Comments on: Scalia: Lawyers Do Nothing Productive for Society

By: Sean McGilvray

Sean McGilvray — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:39:04 +0000

@Tricia, Scalia an old grump? How dare you! The man is positively effervescent. I totally agree about the intention of the individual attorney. I think that individually, lawyers can have a great impact but maybe there is a problem of glut.

By: Sean McGilvray

Sean McGilvray — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:37:18 +0000

@ouij, But is it possible that we might be better off (as a society) if more of those serious business minded people applied their talents to create the next Google? Maybe it’s a problem of volume…

By: kris

kris — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:23:47 +0000

As I’ve been attending Amicus/Reprieve Death Penalty training this weekend, I am somewhat saddened Scalia feels lawyers are wasting their talents.

I’d say if you’ve got a gift for smelling BS and injustice pisses you off enough to get organised and do something about it – then being a lawyer just maybe is what’s meant to be.

By: Tricia

Tricia — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:40:12 +0000

I’m reminded of one of my favorite lawyer quotes:
“A lawyer’s either a social engineer or he’s a parasite on society.”
- Charles Hamilton Houston.

Mr. Houston was definitely a social engineer (if not familiar I highly recommend looking him up!) and there are many many examples of attorneys who contributed to society – and the means by which they were able contribute was at least related to their legal background – their JD’s were not wasted even if they ultimately didn’t end up practicing law.

I think whether an attorney does something which benefits society is really a matter of 1) perspective (I think Scalia might just be an old grump that would be more inclined to see things in a negative light!) and 2) the objectives/intentions of the individual attorney. The work Mr. Houston and others did with the NAACP is a great example of lawyers impacting society through their work as lawyers – the work most lawyers do might not have such a significant impact but it doesn’t mean that they’re not being “productive for this society…”

By: ouij

ouij — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:35:23 +0000

@Joshua Auriemma, You are completely correct here:

The problem is that the way the law is set up, we can’t have inventors without scientists who go into law. We can’t have M&A without some serious business-minded people who go to law. Maybe it’s true that there could have been a better way to set up the system in the first place, but that’s just not the case.

This also cuts the other way, incidentally. Notice what a hot mess the Bluebook is–no sane typographer would write a style manual in that way–but lawyers got hold of it, and look what happened.

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:39:47 +0000

Pastry school. Or, you know, camping out on Duff Goldman’s doorstep trying to get him to hire me.

No. Really. I make an… ok looking cake…

By: Joshua Auriemma

Joshua Auriemma — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:58:18 +0000

I had an interviewer [who shall obviously remain nameless] say to me the other day: “So, you’re clearly very smart . . . shouldn’t you be out doing something productive for society?”

The problem is that the way the law is set up, we can’t have inventors without scientists who go into law. We can’t have M&A without some serious business-minded people who go to law. Maybe it’s true that there could have been a better way to set up the system in the first place, but that’s just not the case.

It may be true that if the system were set up differently in the first place, then this wouldn’t be an issue at all. But right now, I would bet that the average patent attorney (for instance) provides a greater “net gain” to society than he would have if he stayed in a laboratory.

By: Louis Grube

Louis Grube — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:56:45 +0000

I have a list of things I’d be doing if I weren’t trying to get into law. Brewing beer professionally is at the top of this list.