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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

        2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

        3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

        4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

        5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

        ADVERTISEMENT