It sounds to me that you are basing this statement on an assumption that your position is the correct one and that anyone with common sense should recognize that.
Not to get “lawyery” or anything but what exactly is a “regular person”? Should we just pick random people off the street?
If you are simply arguing some position on a message board where no one cares either way then this statement is correct. I don’t know of very many cases in real courts in the real world where a position is argued by only one side.
The law certainly has its share of jargon, and much 19th-century legal writing can seem impenetrable even to a modern lawyer. But for much of the past century, legal writing has been moving toward plain English, with some success. Outside some highly specialized areas that depend on tightly-written codes, like tax law, most statutes and judicial opinions being written today are remarkably jargon-free. There are plenty of badly written contracts and other private legal documents floating around, but a jargon-y contract is often an example of bad lawyering, at least in the sense that the drafter was cribbing from some ancient form rather than rethinking the document in view of a modern client’s needs and expectations. A judge doesn’t like an impenetrable contract better than any other reader, so the canon of construction that a document is strictly construed against its drafter (which, in olden days, would have been expressed as “contra proferentem”) can bite the lazy drafter on the behind.
But legal jargon and tight drafting are occasionally necessary, and in their defense I offer H.W. Fowler’s defense of “legalese”:
H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 411 (2d ed. 1965), s.v. officialese. I am all for plain-language drafting, and against jargon. But when I am drafting a contract or a bylaw or a statute, some ordinary rules must fall by the wayside so that I can write a provision that is clean, tight, and unambiguous. If what I have written is precise and unambiguous, and cannot be expressed in fewer words, then I consider it a good draft, even if unpacking the meaning may take an extra reading or two.
I work for a state agency that creates and enforces regulations and laws. At one point, the field operations people (those who do the inspections) were complaining that the rules were too complicated and needed to be simplified. They did not work with the cases really past the inspection and recommendation point, so they did not have the pleasure of dealing with opposing attorneys (IANAL, but I work with 'em). I tried to explain to them that if we “simplified” the rules, opposing attorneys would just drive trucks through the loopholes. So are they complicated? Yes. But that’s the only way they can be clear – to explain every contingency.
I once watched a law school commencement address by a former US Senate minority whip wherein he implored the law school graduates to run for public office, because you don’t want laws to be made by farmers and housewives, do you?
Dewey, I am well aware that the line was spoken by, I think, Bottom, who had just been transformed into an ass. None the less, it is the thrust of Tex’s comment. You may draw such parallels as you wish.
Could there be any states that prohibit practicing lawyers from holding public office? I.e., for public policy reasons, you wouldn’t want a famous senator representing someone in court for fear of wooing the jury?
A thought. I agree with the sentiment that the law would otherwise be unconstitutional.
Well, aren’t a lot of public officials barred by ethics rules from conducting any other business while on the public payroll? IIRC, for example, the assets of George W. and Dick Cheney were placed in blind trusts that would keep them secure during their tenure in office, but also deny them the use of those assets (with some exceptions like the Crawford ranch). Senate rules would also probably prevent Joe or Jane Senator from continuing to do work for their law firm while in public office. So, it’s not so much that practicing lawyers are prevented from holding public office as it is that public office holders are forbidden from receiving compensation for certain kinds of work.
Are you saying that lawmakers who attended lawschool don’t push legislation they think is right or fight legislation they think is wrong? Somehow I think most lawyers who go down the political route have some concerns about right and wrong.
**
That’s because the wording of the law is very important in how people interpret it. Don’t you wish the author of the Bill or Rights came up with a more concrete 2nd Amendment?
What “regular” people are you talking about? Personally I want someone who has a good education and understands the law. A politician doesn’t necessarily have to have a law degree but I wouldn’t hold it against him.
Still no. I don’t have a source that documents this fact directly, but the study “Are Lawyers Saying Good-Bye to Politics?,” http://www.ncpa.org/pd/govern/pd022299g.html, contains composite statistics on lawyers serving as legislators. The study probably would have mentioned any state that prohibits lawyers from holding office. (I have also served on various national-level bar committees where the topic would surely have come up.)
Not necessarily. Many states have part-time legislatures, and many smaller cities have part-time mayors and councils. For example, I live in Minnesota, where most legislators hold full-time jobs (some as lawyers) while holding office. A legislator in California earns $99,000 anually plus $121 per diem, and a legislator in New York earns $79,500 annually plus $138 per diem, so they can live on their legislative salary and can devote full attention to their legislative duties. But a legislator in Minnesota earns $31,140 annually, a legislator in Texas earns $7,200 annually plus $95 per diem, and a legislator in New Hampshire receives $200 for a two-year session–so those states’ legislatures are part-time and the legislators generally hold other jobs.
Likewise, I live in Minneapolis where the mayor and council are full-time jobs, but one of my former law partners served on the city council of an adjacent suburb while practicing law full-time.
Well, I know. But the point I was making was that something is wrong if the people who are supposed to obey the law cannot understand the law. If only lawyers can understand the language that laws are written in, then how can anyone but lawyers be expected to do what the law requires? I was responding to this post:
I don’t have any expertise in legal terminology, or legal precedence, or interpretation of legislation. Neverthess, if I disobey the law — whether I understand it or not — I will be punished.
That’s why the medical analogy doesn’t hold. I also can’t design and build a house, but I’m not required to hold a degree in architecture to live in one. I shouldn’t have to be a lawyer to understand what my government requires of me. Should I?
Who’s saying you should? Who’s saying politicians should be required to be lawyers? The OP proposes that we prohibit lawyers from making laws. That’s like prohibiting mechanical engineers from writing structural standards.
Actually, they do. While the mayor of larger towns and cities have full-time jobs doing just that, when it comes to smaller towns, there just isn’t all that much to do (and often not enough to pay for a full-time mayor). Same goes for aldermen and the like (who are even more likely to be just “moonlighting”). And while members of the U.S. Congress probably have plenty to do, state reps and senators often have side jobs for the time when they aren’t in session. I have met one, for example, who is a Chicago cop part of the time and a state rep (or senator – I forget) the other part of the time.
I don’t really think we should allow farmers to participate in politics. It seems to me that farmers as a whole are not concerned with right and wrong, but instead on growing potatoes and milking cows. Common sense never enters the equation.
"Don’t you wish the author of the Bill or Rights came up with a more concrete 2nd Amendment? "
I don’t see how you could have anything more concrete than “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The problem is when lawyers try to change the definition of “shall”, or take a subordinate clause to be the defining clause, as was submitted earlier. The intent of the founders is clear, if not in their initial writings, then in the Federalist Papers and other documents. The right is clear, it is lawyers that try to confuse the intent with latter day interpretations that were not intended.
The problem with having so many politicians as lawyers is that the characteristics that make up a good lawyer are completely opposite the characteristics that we want as leaders.
A lawyer is trained to look for minutia and detail, looking for what’s wrong or out of place, being sure that all the technical ducks are put in line, to concentrate on tactics… and should know how to befuddle people (like a jury).
A political leader should be able to see the big picture, should be more concerned with strategy than with tactics, and should know how to inspire people.
Seems to me that the basic training and the personality types that make the best lawyers would NOT make great leaders.
Thank you for stating so clearly what I have been unable to. I used to be good at this stuff. Unfortunately I seem to have lost a step or two over the years in this arena.