far cry from the law as it is in the United States. But, I concede, no system is perfect.

Your problem with the law is really a problem with human nature. Good luck with that.

Chris
Posted by anonymous - 1 month, 3 weeks, 14 hours, 2 minutes ago

lawyers and judges just need to be convinced to correct their mistakes
Posted by Smith - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

Do we need an essay contest that seeks self-congratulatory pablum?
Posted by Smith - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 21 minutes ago

Oh, and Neil - gee whiz, maybe you could lighten up a bit?
Posted by JLee - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 14 minutes ago

I agree the law is in every aspect of society and that makes it a fascinating pursuit. I do think medicine is the more universally useful skill, though, across social boundaries and even where the social rules break down. In a war zone or a refugee camp, for instance, I’d much rather have more doctors than lawyers.
Posted by What is up with Neil's resentment? - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 8 minutes ago

Or does he just not realize that it was the law that prosecuted Nazi’s for war crimes. It was civil rights lawyers that fought to win equality for african americans. Behind every non-profit organization there is a lawyer creating the policies and giving an OK to decisions.

Oh, and I guarantee that every Doctor has a lawyer on speed dial to consult when he kills a patient and wants to cover his butt. I imagine doctors would still be drilling holes in peoples heads to relieve a headache if laws and lawyers hadn’t provided for human rights, medical malpractice, and legislation to fund medical research.

You cannot find a profession that does not have some atrocious problems. I used to think that teaching was the most noble profession. Now even teachers and preachers have sullied their profession by molesting and abusing children.
Posted by buckeyeduke - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 21 minutes ago

An essay contest on “why the legal profession is the greatest profession in the world?” Really? Most lawyers have (1) 7 years of college and graduate-level study behind them; and (2) work in a profession that--usually--requires cogent, reasoned, argumentation that relies on little things I like to call “proof” and “fact” to argue or rebut myriad views and perspectives. This contest sounds like something I would expect a 5th grader to be assigned...in fact, if you watch the satire “Thank You for Smoking,” there’s a scene were the Aaron Eckhardt’s son is working on a homework assignment on which he is to write why “America has the best form of government” (or something equally unprovable and self-congratulatory). Not only does the theme of the Ross essay contest look self-mockingly trite, it opens the door to equally hackneyed assualts on the profession, like Neil’s “Law is little more than a collection of beguiled, self-serving arguments made by the powerful to subjugate the masses” and my favorite: “American jurisprudence stinks, it is a foul, obscene abomination that for the most part only serves the interests of lawyers, judges, and those who pull their strings.” (Thanks Mr. Conspiracy, your cup of paranoid overfloweth) We should the ABA sponsor an award to invites uncritical praise to be heaped upon a profession by its own professionals...isn’t that something that should be reserved for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards, or the Oscars? This is a “learned profession"--how about we start acting like it? (ouch...I may have fallen into the “Kingdom of Hackney” myself with that comment!) Maybe as an essay contest that asks readers to assess a current legal policy debate (e.g., rights of combat detainees) and address how the debate itself shapes, hurts, or benefits the legal profession. Just something a little more thought-provoking and reasoned than a “My dad is cooler than your dad"-styled argument.
Posted by Dan - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 48 minutes ago

Agreed with #7.

Why not an essay contest that might actually serve some good, like “Write about the #1 thing we could do as lawyers to improve the profession” or “Discuss the area where lawyers have the opportunity to do the most good in the world.”

Instead we get a petty essay consisting of general stereotypes about TWO professions and the best argument I have seen in a long time against marrying a female lawyer.
Posted by another anon - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 9 minutes ago

In response to #1:

There were plenty of Nazi doctors participating in the “final solution” as well. Why not condemn the medical profession because of Dr. Josef Mengele?

I don’t think you could find *any* profession that has no deviants or criminals. That is human nature.
Posted by Honza Prchal - 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days, 15 hours, 39 minutes ago

This is actually a terrifying view of what the law is. In a functioning society, the law reflects reality more than it orders it. In societies where the law really has to shape behavior, well, thats either a society where civil society has broken down and we depend on coercion, or where some (generally nasty) utopian group tries to remake man in it’s image. To pretend that the law triumphs over terrorism rather than cops or soldiers, well, that’s just insane. Reminds me of the horror that is the ancient Chinese doctrine of “legalism” - the one that lead to the infamous burning of books and scholars - copied years later on a more deastating sale by history’s most proilific killer, Mao.
Posted by self-aggrandizement anyone? - 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 38 minutes ago

This Ross Essay Contest topic is something I would expect:
- out-of-touch organizers to have pre-law/first year students compose for orientation, or
- would-be clerks/interns to be made to include with their application.
Posted by Neil - 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

Thanks for the comments to my posting in #1. Just to round-out my post, I agree with the essay writer that law touches every aspect of life, which is the root of the problem. Nothing in law is designed to promote reform. Law is built on the concept of Starie Decisis, which commands the court to let previous decisions stand and not upset that which is settled. Another problem is access to legal services for ordinary people, who cannot pay $250-$350 per hour for representation. For those who do hire a lawyer, and get a bad one, legal oversight is a farce. It is a charade conducted by state bar organizations whose mainstay is the protection of attorney’s fees. Proceeding pro se is usually a waste of time too. In Florida for example, the courts hold pro se litigants to the same standard as lawyers, and when the non-lawyer makes a mistake, the courts can sanction the private party out of court, either by dismissing the case, or imposing tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions (by use of Fla. Stat. sec. 57.105 sanctions, for example). The other problem facing pro se litigants are hostile or impatient trial court judges. In most places trial court judges are elected, and beholden to the lawyers, who are usually the only group interested in local judicial races. Just check the campaign contribution records, which are public and often available online. Those records show that lawyers are - by far - the largest single group giving money to judges. Ordinarily, the practice of lawyers paying money to the same judge that presides over the lawyer’s case would be considered bribery. But when it comes to judicial elections, the concept of bribery is circumvented. I could go on, and describe how lawyers add to the cost of every transaction in America. How lawyers in class-actions they take most of the awards. Or how lawyers suppress free speech more than they defend it - everyone’s afraid of speaking out for fear of a libel suit. And if the speaker is sued, how will he or she afford the $50,000 or more to defend themselves? Law may seem noble when viewed from a distance, wrapped in the American flag, with an attractive, articulate attorney extolling its virtues with eloquent platitudes. The Law’s survival is dependent on that pollyannaish view.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Ross Essay Contest