Men behind the Law

Take a look at the following headlines. The headlines tell us some of the things a lawyer does

Supreme Court rules segregation of Negroes in schools unconstitutional --Daily Tribune


True, the Supreme Court so ruled. But the Supreme Court isn't a self-starter. The cases are not sought out by it, but brought to it. They are brought by whom; by lawyers. Behind every big case there are big lawyers, lawyers with brains and training and great skills. And when they are exercised on behalf of one client, everyone else suffering the same wrong is benefited because it is our theory of government that when the Supreme Court rules on a problem its ruling becomes the law for all the people (not merely for those then before the Court), just as though the legislature had passed a law.

Merger of Alaska Chemical and All-Continental Foods approved ……….Admiral Airlines to fly New York-Miami--The Evening News

Behind these headlines are some of the most skilled, and the most richly rewarded, professional men in the country. These are the lawyers who specialize in the finances and the operations of the great corporations of the country. Corporations, in the eyes of the law, are persons. But, being fictitious persons, their conduct must be controlled by an elaborate branch of law known as "corporation" law. It is complicated and difficult, but very important to our industrial life.

Accused communist agent acquitted--The Morning Herald, August

The public saw only the trial itself, with its suspense and drama. But to those of the profession the trial was a highly intricate series of legal steps, each dovetailing into the other with the utmost precision. Conducting a trial is in some respects similar to putting a missile into orbit. The spectators hear the roar and see the take-off and the arching flight. Those in the know see the ballisticians behind the flight, the computers, the electronics wizards and the astrophysicists.

There's something else in this headline, too, that is even more important. By the side of that alleged Communist stood a lawyer. He couldn't believe in Communism or he wouldn't be a lawyer. But he could believe in something bigger than Communism: the right of even a scoundrel to have a fair trial. Most of our great principles of constitutional law have been established with respect to unsavory people-thieves, prostitutes, revolutionists, and petty crooks. The big shots don't often need the constitutional guarantees. Incidentally (or perhaps it's not so incidental at that) it required nerve for this lawyer to serve an unpopular client. But if lawyers lacked this kind of courage, how much would our constitutional guarantees of due process be worth? We might as well put it on the line: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

What, then, does a lawyer do? The question is so broad that we must answer with equal breadth. Under our form of government the courts have the power to measure any conduct whatever, whether it be business or social, against the laws governing such conduct. The laws governing such conduct, in turn, the courts measure against the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by our people. This means that every question in our governmental, industrial, and social life is potentially a legal question, and the important ones actually are ruled upon by the courts. This is true of all our activities, both high and low. It was only a short time ago that the President of the United States, through his Cabinet agent, "seized" a steel mill. The Supreme Court of the United States told him he had no authority to do so, and the mill was restored to its owners.

What the lawyer actually does, then, on a scale depending upon the magnitude of the interests covered by his practice, is to advise upon, and in most cases actually set, the limits within which governmental, industrial, or social action may take place and within which it must be confined. Thus he says, in ruling upon the constitutionality of a law, that the congressional action was valid or invalid. He says other things as well: that the property owner cannot conduct a nuisance on his land; police officers can't hold prisoners without bringing charges against them; airlines must conduct themselves in a certain way, not only toward their passengers but also toward their shippers; a motorist who harms a person must make good the loss (under certain conditions).

We used the expression "the lawyer says" so and so. Actually, he does exactly that, initially, when he advises his client- But his client's adversary may challenge such a view of the law. In that case a judge will have to decide. But the judge is merely a lawyer in a position of power. Both the judge and the lawyer practice the same law, read the same cases, and apply the same statutes, though they may differ in their interpretations.

Of course, the lawyer doesn't dream up these limitations upon people's actions in his own mind, and then spring them on unsuspecting clients. What the lawyer actually does is to interpret the limitations set by the Constitution, the legislatures, and the courts. Someone once said that he wouldn't care to name the men who passed the laws, if he could name the men who interpreted them. This is an exaggeration of the importance of interpretation, of course, but it makes the point.

For example, if the lawyers and the courts were to interpret "due process of law" as permitting inquisitions and torture, we would have a very different country from what we now have.

Is the lawyer free to interpret as he pleases? No, he interprets within certain fixed boundaries. He's not a free agent, letting his imagination soar as he "interprets." How can the lawyer say, then, with any validity that the law should be interpreted in certain ways? He knows these things (whether the statute conforms to the Constitution, whether the case decided by the judge conforms to the statute) from his professional training.

He has learned from his years of study of "the law" the applicable limits. Now, these things are not all black and white. Professional judgment differs. That's why lawyers lose cases and why the decisions of lower courts are reversed by higher courts. It is one of our purposes to see how a lawyer acquires this professional judgment and how, and where, he uses it.

The headlines tell some of the things a lawyer does. But they give a very one-sided picture of his life. If you were to talk with a doctor about his profession, and he didn't know you very well, he might tell you that he specialized in surgery, that he did so many appendectomies last year, so many cancer excisions, and so forth. What he doesn't tell you frankly is that these things are only the external manifestations of the practice of his profession. His real profession is a profession of service, helping people to get well. If it were only money he sought, there would be easier ways of making it than to endure the agonies of tension he undergoes when a human life literally lies subject to his skill on the operating table.

So it is, in truth, with the lawyer. What the practice of law is really like. Time after time, idealistic considerations along with "practical" ones crop up. That is the essence of the profession. And by the way, if you want to get rich quick, read no more. You would be wasting your time. Rich financial rewards come to many lawyers, and comfortable incomes to most. In fact, we never heard of a lawyer going bankrupt, though some there may have been. But the income received comes as a by-product of the service rendered. In the law your life will be one of service to others. You may advise great corporations or helpless widows or, indeed, as so often happens, both. The point to be made is that your goal in neither instance will be the amassing of money as such. Your effort in each case will be to counsel wisely those who seek your help. You will be paid for your time, of course, but what you are really doing is rendering a service. Sometimes your client will be rich, and your financial reward for helping him will be substantial. Sometimes he will be poor, and you will receive almost nothing. In either case, however, your advice, the wisest of which you are capable, will be the same. You will not advertise your skills. You will not seek out the rich. You will not reject the poor. You will treat each according to his needs and his rights, and it will be a part of your lifelong responsibility to see that the law treats all alike.