I must express my sincere disappointment at last night’s vote on whether or not one of your classmates should have been granted an extension.
Now you have to read my “war stories” and get a lecture on professionalism.
I once had a client retain me on the Friday before the answer to the complaint was due. The other lawyer refused to grant me the courtesy of an extension. I grabbed a case of Red Bull and went into the office for the entire weekend. I filed my answer, counterclaim, and discovery responses promptly on Monday morning. Even if I had not, the judge would have given me an extension. However, the opposing counsel never got a bit of slack from me, and likely never will in future encounters.
I asked around, and other lawyers who had encountered this particular lawyer had a very bad impression of him, and commented on his lack of professionalism. Now, there is one more voice added to that chorus. Word gets around if you are a jerk.
What did he gain by being a prick? Nothing. What did he lose? Everything.
In a case I am working on right now, the parties are very much at each others’ throats. Nevertheless, the other lawyer and I are very friendly and professional to each other. A few months ago, I was out of town and needed to get a motion for extension of time filed. It would have been possible, but a pain, to find a place to draft it and get it filed. I called my opposing counsel, and she filed iton my behalf. She could have jammed it to me, but she chose not to.
What goes around comes around, and when she was in a similar predicament, I did the same. It makes that case very pleasant, and both clients are reaping the benefits – because nobody is wasting money on motions to compel or motions for default and the like. The case will eventually be resolved on its merits, and that lawyer and I will always have a cordial relationship.
The moral of both stories? Practice law (and conduct yourself in my class) as if you were governed by the principles of Bill and Ted. “Be excellent to each other.”
When you are given the opportunity to be courteous and professional to a colleague, even if that colleague is a competitor, seize upon it. Whether you believe in Karma as a spiritual force, or just as a shorthand expression for “what goes around, comes around,” it does exist.
The practice of law is about more than making money. Similarly, my class is about more than what grade you receive. Law is a profession, not a job. “Professionalism” doesn’t mean wearing a tie, or speaking like you are more cultured than you truly are. Professionalism is all about how you treat one another.
I would like to believe that the way you treat each other in my class is creating “mental muscle memory” for how you will treat each other in the practice of law. This profession does not need more “I’m in this for myself” attitudes — it needs less of that. If you begin un-learning the crap you learned from watching lawyer shows and reading Grisham books now, it will make you much happier and more successful after graduation.
Only one student truly impressed me last night — Dillon Smith. Without question, condition, or debate, he stood up for his colleague.
Mr. Smith receives extra credit on his class participation grade for exemplary professionalism and the “I am Spartacus” award for the month. Those of you who eventually voted to give the extension get an honorable mention, but no extra credit.
The rest of you receive my unofficial admonishment, especially those of you who abstained. (“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” – Dante).
The following are mandatory reading, and will be on the exam.
Click Here to Subscribe
August 24, 2007 at 8:02 pm |
I disagree that this is a question of professionalism. Professionalism goes with responsibility and to simply say “You were serious about that?” and be able to get away with it is wrong. With respect ot my colleagues, everyone else posted to the contract on time and in accord with the instructions of the professor. And as lawyers, we are expected to know the rules and follow them not show up to court and say “Sorry your honor, I didn’t think you were serious about that deadline.” And because no one else wants to say it, I will: I disagree with someone being rewarded for not being responsible and if we are going to insist on standards of professionalism, in class and in practice, we must insist that the rules, as provided by the professor or the court, are followed. I lost points because I didn’t sign my name to a post. Gee, sorry, I thought you were kidding about that Professor. Can I get extra points now and maybe a waiver and get the post counted? Not likely.
MARK K. McCULLOCH
August 24, 2007 at 11:23 pm |
You are completely missing the point. I put Mr. Keegan’s fate to a vote of the class. The majority of those voting (by a very narrow margin) chose to cut him some slack.
Nevertheless, Mr. Keegan’s tardiness in signing the contract is irrelevant. Mr. Smith’s behavior in standing up for Mr. Keegan is what I am rewarding.
Nobody has been “rewarded” for irresponsibility. Mr. Smith was rewarded for behaving in a positive manner toward his colleague – even though his colleague may not have deserved it. He was rewarded for behaving as a true professional should.
I am highly disappointed that someone with your wealth of life-experience was not the one leading the way.
Think about how the practice of law would be if everyone behaved like Mr. Smith.
Prof. R.
August 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm |
Unfortunately, my life experience has been something less than seeing the best of our profession. In fact, many attorneys I know will cut corners and gain tactical advantage at every turn and will consistently brush the line particularly if that is what it takes to zealously represent the best interest of their clients. I’m not suggesting that Mr. Smith’s behavior isn’t worth something and never did. And I don’t think I missed the point at all. We spent time talking and ultimately voting because a classmate failed to meet his obligation to you and to his colleagues and not because Mr. Smith was on the winning side. Fine, cut him a break. But I sincerely disagree that I missed the point completely and would argue against your assertion that my wealth of life experience somehow obligates me to advocate for something with which I disagree. I will endeavor to behave as Mr. Smith has and I congratulate Mr. Smith for advancing his standing. And I will accept that my standing has been diminished.
Mark K. McCulloch
Worthy of a response… this comment is especially thought provoking:
Unfortunately, my life experience has been something less than seeing the best of our profession. In fact, many attorneys I know will cut corners and gain tactical advantage at every turn and will consistently brush the line particularly if that is what it takes to zealously represent the best interest of their clients.
This comment is absolutely true. Many attorneys act that way – forgetting that zealous advocacy is important, but zealous advocacy and practicing with professionalism are not inconsistent. In fact, those who cut corners and seek ignoble tactical advantage merely admit their own shortcomings in doing so.
Your use of the word unfortunately reveals that you look negatively upon this kind of behavior, yet you seem to believe that it is the status quo — and perhaps you are correct. Just because it is the status quo does not mean that you need to be part of it. Stand up and say “no I won’t” if you believe that this is not how it is supposed to be.
Gandhi said, “be the change you want to see in the world.” You (and like-minded people) — people who think “this is how it is, and I must go with the current” are not “wrong” nor “bad” in any way. You may be pragmatic and realistic. But only those who believe that they can change things ever actually do. All change begins with yourself. Would you like to see this profession become one in which honor and respect are more prevalent? I think you do, otherwise you would not have used the word “unfortunately.” Then give it a shot.
In fact, your “standing” comment is a bit off base. Nobody’s standing has been diminished. If you feel that way, I apologize. Yes, I expect more from you than from someone with less life experience. More experience = more respect from me. More respect = more responsibility.
Finally, much of this discussion is your doing. If you can provoke a discussion from which others learn, that hardly diminishes your standing. I heard a lot of grumbling about giving Keegan a break because “this class is graded on a curve.” (I don’t think you said that, I think it came from elsewhere).
Your standing is intact. If you think that you have seen lawyers behave badly, do not emulate them in any manner. Be the change you wish to see in the profession. You may argue that this will make you weaker as a practicioner. I disagree. Nevertheless, I can guarantee you that it will make you stronger in this class. Give it a try for this semester. Revolt against what you have seen. See how it fits. If you like how it fits, then use it when you graduate. If you don’t, then you can look back at this class and say “I tried that in law school, and it did not suit me.”
I became a legal educator precisely because I believe that the profession needs more compassion, understanding, collegiality — professionalism. I don’t care if you learn anything about copyright law from me (although I hope you do). But if my students at least try to resist the “dark side” of the profession, then I am happy.
I get the impression that you’d jump to “this side” of the fence if you thought everyone would. I understand that. But, I’m challenging you to jump first — and be the change you want to see in the profession. Anti-emulate those who you’ve seen behave badly.
-Prof. R.
August 25, 2007 at 9:41 pm |
Professionalism has a sense of dignity as well as deference. We may be adversarial in a courtroom, but outside of that we are each other’s most beneficial resources. I agree that we live in a time of deadlines, rules, and restrictions, but there is something to be said about the attorney who does NOT motion for a default on the 21st day. It’s not only courteous but it’s common sense. We will all face a similar situation in our future careers and I hope that your peers don’t view you as irresponsible. In fact I hope they show you the same consideration of those who voted for Mr. Keegan. Maybe then you will see that it isn’t every man for himself.
Stephanie Canglin
August 26, 2007 at 2:06 am |
I agree the situation had everything to do with the idea of professionalism, but you can’t blame the class for not voting to stand behind their colleague. Up until this point, for many law students, school has impressed one main underlying concept/theme. Competition.. The world we live in, encourages man to step on each other’s necks to get ahead, because those people who do that are shown getting the rewards for “going out for themselves”. Its hard to worry about your brother if you have to spend all your time trying to succeed, reach the top of your law school class, look better, sound better than your colleague. For thats the guy who lands the bigger better job. So how can you expect a student to stop and yield to give a break for their classmate? Your syllabus screams out competition when you read it. The criteria you required us to read, basically maps out how to get the highest possible grade. The curve idea alone breeds such attitudes… You listed ideas about respect, candor and consideration, etc. for other students, that only if students took more time to understand and interpret they would see why they should have raised their hand that day. But what we drive home in law school, generally is getting the best grade, the better grade and that’s what students will (have) gravitate more too. There was more plain language that described how you were going to grade us and give us credit for participation. The other side dealing with professionalism was mentioned, but appeared to be included more for pragmatic reasons (PC), where the average law student may not think there is reason to really adhere or absorb to the point you were making (or that we should incorporate those ideas into our daily routines in general). I for one was not paying attention when you first asked for a vote for my colleague. I actually thought you were kidding the first and second time you took the vote, but I raised my hand none the less to show my colleague only (who was sitting next to me at the time) that I was “with him”. Its only my faith and the belief in the Trinity that made me raise my hand that day, and makes me “raise my hand” everyday, for man. None of this have I learned, nor was deeply impressed, while studying at Barry for the past two years. So I say, the students are only doing what the institution/profession has been encouraging as of late…
(Reading the Honor Code of any law school its clear) There some students who are even apprehensive about helping/assisting other law students for fear of violating the honor code.
JASON RICHARDS
You said:
what we drive home in law school, generally is getting the best grade, the better grade and that’s what students will (have) gravitate more too. There was more plain language that described how you were going to grade us and give us credit for participation. The other side dealing with professionalism was mentioned, but appeared to be included more for pragmatic reasons (PC), where the average law student may not think there is reason to really adhere or absorb to the point you were making (or that we should incorporate those ideas into our daily routines in general).
First off, I hope that you now see that there is no way that I would kowtow to being “PC.” Ugh. Never. I mean what I say, and I endeavor to practice what I preach. (I am human and fail occasionally).
I agree that law school fosters competitiveness over cooperation and collaboration. I think this is a failing in legal education that creates a “race to the bottom” in the profession that can only be stopped if we all work, as early as possible in our careers, to stop that race.
Some things you said that particularly impressed me:
1. I raised my hand none the less to show my colleague only (who was sitting next to me at the time) that I was “with him”.
Wonderful! Even though you are in competition with him, you are also “with him.” You recognize that a) we are all in this together, and b) you may not see me again after this semester, but you’ll be seeing him again.
2. Its only my faith and the belief in the Trinity that made me raise my hand that day, and makes me “raise my hand” everyday, for man.
I am not going to proselytize, but I will say that I respect this reference to your beliefs and your application of them to how you treat others. The fact that you derive this strength from your faith is inspiring and worthy of respect. Too often, especially in recent years, I see faith used as a tool to divide us.
3. None of this have I learned, nor was deeply impressed, while studying at Barry for the past two years. So I say, the students are only doing what the institution/profession has been encouraging as of late…
This is sad, but this is what I wish to set aside in my classes. I agree that the profession and the way that legal education functions is a dis-incentive to being excellent to each other. But, as I said above to Mr. McCulloch, lets be the change that we wish to see in the world. Whether you find inspiration in that, WWJD, or “be excellent to each other,” “do unto others…”, etc., it does not matter.
I became a legal educator precisely because I believe that the profession needs more compassion, understanding, collegiality — professionalism. I don’t care if you learn anything about copyright law from me (although I hope you do). But if my students at least try to resist the “dark side” of the profession, then I am happy.
-Prof. R.
August 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm |
The reason I did not believe that the contract mandated by Professor Randazza was “serious” was that it is obviously an adhesion contract and therefore procedurally unconscionable.
Umm, hold on… it was not a contract of adhesion. It was presented during add-drop period.
-MJR.
August 26, 2007 at 4:50 pm |
All of this collective hugging is good natured and sounds good. It is unpopular to vote against a fellow student. It is also unpopular to send grandma to the gas chamber. However, there are situations where this need to be done and it is the only fair, just thing to do. The allowance of a student to sign the contract late should not be allowed. The requirement was posted and everyone else followed the instructions. This fact coupled with the grade or deductions connected with noncompliance makes the variance ridiculous.
All of the above examples of the “jerk” scenario are well taken but our current situation lacks analogy. The personal scenarious delineate someone is an extraordinary situation. The other attorney was doing a favor to someone that would normally followed the rules but the situation changed. If the student had mitigating circumstances a variance would be the best course of action. However, he expressed that he had no circumstances, he just did not do it because he did not take it serious.
I believe rules are meant to be followed, especially in the law profession. However, the caveat is that you should be cordial with your colleagues. This does not mean providing handouts to slackers or those who do not respect the rules. Extensions should be given when the situation demands this action. If the other attorney simply did not think the judge was serious, it will fall on my deaf ears…and hopefully on the judge’s as well.
If you start to thwart the one rule for no good reason, the first brick has been removed for the rest of the rules. Next is absences.
August 26, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
In “the real world” if you miss a deadline, you can always ask the judge for an extension. They rarely say “no” to a first request. However, they always ask “did you ask opposing counsel if they object?”
If opposing counsel does object, the judge is going to want to know why. I have never seen a judge refuse when the opposing counsel agrees to the extension. Never. When I have seen objection to an extension, I have only seen it sully the objector.
In this class, I am the judge.
Mr. Keegan requested an extension. I asked his “opposing counsel” if they opposed the extension. By a slim margin, they did not.
However, I also heard a lot of “no way, not if the class is graded on a curve.” That attitude might fly in other classes — it won’t fly in mine.
I was a little dismayed at how this played out in class. I am very dismayed that more effort has gone into this than anyone has put into a substantive entry.
I will allow as many comments on this as are necessary for you, the class members, to debate this issue among yourselves. However, I will not be commenting further upon this.
August 28, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
Not to continue with this whole ethics battle or anything, because to be honest, many of the comments make me sick. But I have to say, I really do not see how people can be so ignorant. I know that’s a strong word, but come on. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone drops the ball every once in awhile. Do you REALLY have that you HAVE to perpetuate the stereotype of the ball-busting lawyer? What does that accomplish?
I’m reading these posts and everyone keeps bringing up the “real world” and how a slip-up is not acceptable in the “real world.” Well I don’t know what “real world” you guys have been working in, but I know the one that I’ve experienced has MANY slip-ups. It happens to the best of us and to think it won’t happen to you is truly ignorant.
I noticed once I got into my upper-level classes here, the professors started with the story-telling a lot more. There was a distinct correlation between all the stories; tolerance, tolerance with your clients, with your colleagues, even with your opposition. That seemed to be the common thread because eventually you WILL mess up and you’ll want that respect from others as well. So for those of you preaching all this stuff about the real world and how mistakes are not acceptable, you need to look beyond your own arrogance for a second and realize that next time it could be you. So just give people a break every on in awhile, it doesn’t kill you…
- Kimberly Harchuck