Submitted by Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Last week during a long road trip, I was listening to a CD from the band The Eagles. A song came on written by Don Henley and Glenn Frey the group’s songwriters and leaders. The song is called “Get Over It”. As the autumn beautiful Shenandoah Valley landscape was passing by, a line from the song jarred me from my motoring reverie and made me think of this blog. The line was:
“The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let’s kill all the lawyers, kill ’em tonight.”
I have always felt positive about the Constitution, lawyers and the legal profession. To have a democratic society one needs a system of laws and legal technicians to judge, uphold and defend those laws. Ostensibly, most people would view a society without laws as frightening and dangerous. Yet ever since our country’s founding an undercurrent of distrust and dislike of has existed towards those in the legal profession. What is the basis of this dichotomy and why is a dislike and distrust of lawyers so prevalent today in America? As a part of my answer to this we must go back to the first line of the quote from the song. What was meant by “old Billy” was William Shakespeare, where the original quote came from. Is this hatred of lawyers an old theme going back to Elizabethan England?
“Dick the butcher: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78.”
This is actually a case of artistic license on Don Henley’s part. In the context of the play the line was spoken and replied to by rebels, who wanted to overthrow the government and institute tyranny. To kill all the lawyers was to ensure that no one could challenge the legitimacy and rule of the rebels. This is discussed in detail in the link below:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/shakespeare-and-lawyers/
I believe that the hatred of the Law and Lawyers stems from a persistent strain of thought running through American politics, that predates the Revolution. The American Revolution was not an uprising that included all colonists. A sizable minority called “Lobsterbacks” remained loyal to England and King George. After the revolution this large minority did not disappear, but manifested itself in a distrust of the Constitutional freedoms and a longing for a more authoritarian form of government. As we can remember from American History classes many urged George Washington to accept the title of King. What is a yearning for Kingship, if not the yearning for an authoritarian “father figure” providing order to our lives?
This yearning for authoritarian rule is one that I think is somewhat universal in humanity and if so explains why many nations choose a ruling father figure, even by electoral vote. My thought is that there are two distinct strains of motivation comprising the individuals that yearn for authoritarian rule. The first is by those who are economically advantaged and see themselves as the “kingmakers” and the aristocracy around the king. Authoritarian rule benefits them because it reduces threats to their status, wealth and power, by ensuring that the majority of people are kept in their place in the societal pecking order. This engenders a need for an authoritarian legal system, with draconian punishments to keep people in line. Even in such a system a legally trained mind, with a highly developed conscience, will try to find exceptions within the law to represent a client. It is a sad truth of history that many times these elite authoritarians find that once they’ve installed their “Leader”, he turns on them and they too find themselves laid low. This happened in NAZI Germany where many industrialists gave financial support for Hitler’s rise to power. One of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen “The Damned” by Luchino Visconti, 1969: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Damned_(1969_film)
The second, far larger group enamored of authoritarian rule, are people who I think are emotionally attracted to being told what to do. In essence their psychological makeup is one of conformity to strictly enforced norms. My notion is that this could be genetically influenced and there have been studies with infants at Harvard that find that as early as six months children show predispositions to certain behaviors affecting perceived risks. The studies involved whether an infant would trust its own inclination, or merely respond to its mothers call. Given my own wilfulness as a child and the dangers it put me in, perhaps the ability to listen to authority was initially a genetic advantage. It is my observation that many of us humans are averse to thinking for ourselves and would prefer having decisions made for us. Other studies have shown that people perceive the President as a father figure and are attracted to those candidates that at least outwardly conform to the stereotype. Ronald Reagan anyone?
What has this to do with distrust and hatred of lawyers? I believe that it has everything to do with it. Courageous lawyers upset the status quo and disappoint the majority’s wishes. When I was about twelve I read “Clarence Darrow for the Defense” a biography by Irving Stone. Darrow then became one of my lifelong heroes and I think among the greatest of American lawyers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow . There are other heroes I’ve had who were also lawyers. Joseph Welsch, from the Army/McCarthy Hearings; Thurgood Marshall; Benjamin Hooks; Daniel Webster; Abe Lincoln; John Adams; William Kuntzler; Paul Robeson; and Jonathan Turley to name just a few. The common theme among uniting these lawyers were they spoke truth to power, despite government authority and the majority‘s will. The lawyer can be one of the bastions of maintaining freedom in our society and defending unpopular causes.
It is in defense of unpopular, though just, causes where they draw the most animus. The battles fought are usually against the wealthy and/or entrenched power bases, who have stirred up the peoples wrath through propaganda and appeals to our baser selves. Civil Rights, the Labor Movement, Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, to mention a few issues were (and still are) all unpopular causes fought in the courtroom by lawyers reviled for their success. If you come from an authoritarian mindset, or if your oxen are being gored, of course you despise the people who champion a cause and think them base..
Then we have cases like OJ, Casey Anthony, Phil Spector and Sam Sheppard. The public overwhelmingly believed these people guilty and when their defense attorney’s got them off, the public’s anger vented on these attorney’s who “suborned” justice. Overlooked is that we have a legal system that goes back essentially to the Magna Carta. It is a system that has evolved into the belief that a person’s guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While it can never guarantee that the outcome will satisfy public demand, weren’t all of these people entitled to a fair trial? If they weren’t than what stops government officials from arbitrarily punishing whoever draws their wrath?
Without our system of law we have no freedom. All of us are subject to the arbitrary whims of those with might, or wealth. Our lives become a lot more frightening and our economic status more insecure. A good legal system balances and adds stability to a society and we weaken it at our peril. I write this with full knowledge of the problems that our legal system has and the understanding that only a minority of the legal profession actually defend our rights selflessly. Indeed, the majority of lawyers are less than noble in their professional aims, but most with a love of the law and the desire to practice it ethically. Rather than kill all the lawyers from my perspective I think we should do all we can to praise, foster and uplift this profession because its proper practice protects us all from tyranny and exploitation.
My view of course is not the only view and this article linked below has a different, yet meritorious take on the reasoning why people feel this way: http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/why-people-hate-lawyers-an-overview/
I wrote this as a personal perspective and as such some may find fault with the evidence I’ve presented. My intent, however, was personal, not evidentiary and I seek to merely explain my personal respect for lawyers, the Law and the Constitution. I hope to elicit your critiques and opinions about my perception that lawyers are generally now held in low esteem by many of the people. Do you think this is so and if you do, do you think this low esteem is merited and why?
Newt’s suggestion reminds me of what the old Indian man replied when someone tried to explain Daylight Savings Time to him.
“I understand now. You cut a foot off the bottom of a blanket and sew it on the top.”
How about using a law school as a back drop to make a point.
“Via POLITICO’s Reid Epstein, Newt Gingrich tonight said at an address at Harvard that child work laws “entrap” poor children into poverty – and suggested that a better way to handle failing schools is to fire the janitors, hire the local students and let them get paid for upkeep.
The comment came in response to an undergrad’s question about income equality during his talk at Harvard’s Kennedy School.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-gingrich-fire-the-janitors-let-the-kids-clean-the-schools/
neoLobsterbacks has a certain ring to it Mike … thanks for pointing out that Stockholm Syndrome existed long before it was named that.
rcampbell
“Conservatives choose to blame lawyers for bringing suit on behalf of clients damaged physically or financially by corporate malfeasence, product or service failures,outright deception, ”
I’ll toss this out there:
Lawyers in the 112
th
Congress – House of Representative
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 152 out 441 of or 34%
* Lawyer for the purpose of this chart indicates those who have earned a JD, LLB, or otherwise
identified themselves as a lawyer/attorney by profession.
http://www2.americanbar.org/calendar/ABAday/Documents/lawyersincongress_112h.pdf
Lawyers in the 112
th
Congress – Senate
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 55 out of 100 or 55%
* Lawyer for the purpose of this chart indicates those who have earned a JD, LLB, or otherwise
identified themselves as a lawyer/attorney by profession.
http://www2.americanbar.org/calendar/ABAday/Documents/lawyersincongress_112s.pdf
Mike
Excellent piece.
AY
When we hear righties attack “trial lawyers” it goes directly back to the portion of Mike’s piece explaining the line “Old Billy was right….”. Conservatives choose to blame lawyers for bringing suit on behalf of clients damaged physically or financially by corporate malfeasence, product or service failures, outright deception, etc. and, in knee-jerk reflexive fashion, exonerate the business entity When they talk about too many regulations and wanting limits on liability awards, they’re telling us they prefer anarchy as it relates to commerce. They want Americans to voluntarily give up their right to seek redress of grievances against private companies. It’s an ongoing effort to subvert citizens’ personal rights in favor of corporate interests. They just don’t like the idea of regular people having rules and laws on their side. They truly believe power, rights and influence are strictly the possessions of corporate interests. It’s another manifestation of supporting the oligarchic 1% against the 99% and that’s simply not an American value—or it didn’t used to be—-or it certainly shouldn’t be.
Yesterday…I had to listen to a lady…that was a GOP fund raiser for the GOP…I sickened to my stomach…the attacks she had for trial lawyers…I bit my tongue and put her money in the till….I don’t own the store or I would have told her to take her money elsewhere….There is a quandary….that exists when you work for someone else….always….
Mike, I love ya man, but if you think your post adequately describes why people hate lawyers, well you need to put the bong down.
One thing I’ve learned as a layman, is the only person who hates lawyers more than a layman is a lawyer. Who can tell you the best lawyer jokes: the Mike’s stupid idiot class of laymen, or lawyers who have been taught the value of lawyers but still hate lawyers.
And from Turow to Grisham, the only people who hate lawyers more that lawyers are former lawyers turned novelists that in fact fill novel after novel about how lawyers hate lawyers.
Look at today’s silly discussion of EU drinking regulations and compare it to the same discussion at the VC and then compare it to the same discussion at FARK.
Pete,
Good catch. I forgot the second trial. I should have checked my facts better.
MS — here’s my take. People get into conflict situations. Because of associated negative consequences, they can’t just go shoot the other fellow or take whatever they want . They gotta hire a lawyer.
Of course, clients believe in (or can convince themselves of) the justness of their cause and the absolute culpability of their opponents. If they lose the case, they are pissed because they blew a bunch of money and time on an inept and/or complicit attorney. If they win, they’re pissed about the fees and inconvenience becasue they were right from the get go. The client being pissed at the attorney is built into the system
The one thing the client wants, whether on the suing or defending side of the equation, is a lawyer who will go to the mat for them, pull out all the stops. This is stupid, it diminishes the chances of a settlement and drives up legal fees. But it’s good money for the lawyer, and to get in on the game, even lawyers who aren’t jerks have to behave like jerks. It’s what the client wants — one tough lawyer, can really play hard ball.
But it may not be so bad — in the initial stage of conflict, the aggrieved do not want justice — they want revenge, to hurt the other side. But they gotta pay for it. As the bills mount, revenge gives way to justice which gives way to just get me out of this.
The best remedy for the Atticus Finch types among us is to vigorously push every representation to a swift conclusion, especially litigation. You meet your client’s expectations and may even keep fees somewhat reasonable. It is amazing the number of cases which settle when the clients see the whites of the jurors’ eyes.
Oops!
For you Gene; one of the wonderful! (fingers crossed)
“The second, far larger group enamored of authoritarian rule, are people who I think are emotionally attracted to being told what to do. In essence their psychological makeup is one of conformity to strictly enforced norms. My notion is that this could be genetically influenced ”
Yep, but there is some nurturing going on (and there can even be some denaturing — for instance, via student interaction at large, liberal arts colleges).
For the last time (at least, for today):
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
By the author — “OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. . . .
“The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?
“I think you’ll find this book ‘explains a lot.’ Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here.”
CEJ,
Could you try re-posting that video link? It led to a YouTube error page that said “URL contained malformed video information”. Thanks!
Pete, you’re right. The first trial ended in a hung jury. It took about 4-5 years for the whole thing to be resolved. Maybe Mike was commenting about the initial verdict or just wearied of the whole circus and tuned it out after phase one. I was totally surprised at the second verdict because I wasn’t aware there was a second trial going on. I just tuned it out totally. 😉
wasn’t phil spector was found guilty?
Mike, ditto what Gene and raff said. I worry about the rule of law in this age where laws are bought and sold like cotton futures.
And what raff said . . .
I’m really glad you’re not constrained to working from an iPhone now, Mike. Excellent article.
Great article Mike. Without the rule of law we have either anarchy or authoritarian rule. I would be nice to return to the rule of law that actually punishes politicians who torture or authorize it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslHr7_9Zac
This is the song that inspired me to write this post. If you hear it above and look at the lyrics below you will find there are many more issues appropriate for discussion than just hatred of lawyers. The lyric were written incidentally by a liberal, who is into conservation and other like issues.
I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin’ “Don’t blame me”
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin’ sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma’s too thin; your daddy’s too fat
Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it, get over it
You say you haven’t been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let’s kill all the lawyers, kill ’em tonight
You don’t want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn’t owe you a thing
Get over it
Get over it
If you don’t want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it
It’s like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You’re makin’ the most of your losin’ streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak
You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin’ everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass
Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin’ and moanin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it, get over it
Get over it
Get over it
It’s gotta stop sometime, so why don’t you quit
Get over it, get over it