"The Struggle to Find a Place for Moses in the Legal Profession" - How to Become a Successful Lawyer Despite Overcrowding

Summary

The legal profession is facing a growing challenge – there is "No Room for Moses" in the courtroom. This is due to a shift in the way judges view lawyers who are trying cases in court. In the past, lawyers were expected to be authoritative and able to control the courtroom. Now, judges are more likely to look for lawyers who take a collaborative approach to their cases.

In order to adjust to this paradigm shift, lawyers must develop new skills and strategies. This includes being aware of the judge's biases, focusing on the merits of the case, and understanding how to effectively collaborate with their clients and opposing counsel. Additionally, lawyers must be willing to embrace technology, as the use of e-discovery, online databases, and social media can often provide invaluable insight.

The potential rewards for lawyers who embrace the new environment are significant. Lawyers will be able to build trust and rapport with the judge, provide persuasive arguments, and maximize the value of their cases. Additionally, taking a collaborative approach can often lead to creative solutions that might not have been available using traditional methods.

All in all, this new era of courtrooms requires lawyers to adapt to different approaches and strategies in order to succeed. Legal professionals must be aware of the changing atmosphere of the courtroom and strive to build new skills and strategies in order to remain competitive. By understanding the current courtroom environment, lawyers can better serve their clients and the law by taking an approach that focuses on the merits of the case and emphasizes collaboration.
 

The Need for Diversity in the Legal Profession

In the last decade, diversity in the legal profession has become more important than ever. With an increasing number of minorities, women and LGBT individuals entering the legal field, the need for a diverse and inclusive workplace has grown exponentially. This has led to the development of various initiatives, including the American Bar Association's Rule of Law Initiative, which promotes diversity in the legal profession.

In addition, many law firms and legal organizations have adopted diversity policies in order to help create a more diverse environment. These policies focus on recruiting and retaining qualified individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, while also creating an environment that values different perspectives. By creating a more diverse workplace, these organizations are able to create a better legal atmosphere and help create opportunities for minority individuals.

The trend toward diversity in the legal profession is an important step in the right direction. It allows minorities and individuals from other backgrounds to have a voice in the legal world, and it also gives firms and organizations the opportunity to be more competitive and effective in the global marketplace. By creating a diverse legal environment, firms are better able to serve their clients and meet the needs of their clients in a global marketplace.

While there have been tremendous strides made in the legal profession to increase diversity, there is still much work to be done. There have been reports that in some law firms there is still a lack of diversity, which is partly due to the fact that there is a lack of minority individuals at the management level. This is an issue that has to be addressed in order to ensure that minority individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed in the legal profession.

In addition, there is also a need to create an inclusive culture in law firms and legal organizations. This includes creating a welcoming environment that allows individuals of all backgrounds to feel accepted and valued. By creating an inclusive environment, it will help to encourage more individuals to enter the legal field and also help to create a more diverse legal practice in the future.

The Supreme Court may give us a hint after it hears argument in two cases presenting the same tough question: Is it constitutionally permissible for an agency of government, such as a public park or a county courthouse, to display the Ten Commandments?

On this issue, the lower federal courts are sharply divided. In Van Orden v. Perry, the 5th Circuit said yes, it's OK. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the 6th Circuit said no, it's not. The two cases will be argued before the high court on March 2. A third case, DeWeese v. ACLU, involves a courthouse in southwestern Ohio. It is actively pending on a petition for review — and it raises a question of "standing" that deserves attention.

The Van Orden case involves a massive stone monument, engraved with the Troublesome Ten, that stands on a walkway adjoining the Texas state capitol. A panel of the 5th Circuit found that the monument did not violate the First Amendment. In the case from McCreary County, Ky., a panel of the 6th Circuit condemned a courthouse display of a framed copy of the Ten Commandments. The high court's opinion in this case will be based upon an almost identical set of facts in the DeWeese case from Richland County, Ohio.

The facts in the pending case from Ohio are not in dispute. In July 2000, James DeWeese, judge of the County Court of Common Pleas, posted a framed copy of the Ten Commandments on a side wall of his courtroom in Mansfield. Across from Moses he hung a similarly framed copy of the Bill of Rights. Elsewhere in the courtroom, visitors could find a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and a depiction of Ohio's seal with the state motto: "With God All Things Are Possible." In a lobby just outside the courtroom, visitors may inspect a display of 29 reproductions of historical documents.

The American Civil Liberties Union got wind of the judge's artwork. Somehow it enlisted the services of an Ohio lawyer, Bernard Davis, who "from time to time" practices law in Judge DeWeese's courtroom. There he is forced to come into "direct, unwelcome contact with the Ten Commandments display." This obnoxious experience so offended his sensibilities that he fled for relief to the ACLU (or the ACLU fled to him). He executed an affidavit attesting the unbearable damage he must endure.

No other affidavits or depositions appear in the Supreme Court record. No other members of the ACLU are named. No one testified. District Judge Kathleen McDonald O'Malley simply granted summary judgment to the ACLU. Last July a panel of the 6th Circuit summarily affirmed. U.S. District Judge Joseph M. Hood, sitting by designation in the 6th Circuit, brushed aside the county judge's defense as "contrived at best." The Bill of Rights poster "does nothing to negate the endorsement effect of the Ten Commandments poster."

Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder filed a powerful dissenting opinion. She began by questioning the role of the ACLU's paper plaintiff. His alleged "injury," in her view, was not sufficient to give him standing to sue.

Turning to the facts of the case, Judge Batchelder observed that the offending poster is a far cry from the granite monuments that have triggered other cases. "The text is so small that it cannot be read from the jury box, the witness stand, or the bench."


The ACLU had complained that DeWeese did not have a "purely secular purpose" in hanging the Mosaic text. Judge Batchelder dismissed the objection: "It is patently unnecessary for DeWeese to have had a purely secular purpose. He merely needed not to have a purely religious purpose." There was nothing in the record to suggest that the county judge was attempting "to instruct individuals that our legal system is based on moral absolutes from divine law handed down by God through the Ten Commandments."

Judge DeWeese had protested that he was not proselytizing anyone. He thought the framed commandments might foster debate "between the philosophical position of moral absolutism (as set forth in the Ten Commandments) and moral relativism in order to address what he perceives to be a moral crisis in this country." Such a purpose, said Judge Hood, violates the Establishment Clause.

Judge Batchelder had the last word: "A great many state educational institutions will be shocked, I suspect, to learn that fostering debate between philosophical positions is now unconstitutional in the 6th Circuit."

Last word? In this constitutional debate, the last word will never come.

(Readers are invited to send dated citations of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick. His e-mail address is kilpatjj@aol.com.)