There are a number of stories and ideas that I want to discuss
here, before they become stale or misplaced.
“fiveDollarBill”
Making Economists Behave: How often have you been annoyed or
bemused by economic purists, who praise or pan a proposed idea
based on whether it fits their model of economic logic, no matter what
Well, the brand new edition of Harvard Magazine has some ammunition
(or solace) for those of us who prefer to deal with the real world and real
people, instead of homo economis.
we procrastinate, buy, borrow, and grab chocolate on the spur of the
moment,” (Harvard Magazine, by Craig Lambert, March-April 2006), we
get a brief history of the rise of behavoral economics and its arguments
against Economic Man — the human actor who “makes logical, rational,
self-interested decisions that weigh costs against benefits and maximize
value and profit to himself.,” and who simply does not exist outside classi-
cal economic theory.
The article explains that human being are in actuality quite vulnerable
to how the decision-maker describes the choices to himself and, therefore,
to how they are framed by the presenter. Noting that “persuasion is not edu-
cation,” it asks what the framing concept means in the consumer marketplace
and in politics. It ends with the hope that “The models of behavioral econ-
omics could help design a society with more compassion for creatures
whose strengths and weaknesses evolved in much simpler conditions.”
interesting. In it, associate professor of public policy Iris Bohnet,
of the Kennedy School of Government, explains that humans are
not merely risk averse, they are trust averse — and, therefore, very
vulnerable to betrayal. Because of this, people tend to be more
willing to take a risk when the agent of uncertainty is nature than
when the agent is another person. Feeling betrayed is a deeper
hurt than suffering an economic loss.
The piece left me wondering if this fear of trusting and betrayal
might help explain why so many nonlawyers have such negative
feelings about lawyers. When you loudly proclaim yourself to be a
trusted agent and protector, your failure to meet expectations and
keep promises becomes a matter of personal betrayal, not merely
an incidence of a customer dissatisfaction.
I first learned about the Clorox Co. study comparing professions to
duly noted elsewhere. Although no one could be surprised that
teachers have the germiest workplaces, many were surprised
that Accountants were the next germiest, but lawyers were the
least germy out of the ten jobs studied. I want to raise two points:
- First, why would it be that the “desks and pens of lawyers
had the lowest levels of germs”? Assuming that germs come
from handling things, contact with humans, and food, can we
conclude that: lawyers don’t use their pens much (or keep more
than they need on their desk)? that they don’t often touch
or interact with other humans? that they eat at their desks a
lot less than other professionals?
- Second, I went to the Clorox press page for the study and
ormation contained in this document reflected management’s
estimates, assumptions and projections when it was published.
However, Clorox has not updated it since then and makes no
representation, express or implied, that the information is still
current or complete. The company is under no obligation to up-
date any part of this document.” That sure makes me feel
warm and fuzzy as a consumer. Even more, it makes me so
happy that I never had to think about or write such drivel as
part of my law practice.
good questions last month, after 56-year-old lawyer Attorney Tom Gleason
2, 2006). Gleason’s lawyer has stated that his client suffers from psychiatric
problems, including acute depression and will voluntarily surrender his license.
What makes the case more than a typical lawyer-thief matter is the fact that
Gleason – contrary to the Nebraska Supreme Court’s policy of automatic dis-
barment over misappropriated funds — had been merely suspended from practice
back in 1995, when he was also charged with misappropriating client funds. The
Court found special mitigating factors, because Gleason was suffering from depres-
sion, had sought treatment prior to having charges brought against him, was coop-
erating fully, and was deemed to be unlikely to repeat his unethical behavior.
Tarvin says this will now make it harder for other lawyers to show mitigating
circumstances in disciplinary hearings. Sipple says the case shows the
Court can’t adequately regulate lawyers and ”It’s time an outside state
agency starts disciplining attorneys, one subject to the greater priority the
Courts should have of protecting the public” [rather than protecting the
image of lawyers].
Of course, one case of recidivism does not prove self-regulation doesn’t work.
Nonetheless, what we said three years ago is still true (if you add three years):
Thirty-three years after a blue ribbon panel of the American Bar
Association declared the lawyer discipline system to be in a
“scandalous situation,” and over a decade after a follow-up ABA
report in 1992 found that the system was still “too slow, too secret,
too soft, and too self-regulated” there is very little improvement.
ethicalEsq has consistently supported establishing the reforms urged by the
group HALT, including “Replac[ing] the failed system of self-regulation —
lawyers policing lawyers — with disciplinary panels on which non-lawyers have
a majority voice.” Or, as we discussed here, following the new structure in the
UK might be more effective. It entails “the establishment of a new Commis-
sioner for legal services complaints, stripping the Law Society of England and
Wales of its ancient right to regulate the profession.”
state in 2002. Nebraska received a mediocre C-minus, ranking
Discipline Imposed.
When mitigating circumstances can justify (even more than the usual) leniency
ted in the District of Columbia seems about right. — “issues of disability and in-
capacity . . . can significantly affect the choice of an appropriate disciplinary
sanction”, with proof of rehabilitation being very important. However, if the lawyer
fails to establish that the disability is substantially related to the misconduct, the
lack of a “but for” nexus to the misconduct makes the disability irrelevant. [see
In re Lopes, 770 A.2d 561, 2001]
It is difficult for me to see how depression can be said to
mitigate stealing from a client. The effects of depression, and
side effects from medication, can certainly lead to missed dead-
lines and similar neglect of clients. But, depression does not cause
dishonesty and thievery, even if it does lead to lower income and
thus a greater temptation to misappopriate funds. [see Lopes, supra]
[thanks to Walter Olson for telling me about the Nebraska story]
via jd2b) I believe our nation will be better-served if more of its best-
and-brightest seek careers outside the legal profession. Elite minds
are not needed to perform the vast majority of legal services. Although
there may be many reasons for the drop in law school applications
(4.6 percent last year and 9.5 percent this year), I like the one given
by Laura Rosner, Columbia College ‘06. According to the Spectator:
“She said that she never wanted to practice law and realized
that her interest lay more in political economy and government.
Additionally, she said she was influenced by a group interview
session she attended for Georgetown Law School.
” ‘Seeing the type of people there, these people are really ob-
noxious, I’m not enjoying this at all, and if this is what the core
classes of law school are going to be like … then forget it, this
is really not what I want,’ Rosner said.”
“scrabbleE”
Finally, I wish the folks at Blawgr well with their new lawyer forum.
And, I respect their decision to keep the “blawg v. blog” debate off of
their website. However, I must say, here at my website, that the de-
cision to spell their name without the “e” in the ”er” suffix — no matter
how humorous or ironic their intent – looks like a sad attempt to be
hip and timely. Instead, it will only result in a site that dates itself as
born in the e-less malaise of late 2005 and early 2006. (see our prior
p.s. Yesterday, someone in Charleston, West Virginia, Googled
billionaire plaintiff’s attorney Evan Schaeffer> and ended up at
this weblog. Last August, I referred to Evan as a “Prospective (and
contingent) Vioxx billionaire plaintiff’s lawyer.” My apologies to any-
one whose expectations were raised recklessly. Of course, should
my optimism bring Evan some successful business opportunities,
I’ll expect him to remember his Schenectady friend in some appro-
priate manner.
always writes with diligence and zeal. Here are two very
recent poems and two from his 1999 book School’s Out:
tongue out
the boy guides a new airplane
round and round
I nibble
behind her ear. . .
she stirs the batter
all tongue
the clam in the fire’s
hiss
sisters bent over
the heating vent
adult talk below
“I nibble” - frogpond (XXIX: 1, Winter 2006)
