I love the law because ...

February 12, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Why do you love the law? We posed this question to our readers a few weeks ago in anticipation of the Feb. 12 issue. We wanted to highlight lawyers’ love affair with the law. If you chose to pursue a legal career, you must love the law, right?

We received great responses from a variety of lawyers and even heard from a law student and court interpreter. It’s clear that people and the relationships you build with colleagues, mentees, and even clients are a major reason why you love the law.

Here’s your chance to tell us why you love the law. You can write a vignette like what we published, tell a story that highlights your love, or even compose a poem to explain your feelings.

To borrow on language from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s famous sonnet: How do you love the law? Let us count the ways …
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • love?
    I don't love the law. I love my wife. I love my kids. I love my mom. I loved my dad. they have my love. Not the law. In fact, when one considers all aspects of Law in my life, there is a lot about the law that I hate. But, I believe in the law. Specifically our law, here in the USA. Top to bottom. The constitutions, statutes, legislatures, juries, judges, witnesses, wins, losses, good results, bad results, the whole enchilada. Even all the stuff about it I hate. our legal system, is a huge part of what makes this country different; a big part of what makes us who we are as Americans. I believe in it as a profession enough to have spent most of my life doing it. but not love.
  • Love it
    I love the law in states where the law allows the elite to be questioned. The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. Sandra Day O'Connor Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter mush. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. Robert Jackson
    • thoughtcrime
      Just go self-report yesself right now mister under 8.3 for implying anything bad about judges which is verboten! under 8.2, or, if not we can easily glom it under the vague and ambiguous 8.4. Got your hemlock ready, smart-aleck!
      • nicht mehr
        Oh dear meletus! I am with a well connected Indy firm now, so my days of drinking hemlock are well behind me. That is for sole practioners, plebes. We guardians can even arse shoot our wives paramores or brandish weapons at former clients and skate. Only the sole practioners go to gallows for speaking truth to power in this Utopia. St. Valentine, dance for us.
        • sarc alert
          Not really Socrates. All just plain ole sarcasm to make a point. We can all love the law when it is just. When it is proportional. When it is blind. That is loving justice and basic fairness. But when the law becomes merely social control to advance the interests of a ruling elite, an elite that has oh so many ways to get around the law, to escape the law upon which they crucify the. underclass .. . Well that law can be loved only by the corrupt and those being corrupted.
        • Law love and MLK
          Socrates again .... same poster, all Socrates above .... think about this ... Hitler loved the law: "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Martin Luther King, Jr."

        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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

        2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

        3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

        4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

        5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

        ADVERTISEMENT