Catchy Title
When thinking of this post last night, I had a clever subject line in mind which I've since forgotten.
My report from the convention never seemed to materialize, due to internet issues and because I attended a great session which sucked some of the pda-scoping cynicism away. Briefly, before anyone gets too worried. Professor E. from a School of Law in Boston, a former NYC housing lawyer, was the presenter in a great session on ethical issues involving unrepresented/pro se adversaries. It probably says a lot about your author that the ethics portion of the morning was the highlight for me.
The program, though, hit on some of what I've been trying to focus on in this blog. His gist, to paraphrase: there are a lot of rules on the page, and then there's what actually happens. He was speaking of the ethical rules, but I think it pretty much applies generally to the practice of law. Law school doesn't teach that judges will demand settlement talks even when one has moved to dismiss, arguing the court doesn't have jurisdiction to even hear the matter. Law school doesn't teach that persuasive case law might be disregarded simply because "there's a lot of bad cases out of [city]" without actually looking beyond the heading. And I certainly never was exposed to the idea that opposing counsel or their clients would lie, cheat and steal on the stand or before the court, if necessary, to win a case. Or that such behavior would be treated with a knowing nod and a shrug.
It seems my cynicism levels have been restored, but I'm also refreshed to head back into practicing, after hearing that a lot of what has been happening in my practice isn't unique.
My report from the convention never seemed to materialize, due to internet issues and because I attended a great session which sucked some of the pda-scoping cynicism away. Briefly, before anyone gets too worried. Professor E. from a School of Law in Boston, a former NYC housing lawyer, was the presenter in a great session on ethical issues involving unrepresented/pro se adversaries. It probably says a lot about your author that the ethics portion of the morning was the highlight for me.
The program, though, hit on some of what I've been trying to focus on in this blog. His gist, to paraphrase: there are a lot of rules on the page, and then there's what actually happens. He was speaking of the ethical rules, but I think it pretty much applies generally to the practice of law. Law school doesn't teach that judges will demand settlement talks even when one has moved to dismiss, arguing the court doesn't have jurisdiction to even hear the matter. Law school doesn't teach that persuasive case law might be disregarded simply because "there's a lot of bad cases out of [city]" without actually looking beyond the heading. And I certainly never was exposed to the idea that opposing counsel or their clients would lie, cheat and steal on the stand or before the court, if necessary, to win a case. Or that such behavior would be treated with a knowing nod and a shrug.
It seems my cynicism levels have been restored, but I'm also refreshed to head back into practicing, after hearing that a lot of what has been happening in my practice isn't unique.
posted by TM at 8:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home