"The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All The Lawyers"

We are all too familiar with this line form Shakespeare's King Henry VI, are we not?  But, what is interesting is that Shakespeare did not mean this line as a cut or dig against lawyers, but a dig against commercial life and government.  The point in the play is that the surest way to chaos and tyranny is to remove the guardians of independent thinking -- the lawyers.  Today people use this quote out of context as in doing so would restore some kind of sanity to commercial life, but to Shakespeare it was an attempt to underscore the important role that lawyers, like you and I, play in society.  It was not meant in the sense of a contemplated revolution, that some would like to see.

Yet, despite the gripes and the whining about lawyers in general, in this day and age we do not have to look far as to the excesses in commercial life by the elimination of lawyers.  You severely restrict shareholder litigation and the ability to pursue bad things, and you get Enron, Worldcom and the like.  Today we have the financial world falling apart because of greed and lies and deceptions because we have so greatly reduced the role of law and lawyers in this arena for everyone except the giant commercial outfits themselves.

But, the mantra like a constant drumbeat continues with some, blaming lawyers for all of the ills of this  world.  It is really pitiful.

The newest entry into this area is Life Without Lawyers by Philip K. Howard.  Someone else that cannot seem to read Shakespeare in proper context.

Mr. Howard is also author of the best seller The Death of Common Sense:  How Law is Suffocating America.  You can read them if you wish.

From the book jacket on Life Without Lawyers: "Americans are losing the freedom to make sense of daily choices -- teachers can't maintain order in the classroom, managers are trained to avoid candor, schools ban the game of tag, and companies plaster inane warnings on everything: 'Remove Baby Before Folding Stroller.' ... Today we are flooded with rules and legal threats that prevent us from taking responsibility and using our common sense."

Of course there are those that try to scare us with high exaggeration.  We like to believe are school systems have failed, but we all like our teachers.  The truth of the matter is that teachers by and large maintain order in their classrooms and this is an insidious remark.  The law by and large attempts to punish managers for lack of candor.  Kids today rarely want to play tag as that is so last century.

Take the laws, whether you agree with them or not, concerning drunk driving and the civil penalties that follow them.  These laws are enforced by lawyers.  As with most laws, these do not discourage people from taking responsibility or using their common sense.  Most of these storm warnings that the law encourages act as just the opposite.  They bolster people to think and employ common sense.

There are lots of conflicts in this world, and the law and lawyers are an effective exercise in how to resolve these many issues in a peaceful and capitalistic way.

There are those in business that want to be the independent arbiters of what is right and wrong.  It falls in along the lines of "who died and made you king".  The problem with this is that these people want to make that decision based upon what makes them the most money.  The health, happiness or morality of of others be damned.  This book appeals to these people.

Sometimes I think we forget that some husbands beat their wives, some companies put some terribly bad thought out equipment on our play grounds, that businesses want to deceive and unduly profit, some doctors make horrific mistakes, some shareholders are taken to the cleaners by management, and not all of us are the best drivers.  Who stands up for these people?  They are victims.  Not Mr. Howard.

If lawyers are guilty of anything it is that they sometimes do over think disclosures to the extent a company warns parents to take babies out of a stroller before folding it up.  That is unnecessary.  But, such disclosures do not impinge on common sense.  People with a good dose of common sense already know such things, affirm their thinking and move on in light of such warnings.  Otherwise it is nothing more than fodder for late night comedians.

What I think evades common sense are books such as these.  Does suggesting that we need a world without lawyers even suggest good sense?  I do not think so.

Comments

[PerGynt]

Lawyers are subject to the laws of supply and demand, just like any other profession. Philip K. Howard can put that in his pipe and smoke it.
As far as having "too much law" goes, I guess Philip doesn't "get" the law, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if he were a lawyer. I would rather have a lot of good law than any amount of bad law. We can reduce the actual number number of laws by passing simple and straightforward laws. Rather than having a law requiring labels on strollers we can simply have a single law that condemns those directly or indirectly causing a child's injury to be put to death by hanging. Now THERE'S a LAW! It satisfies the bright-line "Common Sense Test", because if anything injuring a child shows a lack of common sense, and there is very little chance of clouding the stream with excess dialogue over what is what.
Being members of a civilization based on the rule of law we can't expect much from a guy who categorically condemns law. I used to be irritated by guys like this, but the more of them I see the more I am convinced that what they are selling is fear. People are afraid of lawyers, and Philip is making money reinforcing that fear.
Good for him. Make a lot of money Phil. I hope he's not a school teacher. If he teaches everybody to be afraid of lawyers then just about anybody will be able to pick on his poor students and they might end up being more afraid of the justice system than the crooks and bullies that beat them up otherwise. I would call that a negative.

P

[Carlos Leyva]

Chuck,

This is another excellent post. Hopefully we can help educate the masses about what the "rule of law" means and why it is important in their daily lives. There is a strong argument that the rule of law was an important component of the American economic miracle. Needless to say, that "miracle" is in more or less in shambles at the moment, but clearly not because of too many lawyers or too much law. As you argue quite eloquently, it is the absence of law that helped cause this mess.

Keep on posting in the free world.

[Chuck Cochran]

Chuck: I followed this link from a twit that GrantG put up. I am glad that I did since I will now follow your blog. I am a Labor and Employment lawyer and I see first hand what companys are willing to do to their employees. Many corporations have no heart and no soul being solely geared to profit. Absent Law and the implementers of Law this Country's "worker" would be at the mercy of the unmerciful. I would be wrong to say that all Companys fall into this catagory but even if it is just a few Attorneys have a definite role in this Society. Law gave us our unions which between the two of them helped to set standards which protect the weak and that itself is a worthwhile endeavor. My father was a West Virginia coal miner and lived and worked in the mines for over 20 years before moving to Ohio. The stories which I grew up hearing of the conditions these men worked under and the way they were treated has been the subject of bookcases of writing. We have information on how the absence of the "rule of law" impacts the common man right in front of us and within a generation of where we are today. We are needed and if it means that a few extra warning labels go on a product then I still say we are well worth this inconvenience. Besides, if the warning label keeps one parent from closing their child up in a stroller I think the rest of us can live with the label. I still find myself upset by the Mr. Howard's of our world and probably always will be. To be fair I did not read his book but assuming your read is accurate I really do not want to. Would the world be better without lawyers is not the question but rather the world would be better if there were no need for us. If everyone in this world acted fairly and justly it would certainly cut down the need for law. But that is not going to happen and attacking the gatekeepers does not make this world a better place just a more dangerous place for the weak and those unable to defend themselves. Thank you for taking the time to write your article as I find it timely and of great importance. chuck cochran