Public sees lawyers as contributing little to society, Pew survey says

July 22, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Once again, attorneys find their occupation at the bottom of a list compiled by the Pew Research Center regarding contributing to society’s well-being.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life surveyed around 4,000 citizens earlier this year, asking how much 10 professions contribute to society. Only 18 percent said that lawyers contribute “a lot” to society. A third said lawyers contribute “not very much” or “nothing at all.” It’s not all doom and gloom – 43 percent said lawyers make “some contribution,” although what constitutes “some” is unknown.

When this survey was conducted four years ago, lawyers were near the bottom of the list, although in 2009, 23 percent of respondents said lawyers contribute a lot to society. Business execs took the title of contributing the least to society in the last survey.

Why do you think attorneys get such a bad rap from the public? (Certainly lawyer jokes can’t help.) When attorneys get in trouble, it makes the news. (See William Conour and Arthur J. Usher IV). But does the mainstream media pick up on the good things that lawyers do for society, such as pro bono work, mission work, or fundraising?  We enjoying writing about the positive and interesting things lawyers do, but Indiana Lawyer readers are typically attorneys.

Is the legal profession not doing enough to spread the word about the good work it does so as to counteract all the negative light drawn by ambulance chasers or attorneys who write books about former clients?

If it’s any comfort, my profession did not fare well either in the Pew survey. Journalists saw the biggest drop in public esteem. Four years ago, 38 percent said we contribute “a lot” to society; now, it’s just 28 percent.

Those in the military and teachers came in at No. 1 and No. 2 on this year’s list.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Justice or just us?
    When the leading lights and judges choose "just us" over justice via a system rewarding those who can lawyer up with the most well paid firms, well then the golden rule has become "he who has the most gold rules" and there is no reason for the great unwashed to view attorneys as anything but whores reserved for the pleasure of the landed gentry. We have traded justice for insider trading and a constitutional order for power politics. Why should the powerless see our profession as anything other than a source of the rot?
    • Could it be cases like this one that erode the public confidence?
      ESP since it appears to have no bearing on the attorney's privilege to practice law in this state??? Hicks, who earlier this year pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and carrying a handgun without a license, appeared before an Allen County Superior Court judge to learn his sentence. He also admitted he had violated the conditions that allowed him to remain free until that sentence was handed down. Namely, he had tasted alcohol, something he was forbidden to do. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=1480CC987502B1A8&p_docnum=5
    • Confusing status
      Article states a 180 cessation from licensure, but S.Ct. website does not so report??? From article: Before his sentencing, Hicks told Gull: "Whatever you do, I deserve." Gull ordered Hicks to serve 60 days at the Allen County Jail on the drunken driving charge but suspended 50 days of that sentence. She ordered him to serve 365 days on the charge of carrying a handgun without a license but suspended 275 days. She then said he could serve his time in the county community corrections program and that his license will be suspended for 180 days. "There is a fear you're on a self-destructive path...if it isn't interrupted, you're going to die," Gull said. Hicks has a previous drunken-driving conviction from Whitley County in 2004. YET AS OF THIS DAY .... roll of attorneys claims active in good standing??? https://courtapps.in.gov/rollofattorneys/Search/Detail/1df46a17-08b7-e011-9d34-02215e942453
    • But compare ....
      how whistleblowers are persecuted in Indiana ... Case in point, see Paul Ogden and the hard press against his license. http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/08/what-donald-lundberg-did-to-me-why.html And give the oral argument in my case - a five year banishment for daring to peak behind the curtain and question undue processing: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/2011/migrated.orig.11-2164_10_20_2011.mp3
    • try the capitalists not "landed gentry"
      Mr Brown this is not Blackstone's England, and there is no landed gentry. There are no titles of aristocracy and no fee tail nor alloidial title ownership of land. What we do have is the system the "Founders" set up which is one that favors banks, usurers, capitalists, large scale mercantile and industrial concerns. at the expense of the socalled middle class, who actually bear a lot more resemblance to yesterday's peasants. The poor are fine here too, free government programs for everything, with two bureaucrats paid for every beneficiary, and taxpayers footing the bill. That's the system the "revolutionaries" got both here and in France and I think I would take "landed gentry" over "ZOMBIE BANKS" any day of the week. At least "landed gentry" could meet Madame la Guillotine if things got bad enough-- today the "bourguoisie" are increasingly hard to find
      • Hang on John I've got to get on with this
        No titles of nobility/aristocracy other than Esquire, you mean, right John? And we know from Ogden and Orwell that while all nobles are equal, some nobility are more noble than others.
      • Most Relegious However
        We must remember that we are number one at scaring the Hell out of people. There is redemption in every profession.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT
      1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

      2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

      3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

      4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

      5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

      ADVERTISEMENT