Roy Graham: Is it true that lawyers need a hide like a rhinoceros?

There’s a well-worn phrase in legal circles: “You must have the stamina of an ox and a hide like a rhinoceros.” It’s often attributed to Joan Rosanove, a trailblazer in the Australian legal world.

But should kindness and gratitude lead the way instead?

Most religions teach that kindness, learning, and charity uphold the world—that without them, society would collapse. Donating our time is genuine charity. Reading the cases and being prepared as the law changes is certainly study.

But kindness and lawyers? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

How do we rate kindness in our profession?

Are lawyers obliged to be pugilistic, always spoiling for a fight?

Do some even border on the ridiculous?

Of course.

There are reasonable arguments on both sides.

In favor of a thick skin:

Resilience: Essential for handling constant pressure.

Vigorous Advocacy: Ensures fairness and integrity.

Burnout Protection: Buffers us from loss and disappointment.

Independence: Empowers us to take on tough, even unpopular, cases.

Objectivity: Keeps emotions from clouding judgment.

But there’s a downside:

Moral Detachment: May erode empathy and accountability.

Reputation: Reinforces the old stereotype of the unfeeling lawyer.

Avoiding Feedback: Can turn us deaf to valid criticism or growth.

When I speak to teenagers about law, I often hear, “My brother likes to argue; he’d make a good attorney.” I respond: “Did you know most divorces, criminal, and civil cases are actually resolved by agreement, usually without trial and confrontation?”

Veterans among us remember the early days of mandatory mediation in family law. We were skeptical at first—resolution without combat? But in time, we saw its power for real, lasting settlement.

My father practiced in New York City over sixty years ago. What he cherished most? Sitting with judges in chambers, where both sides could speak openly and candidly—often leading to compromise.

And what about the tone of our correspondence? I’ve found that arguing facts too aggressively—especially in family law—usually just stirs the pot.

Sometimes, yes, it’s necessary, but often a softer approach (“I wasn’t there, of course, but my client says…”) gets you further with opposing counsel. In criminal cases, caution is warranted—admissions can be perilous, so our communications must be more nuanced.

What’s changed?

In 2005, Indiana revised its Rules of Professional Conduct, swapping combative words like “zealous” for language that spotlights civility and professionalism.

It mirrored a larger trend: legal ethics now encourage us to champion our clients without sacrificing honor or respect. The word “effective” was substituted in its place.

Even so, many attorneys still cling to the old “zealous” standard—until they learn otherwise.

That is, they didn’t get the memo yet.•

__________

Roy Graham is a criminal and family lawyer in Bloomington. Opinions expressed are those of the author.