1. Is the practice of law a "Learned Profession," or is The Law just another business?
Lawyers are called to act with professional conduct. The practice of the law has long been governed by various rules that the states determine and enforce with the help of model rules. I don't believe it is just another business, if for no other reason, than it is a skilled art.
As Roscoe Pound stated there are four key elements of the profession: (1) a substantial intellectual training and the use of complex judgments; (2) clients must trust those they consult as they can't evaluate the quality of the lawyer's work; (3) self-interest of the lawyer is sublimated to the client's interest and the public good; and (4) it is self-regulating.
Now, I think that clients can, and often do, evaluate the quality of the lawyers work and I think that the lawyers sublimation is greatly exaggerated. Other than that I agree.
2. If it is a learned profession what distinguishes lawyers from other professionals like CPA's, architects, clergy, engineers, chemists, physicians, if lawyer are (or should be) distinguishable?
The easy answer is that all of these professions are distinguishable because they do different things. What is unique about the lawyer (and probably the physician) is that everyone will come into contact with the law at some point in their life. Be it a will, an arrest, a divorce or marriage, or maybe a more complex litigation.
I'm actually finding it difficult to distinguish the profession of a lawyer and physician. At least in terms of how they relate to the public at large. The others seem to be much easier to differentiate.
3. Does permitting lawyers to advertise undercut the Legal Profession's claim to be a learned profession? Would you vote to ban lawyer advertising if given the chance?
No and absolutely not. In 1977, Justice Blackmun wrote the majority in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 US 350) where he held that the 1st Amendment protects truthful lawyer advertising. He states, "we find the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism to be severely strained."
Advertising itself has become an art in America. There is nothing wrong with advertising if for no other reason than it's a large mode of conversation with the average person. People listen to the radio, watch TV, and read magazines. Truthful advertising isn't a bane to the image of lawyers. Rather it humanizes us and makes us more accessible to more people.
I've noticed that the Elite Law Firms don't have conventional advertisements. What they do is sponsor events which is supposedly classier than advertising. If you go to a nice theater or opera you'll see a page devoted to Weil, Gotshal & Manges for their faithful support. For some reason that is considered more professional than the personal injury attorney who has an ad on during the Jerry Springer Show. To me it is simply targeting your clients.
Law to me is supposed to be about helping your client and not about keeping an image. Who cares if the elite look down on TV advertisements if we're able to reach out to more people?
4. How can we tell when certain conduct is "unprofessional"? Should we allow law firms to "go public"? Allow non-lawyers to be full partners in law firms?
We can tell based on the state rules that apply to the lawyer. For some reason I'm not comfortable with the idea of law firms going public. I know they are business making ventures, but I'm not sure that investors would always have the same interests as clients. The firm is supposed to be looking out for the interests of the clients and not an outside investor. I would be more alright with non-lawyers being full partners in law firms as long as they are bound by the same ethical duties as the lawyers.
5. Is it legitimate/justifiable for the legal profession to adopt rules that primarily protect its "public image" as opposed to protecting the public? If so, why?
As long as the rule isn't hurting the public or unfairly restricting constitutional rights of those in the bar then I see no problem with adopting rules that protect the "public image" of lawyers. Although, I think the term "public image" shows that lawyers often think they are more important to the public than they might be in reality.
6. Is Rule 6.1 for the benefit of the public or the profession?
This rule is one that encourages, but does not require, lawyers to do pro bono work. It states, "a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to person of limited means."
I actually think that the rule is one that is meant as more of a benefit to the public. However, like all volunteer work, I think that it probably ends up worth a benefit to both the public and the profession. It helps the lawyer become a more rounded person, it is a good experience, and it teaches you things about aspects of the law you might not normally experience.
Then it is able to give back to our community and help those around who often need assistance.
Any thoughts?
