BEYOND LAWYER JOKES . . .
by Kent Seitzinger, Esq.

There are lots of them, lawyer jokes that is.  There seem to be more lawyer jokes than blond jokes; more lawyer jokes, than ethnic jokes; more lawyer jokes than there are jokes about virtually all other professions combined. Have you ever wondered why? Probably because lawyers are easy targets.  After all, you're not going to be accused of insensitivity by the politically correct sages or by some ethnic or racial group for telling a lawyer joke.  Besides, everyone knows that lawyers' behavior justifies being cruel to them.

For my part, I do not mind lawyer jokes.  I've been known to tell a few myself. If you can't laugh at yourself, then you are taking things way too seriously.  I do not take the jokes personally.  It is exaggeration that makes many things seem funny.

Every once in a while, however, lawyer jokes degenerate into an all-out attack on both my profession and, in limited instances, an attack on me personally.  In those cases, I will defend my chosen profession and I will defend myself.

Defending myself is not very difficult. In the vast majority of cases, the individual who is critical of me doesn't even know me. He doesn't know me professionally and he doesn't know me personally. In almost every instance, this person has had an experience with a lawyer or the legal system that has been distasteful. Sometimes it seems to be a matter of jealousy. Being angry or upset with me because of an experience with someone else is sort of like being angry at your Chevy (which is running perfectly fine) because you once had a Ford that was a piece of junk, and, of course, both Fords and Chevys are cars and are therefore both equally bad.

Are there bad lawyers? You bet there are! But there are bad doctors, clergymen, teachers, postal workers and plumbers, too. Then why is it that there is a proliferation of lawyer jokes but, relatively speaking, the jokes about other professions are few and far between? In trying to answer that question, I have reflected upon the practice of law as I know it and I believe that I have gained a few insights which help to explain, at least in part, this phenomenon.

First, we need to narrow the focus.  There are some lawyers who perform only transaction types of work, or who work in some capacity other than in the active practice of law. Their work typically has limited adversarial aspects to it and is seldom very controversial. The popular perception of a lawyer is as an advocate and as a litigator. And, I suspect, it is this perception which gives rise to the image which leads to the lawyer jokes. A reflection upon my life as a litigator has raised many issues I had never really considered in the past.

An attorney is normally hired to advocate the client's position.  When someone hires an attorney (litigator), it is either because he has a dispute with someone or someone has a dispute with the client.  All kinds of disputes arise among us in the course of daily living.  Someone runs a red light, crashes into your car and causes you injuries.  Someone is a gunshot victim because that person happened to be at a convenience store when some bad guys decided to rob it.  Your neighbor builds a fence which is slightly over the property line and is on your property.  You fire someone from the business you own and the former employee sues you for wrongfully firing him or her. You and your landlord are in a dispute over repair work in your apartment. Do you notice something?   Not one single event involved a lawyer up to this point! A lawyer did not cause the accident, rob the store, build the fence, fire your employee or fail to make a repair in your apartment.  

Once the dispute arises, you still do not need to involve a lawyer.  You are completely free to negotiate the resolution of this matter on your own. In most cases, the parties do resolve these conflicts on their own. Many times, however, both sides view the other as inflexible and unreasonable, and the battle begins.

If you have to go to battle, there are rules of engagement that must be followed.  These rules include statutory and case law related to the substance of the dispute as well as procedural matters and the law of evidence.  These laws and rules exist because history has taught us that, overall, it is better for society that certain rules exist to resolve conflict. The procedural and evidentiary rules exist because a few hundred years of jurisprudence have shown that these rules are most likely to produce the most truthful and accurate information for someone to use to determine who wins and, if so, how much.  The rules are also necessary so that we can evaluate a matter with the maximum degree of predictability. In other words, where possible, we want to be able to compare the applicable law and our facts with some other case so we can predict the result of choosing a particular type of behavior.  The system we have is far from perfect.  In fact, many years of experience and a significant dose of cynicism has caused me to frequently describe our legal system not as something to provide justice but rather as a mechanism for dispute resolution and, to that extent, the system works without fail. Disputes are always resolved with someone winning and someone losing.

Remember, when the lawyer is called into the fray, it is usually already out of control.  Both parties believe (or at least claim to believe) in the righteousness of their respective claims or positions.  They have been unable to resolve the conflict so they have retained a "soldier," the lawyer, to go into battle for them. The analogy here to the military is not far-fetched.  The human spirit is not one which normally is inclined to hurt, much less destroy, another human being.  Soldiers who are placed in a military conflict injure and kill the enemy for one of two reasons: they injure or kill either out of a perception that they must do so to defend themselves or because it is simply their job.  These are essentially the same motivational forces involved in the practice of law as a trial lawyer. I rarely have ill-will against the other party or his or her attorney and certainly do not wish them physical harm. However, I have been hired to do battle for my client and I will all use all legal and ethical means at my disposal to win for my client.

I have never had a client retain me and request that I be a nice guy or demand that I not be aggressive in representing the client's interest.  My client hires me for one reason and one reason only: To win!!!  In fulfilling my ethical obligation in representing my client, I do not intentionally try to offend or upset anyone. Unfortunately, the natural course of adversarial matters and the inescapable consequence of being an advocate representing one party in such a proceeding usually produces negative feelings about the lawyer.  It is interesting to note that of the estimated 1,500 clients I have dealt with in my career, I can count on one hand those which did not like me when the case was over.

Once the legal battle has begun, consider for a moment what is happening. First, there are almost always at least two different versions of some of the critical facts and frequently there are several versions of these facts.  At least when a surgeon operates there is not a dispute between him and his colleagues as to where the appendix is. Dr. A doesn't say it's in the abdomen; Dr. B doesn't say it's in the ear, Dr. C doesn't say it's in the foot, and so forth. Plumbers do not sit around and argue about the physics of whether or not water will run downhill and why. In very few areas of human endeavor do participants have to rely on interpretations of a word, words, phrases and ideas of others, and apply them to other areas where the facts not only are different from those in other situations, but where there is a dispute as to even what the facts are.

Many people are uncomfortable with public speaking.  Most people are uncomfortable with structured debate where your performance is graded. A day in the life of litigator makes either one of these exercises look like child's play. But the "grade" in litigation is not a letter of the alphabet given by your teacher; it may be someone's money; it may be someone's property; it may be someone's liberty (freedom) or even someone's life!

Parties involved in litigation almost always lack objectivity. Consider for a moment the auto accident hypothetical described above. Each party may believe he/she had the green light. Neither will admit that he/she had the red light.  How does a lawyer resolve that conflict?  The injured party may think his/her pain, suffering, anxiety and emotional distress is worth $100,000; the other party may think it is worth $100. How does a lawyer resolve that conflict?  Whose fault is it if the case doesn't settle but goes to trial?  Whose fault is it if the jury doesn't believe one of the parties because he had used cocaine in the past? Whose fault is it if the jury decides the pain and suffering is only worth $100 instead of $100,000?  It's the lawyer's job to make sure that the jury has all the relevant and admissible evidence.  It is also his job to use various procedural tools to limit negative evidence from the other side. Finally, it is the litigator's job to argue the facts and law that favors the result his or her client desires.

Lawyers who are trial attorneys are hired soldiers. Many times they don't even have the advantage of a level battle field.  They must work in an environment that is both hostile and adversarial. They seldom have agreed upon facts to use and have to operate taking into consideration perhaps three or four different sets of facts. Their own clients frequently fail to tell them the entire story. So, the next time you tell a lawyer joke, or the next time you join in a lawyer-bashing conversation remember this: You, the public, create the conflicts and disputes; You, the public, through your elected legislatures, have dictated the rules by which we fight the battle; You, the public, are responsible for not being able to provide a set of facts and circumstances upon which all can agree; You, the public, are the ones who are unable to settle the dispute by yourselves; You, the public, demand that I fight the best battle I can on your behalf; and perhaps most importantly, it is You, the Public, who decide the outcome of my clients' cases.

Next time you are inclined to make a disparaging remark about a lawyer, or lawyers in general, consider walking a mile in his or her shoes before you do so. I think you would be amazed at the view.  And, remember, almost every battle has a winner and a loser.

Some level criticism at the legal profession because of the fees which are charged. The very same criticism can be leveled at many, many other jobs. What does your plumber charge an hour?  How about the mechanic down at the local garage? And what about the truck driver who delivers the concrete for your new patio? Our free enterprise system allows a service provider or the manufacturer of goods to charge rates and prices consistent with market considerations. Why should a lawyer be any different?

Here, let's go for a walk but before we do, please try on my shoes. Let me know how you feel when the walk is over.

© 1998, 2002 Kent Seitzinger, Esq.

Do you have questions about the legal system or your legal rights? Use the Legal Know-How message boards to post your question  and get answers from attorneys. Click here >>