Guardians of freedom

November 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Mike Hoskins wrote this post.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers."
 
That, of course, is William Shakespeare’s famous line from his play Henry VI (Part 2). The oft-quoted line is for the most part taken out of context and used to illustrate a non-lawyer's frustration with the legal system. Many know it comes from one of Shakespeare's plays, but usually there's little awareness beyond that.

In a recent Indiana Lawyer newspaper column, veteran Fort Wayne practitioner Donald D. Doxsee cited that line and added what lawyers should remind people who quote it.

“You should remind them that Shakespeare put these words into the mouth of a villain attempting to seize power illegally. Our profession stands as the guardians of the rule of law and the protector of rights,” Doxsee wrote.

It seems that Shakespeare quote is often what people think of first when the topic is “lawyer jokes.” With all the talk lately about civility and professionalism, and newly installed Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David pointing out his dislike for lawyer jokes, this topic seems timely. And appropriate.

Members of the legal profession have made this observation before, just like our friend in Fort Wayne. Now-retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens even dissented on a case referring to the value of lawyers. Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 359 (1985) involved a statute adopted in 1862 limiting attorney's fees in veterans’ cases to $10.  The federal government argued that the system worked better without a lot of quarrelsome lawyers involved, but the justice made this point: "Just as I disagree with the present court's crabbed view of the concept of 'liberty,' so do I reject its apparent unawareness of the function of the independent lawyer as a guardian of our freedom."
 
He wrote a footnote pointing out, "As a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government." With that, the high court justice made the point that attorneys are a protection from too much government power rather than an evil to be protected against.

Clearly, some lawyers and jurists know the context and aren’t afraid to share it. Maybe it’s time that some “lawyer jokes” be examined for the larger lessons about the profession, rather than just dismissed as a slight against those who’ve passed the bar. The public could take some lesson from this, it seems.

Any thoughts from Indiana's barristers or benchers?

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT