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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

        2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

        3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

        4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

        5. I totally agree with John Smith.

        ADVERTISEMENT