Self directed propaganda

 

 Michael B. Ellis. . . you aren't him.  A genuine hero and warrior of the Great War, we discussed his life (tragic by post 1950s standards. . . typical by pre 1950 standards) in an earlier post.  His Medal of Honor Citation read:

During the entire day's engagement Sergeant Ellis operated far in advance of the first wave of his company, voluntarily undertaking most dangerous missions and single-handedly attacking and reducing machinegun nests. Flanking one emplacement, he killed two of the enemy with rifle fire and captured 17 others. Later he single-handedly advanced under heavy fire and captured 27 prisoners, including two officers and six machineguns, which had been holding up the advance of the company. The captured officers indicated the locations of four other machineguns, and he in turn captured these, together with their crews, at all times showing marked heroism and fearlessness.

I'll be frank that I have a very dim view of almost all lawyer advertising.  I think one of the worst things the United States Supreme Court afflicted this country with is allowing lawyers to advertise on the basis that it was free speech.*

Lawyer advertising is now done by all kinds of lawyers, but there's an entire field of advertising that's encouraged the plaintiff's bar to use all sorts of hyperbole about fighting for the rights of the oppressed etc.  If you follow it, you'd get the feeling that they view themselves as a knights errant, loosed upon the world after their humble upbringing (where they all descend from the noble working man of the Industrial Mid West), and set upon a personal mission to champion the rights of the oppressed.

A Medieval knight, a figure in much Romantic literature from the Renaissance, and how many plaintiff's lawyers seem to think of themselves today.  But how did the high era of chivalric knighthood see itself.  This depicts the Miles Christianus in an allegorical fashion, with the knight armed with named virtues facing named vices.  Probably the best Medieval example of this concept can be found in the Medieval work Beowulf, in which the chaste single Christian knight in the end slays vice at the cost of his own life.

Hmmm. . . .

Just the other day I saw an example of this in the form of a lawyer referring to himself, and his plaintiff's lawyers colleagues, as "warriors".  Warriors?  I don't know, but that seems over the top to me in more ways that one. Offensive even.

Part of the reason for that is that I've known a lot of soldiers.

 Members of the 5th Special Forces, U.S. Army, in Afghanistan.  These are real warriors in the positive sense of the word. they're riding with real Afghan warriors, who are real warriors in every sense of the word.

I don't really like the term "warrior" in the first place. Part of that is because warrior has a connotation of being devoted to war in a way.  But when used in that fashion, it's supposed to convey a positive meaning which is analogous to the self sacrifice of soldiers.

Red Cloud, at age 77. A real warrior.  However, its notable that he lived to age 77 as after winning the only Indian War that Indians ever won against the United States, he had the foresight to stop fighting.  Is the image that they're seeking to co-opt?  I'm not sure.

The problem with that is that since at least December 7, 1941, there's been a lot of war to go around and if you really conceive of yourself as a warrior, you might be in the wrong profession.  The U.S., as we well know, was at war, in the 20th Century, more or less from its start until 1907, then again from 1917 to 1918, then again from late 1941 (or 1940 if we include the stuff we were doing when we weren't "at war") to 1945, then again from 1950 to 1954, then again from 1965 to 1973, then again . . . well you get it.

 SFC Paul Ray Smith.  Now there's a real "warrior" in the positive sense.  His posthumous Medal of Honor citation reads:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on April 4, 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60 mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith's extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division 'Rock of the Marne,' and the United States Army.

So the country has needed a fair number of guys who are really willing to be warriors.

Navy SEAL Michael A. Monsoor.  Warrior:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Automatic Weapons Gunner for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 29 September 2006. As a member of a combined SEAL and Iraqi Army sniper overwatch element, tasked with providing early warning and stand-off protection from a rooftop in an insurgent-held sector of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by his exceptional bravery in the face of grave danger. In the early morning, insurgents prepared to execute a coordinated attack by reconnoitering the area around the element's position. Element snipers thwarted the enemy's initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents. The enemy continued to assault the element, engaging them with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun between two teammates on an outcropping of the roof. While the SEALs vigilantly watched for enemy activity, an insurgent threw a hand grenade from an unseen location, which bounced off Petty Officer Monsoor's chest and landed in front of him. Although only he could have escaped the blast, Petty Officer Monsoor chose instead to protect his teammates. Instantly and without regard for his own safety, he threw himself onto the grenade to absorb the force of the explosion with his body, saving the lives of his two teammates. By his undaunted courage, fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of certain death, Petty Officer Monsoor gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service

Chances are that I'm not being clear in this, but some deep seated something, perhaps from being familiar with both history and military life, makes the whole "warrior" thing seem a real stretch.

If we go back to the Medieval knight, we have to keep in mind that knights very often fell very far from the ideal and were often an absolute menace to average people who didn't really welcome a bunch of them showing up, wrecking towns, killing people, taking food, and raping women.  Medieval warfare was often a real no holds barred no quarter type of thing.  William the Conqueror, whom everyone recalls for invading England, also "harried" the north which was an event that sort of made Sherman's March To The Sea look like a Boy Scout Jamboree.  And frankly, the way Medieval peasantry, which included most folks (it's funny how everyone is always descended from some Medieval king in their family lore but nobody is descended from a guy who cut peat in a bog or something) isn't all that far off from how most people view lawyers, and not without some reason.  Lawyers can indeed be extremely destructive.

 Symbolic depiction of Knights Templar, with two Templars mounted on one horse, symbolizing poverty.

But at his best, the Medieval knight was a model of Christian virtue. Depicted as the Miles Christianus, he fought for good and was a model of piety.  In literature, this meant self sacrifice in the extreme. Beowulf had his arms and armor, but no wife and no family and he went down in death against the dragon.  In real life, members of monastic chivalric orders gave up everything in order to protect the lives of their charges.

That included, I'd note, giving up cash.

Knights Templar and Hospitaliers, and the like, gave vows of poverty, which isn't something most lawyers do, although in complete fairness there are quite a few extremely generous lawyers including some plaintiffs lawyers who are very, very generous.  Indeed, one lawyer I know of in the state has in fact reached the point where 100% of his income goes towards the poor in Africa.  100%. Now that's really something.

But most of us, plaintiffs or defense lawyers, do not do that.  No we don't. Which puts us in another category.

And that category, if we use martial analogies, is mercenary.

Nobody wants to be called a mercenary, as mercenaries fight for money.

Congolese rebels and mercenaries, 1960s.  One of the distinctive features of the civil war in the Congo was the notable use of mercenaries in it, most of whom were Europeans who had been schooled in the "art" of war during the Second World War or immediately thereafter in Europe's early Cold War and late colonial armies.  Most people don't find these sorts of mercenaries to be hugely admriable, although there are some who do, but they did see use by European countries as their clandestine clients.  The role of a lawyer as a "warrior" bears some uncomfortable associations with these sorts of folks.

We've quite thinking about mercenaries very much, but there was a time in the 1960s through, mostly, the 1980s (it carried on longer than that) where they played an appreciable war in the wars of the third world.  Wars in which the client states were often poorly trained in military arts and their unique skills, usually gained in the service of the armies of their European (mostly) homelands, could tip the scales one way or another.  The war in the Congo of the 1960s is probably the best example, but there are plenty of others.

Ronin, a masterless samurai, fending off arrows.  For those who don't like to imagine that they're like mercenaries of 1960s, wearing the uniform of their country of origin while fighting for another for cash, there's the romantic image of the ronin.  Ronin, attached to no samurai, hired themselves out, and often fought, when they did that, with fanatic devotion to their employer.  The best example in film may be that depicted in Seven Samurai, a film so good that it was made into the Western copy, The Magnificent Seven.  But in reality Ronin were an absolute nuisance to Japanese society most of the time and the Japanese crown struggled, and ultimately succeeded, in putting an end to them.  The mixed emotions of Japanese villagers portrayed in the film is pretty accurate. They're happy to have them come to their aid, afraid of them while they are there, and glad to see them go.

Now, like the concept or not, there are some instances in which the deployment of mercenaries by those who could afford it operated in a direction that the West generally approved of.  More often, however, hit simply lead to added grief and mercenaries were not beyond, in some instances, operating as freebooters given a minimal excuse for doing so.  The point is that they were often well trained in combat and sold their skills.  That's something, quite frankly, that is a better "warrior" analogy for lawyers than we care to admit.

In spite of the propaganda that is so often thickly laid, most lawyers will work for those who employ them.  Indeed, at a deeper level that the "warrior for the oppressed working man circa 1930" type propaganda that is so common, most lawyers will, at least to some degree, defend their work as a necessary part of the adversarial system. The concept is that its not up to lawyers to define the good or justice in any one instance, but to all the court to do it.  The idea is that if both sides are well represented, justice will normally, but not always, prevail.

There's plenty of room to doubt the degree to which that really functions, quite frankly, but that is a better concept of the justification for what we do that We Are The Champions Of Right type view that Plaintiff's lawyers often like to take. There are plenty of lawyers who have been on one side or the other of the Plaintiff/Defense bar who have switched from one to the other.  Indeed, some of the absolute best civil litigators actually do both, although that's tricky.  Still, one of the very best civil litigators I ever knew did that for his entire career.  In conversations, while he was a member of the associations that plaintiff's lawyers have, he was, probably as a result, always highly measured and insightful about the practice.  He was also an exceptionally honest man, however, and pretty frank about it being an alternative to less tasteful careers, for him personally, that lead him to the law.

But that is, I suspect, true of most lawyers.  Guys who switch back and forth usually don't really do it as they're defectors from the enemy but because of economic advantage. Solo practitioners who have struggled as plaintiff's lawyers go to firms where they do defense work as the money is there.  Lawyers who don't like working in larger firms leave them and become solo plaintiff's practitioners as they're established as courtroom lawyers and prefer to work in that environment.  Most of them aren't deserters from the enemy seeking a new life in the former opponent's camp.

So what's with all of this anyway.  Just sales fluffery?

I think so, but I also think it's become away that people justify their careers and actions.  Mercenaries of the 1960s always tended to assert that they were acting in the name of the free world against Communism.  Medieval chivalry tended to assert that it operated in the name of a justly crowned king.  It's easier to say those things and to assert them, along with others of like mind, than to assert that you are a killer.

I think something like that is done here too.  Ultimately, most of us know that what we do, we do for cash.  Most of us ultimately identify with the side we work for.** But on the plaintiff's side, since most plaintiff's causes do not go to trial and ultimately fail or are subject to a negotiated bargain, I suspect that going a bit further in why we do what we do, is necessary.***  And I think a little self deception goes into that.

All of which goes to this.  That's fine, but maybe we ought to cut the crap.  The public hates lawyers.  But the average person hated Medieval armies when they marched through, as have generally any public any time an army marched through, and mercenaries are generally unadmired. Using exaggerated marial hyperbole doesn't really help that, either on a professional or personal level.

*I get the Supreme Court's decision, but with less creativity that the Court has occasionally exhibited towards other topics, it could have avoided opening up this Pandora's Box fairly easily.

**Having said that, I'm often surprised by the degree to which Plaintiff's lawyers are so convinced of their own propaganda that they believe that its true of everyone in the profession in their overall lives.  I've seen, for example, a plaintiff's lawyer comment about an election to a defense lawyer with a comment that assumed that the defense lawyer must be a Republican, because he was a defense lawyer, only to be met with a rather sharp reply back from that lawyer, who was a  Democrat.  Likewise, I've found as a rule that on political and philosophical matters defense lawyers tend to be much, much more eclectic and polymathic than plaintiffs' lawyers, and pretty unpredictable as to what their beliefs may be until you know them.

***I'm sure that's true for me as well, although I'll note I've done about everything in the civil law a person can do, including working both sides of the civil litigation fence.