DISCLAIMER:The following are the opinions of the author at this discreet moment in time and are based solely on his experience. The author knows many good and decent lawyers. Notably, most are young in the profession and still have the glint of idealism in their eyes.Interesting! Does this mean that I would have to pay back Texas Tech or the People of Texas, as I am not using my law degree? God forbid! The way both TTU and the Texas Legislature chose to spend its money, I would be better off handing a like amount to the drunk on the corner.
I would be just as happy (as would many of the women targeted in the article) to exchange my bar card and even my law school degree for forgiveness of law school debt. The article fails to consider that it is I who got the raw deal and not whomever she seeks to have reimbursed -- that the law as advertised and as taught in law school is nothing like the law in practice; that the venerable profession of law is a myth; that, far from being wise and trusted advisors, lawyers are viewed as foul-mouthpieces or ethically-blindfolded pawns (*) -- descriptions that apply to far too many of my brethren. Perhaps I have a claim for misrepresentation or fraud against the State Bar of Texas and/or against Texas Tech University School of Law. It could even be a class action lawsuit comprised of the 27% of lawyers that an ABA-YLD survey found to be dissatisfied with the practice of law.
I disagree with the underlying premise of the article. That is, that in order to make use of a law degree one must be engaged in the "practice of law." In ye days of olde, the nobility educated themselves out of curiosity and for personal fulfillment -- not to support themselves. So long as a person pays her law school debt and stays off the dole, how can she be faulted for similar personal development now. The "inside the box" thinking displayed by the author in question dooms her to the drudgery of law practice until such time as she has rat-holed away enough money to retire (I expect she is already looking forward to this day) or dies. Could be that she enjoys this drudgery. Although only a few do enjoy it at depth, the legal system seems designed for these to the exclusion of the majority (who grin and bear it hoping that a pot of gold really does exist at the end of the rainbow). News flash: the rainbow has no end and there is no pot of gold. The real treasure is today, right now. Don't squander it.
Life is simply too short to spend it seeking to satisfy the whims of chronically dissatisfied clients. The compulsion to do so is often born either from sick codependency or self-driven conceit -- or, more commonly, a hefty sense of inferiority glazed with a thin layer of egotism.
I sincerely hope that this author has had her uterus removed. Otherwise, I expect she will be eating her words when she looks into her infant's eyes. If not, I feel sorry for the both of them.
(*) I think the emergence of this public sentiment of lawyers is an interesting paradox. In my experience, clients almost inevitably came to me with not only the desired outcome but also the means to such outcome firmly fixed in their minds. Unfortunately, the clients' desired results were often short-sighted, vengeful, unethical, immoral, or wrong. Many -- if not most -- refused to accept holistic advice and counsel -- being Hell-bent on escaping the charges; getting back at the moment's son-of-a-bitch; taking all the law would allow; or some such other selfish and self-centered motive. This left this lawyer with the choice of firing the client (often difficult especially in court-appointed cases, but which I did on many occasions) or compromising my ethics, values, morals, and/or better-judgment (which I did way too often).
UPDATE:
Apparently, this self-styled feminist did make use of her uterus. Her
website states:
"I have had two husbands, including the present one, a biological daughter and two stepdaughters and one standard poodle, Alexis de Tocqueville. The three daughters have, among them, four graduate degrees and three jobs.The website also makes clear that this female lawyer suffers from inferiority masked by egotism as mentioned above. Such a demagogue and agitator can't help but be miserable. She has invented a cause where none exists, and she has my pity. Please don't encourage her.
