You convince people by confirming that what they believe about the world is true.

One of the most difficult things to convince law students of is that law is not merely the application of law to facts. Students start out believing that learning law is learning the rules that will answer whatever questions arise. Some students never get past that idea. The ones who become good lawyers do.

There are instances in which there are clear rules that are easy to apply. But if that were the whole of the law, we wouldn’t need lawyers, and law students certainly wouldn’t have to pay $45,000 a year for three years to earn a law degree.

Instead, convincing someone that your view of the law is the correct one requires not only finding and applying the correct rule but also in convincing whomever you are trying to convince that the rule and your interpretation of it make sense, are just, are convincing at a gut level. If you can’t do that, you’ll never become a good lawyer.

An inability to get over the stumbling block posed by the desire for a legal system consisting of clear rules that answer every conceivable question, of course, is not confined to some law students. As Jon Krakauer explains in Under the Banner of Heaven, “literalism” — the conviction that there are rules set forth in hallowed texts (which need not be religious, as strains of constitutional “originalism” demonstrate) that answer all the important questions one encounters makes people resistant to the idea that answering the tough questions requires a considerable amount of creativity, acknowledgement of ambiguity, and sensitivity to situational specifics:

For people . . . who view existence through the narrow lens of literalism, the language in certain select documents is assumed to possess extraordinary power. Such language is to be taken assiduously at face value, according to a single incontrovertible interpretation that makes no allowance for nuance, ambiguity, or situational contingencies. As Vincent Crapanzano observes in his book Serving the Word, [this] brand of literalism encourages a closed, usually (though not necessarily) politically conservative view of the world: one with a stop-time notion of history and a we-and-they approach to people, in which we are possessed of truth, virtue, and goodness and they of falsehood, depravity, and evil. It looks askance at figurative language, which, so long as its symbols and metaphors are vital, can open—promiscuously in the eyes of the strict literalist—the world and its imaginative possibilities.

Perhaps this is why literalism rarely carries long-term appeal in a functioning democracy. The majority cannot be convinced for very long without the use of force that there is good reason for elevating the particular hallowed text (much less the literalists particular reading of that text) above all other “reasons.”

I’m reminded of these things by the TED talk embedded below, in which Simon Sinek explains that success in realms as diverse as commerce, invention, and social change depend on making the why of what you do your principle focus.

Thus, in the commercial world, for example, people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Nevertheless, companies and people typically sell their product or services by explaining what they do and how they do it. They don’t typically even know why they do what they do, and they certainly don’t explain it well.

But the most successful people sell first and foremost why they do what they do. Apple, for example, explains they do what they do to challenge authority. They explain what they do as designing beautiful products that are easy to use. What do they do? They happen to sell computers. That message convinces buyers in ways the typical computer seller’s approach — (1) we sell computers, (2) we make them user friendly — does not.

Simek explains the phenomenon in market terms: the only way to get the majority of consumers to buy a new product or service is to first convince innovators and early adopters, and those people are only persuaded by the conviction they share the seller’s convictions.

But his message about the market is one applicable in all contexts in which one is trying to convince an audience:

People buy what they buy to confirm what they believe about the world.

Audacity: fundamental to the practice of art and of law

I tend more often on this blog to write about the impact of law on creative endeavors, but it has always been my intent to address as well the ways creativity informs the practice of law.

In fact, the first major “breakthrough” moment in any good legal education is that one when the student realizes law is not what she thought it is — the learning of rules that she then applies to facts — but is instead that legal reasoning involves the enormously creative and imaginative ability to relate legal rules, earlier applications of those rules, and the myriad of other considerations that go into our conceptions of justice. As importantly, legal practice is also a matter of being able to communicate that complex reasoning, and the ability to communicate it well is inextricably intertwined with the ability to imagine it in the first place. Creativity and imagination, of course, are required to find the law as well.

These are not controversial views. They are central, however, to my fascination with the interplay between law and art.

One enormous component of genuinely creative work is audacity, which, in an article entitled Audacity in Contemporary Art, Diogenes March 1969 vol. 17 no. 65 1-19, Eduardo Gonzalez Lanuza defines very aptly in this way:

Audacity is “an attitude which consists of ignoring what is expected of you and daring to do what no one else dares to do.”

And yet most everyone believes law is authority that determines what is expected of you and requires you do what everyone else does.

So it is with enormous pleasure that I note that Corporate Counsel magazine has awarded Google its “Best Legal Department” award because of, as the magazine’s editor explained, the group’s audacity:

Past years’ winners were often defined by sedate virtues like superior systems and organization, but this year I’d have to say the key quality was audacity.

I’ve long been a fan of Google (though not an unqualified one), and there’s no doubt that its daring has been no small part of my admiration. I can think of few things I would want more as a lawyer than to represent Google in connection with the Google Library Project. So here’s to Google, and if anyone there in the legal department is reading this, I’d love to become your colleague.

Addendum: Speaking of Google’s audacity, not more than a few minutes after posting the above, I came across this, via Plagiarism Today:

Google has signaled that the company is prepared to oppose the major film and music companies as well as Congress and the president of the United States on a controversial bill designed to thwart online piracy.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said today in London that the company is prepared to go on fighting the bill should it become law, according to published reports. U.K. publication the Guardian is reporting that in a discussion with reporters during a London business conference, Schmidt said: “If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it…If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it; if it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it.”

Legal writing: analytic, interactive, and nonroutine. A computer can’t do it.

One of the most difficult lessons to get across to my students is that good legal writing requires them to exercise their imaginations, that I cannot merely tell them what they are supposed to do. It’s no surprise that it’s so difficult to get this message across; even within law schools there are many who believe legal writing is nothing more than composition and citation. So I thought it was interesting that Paul Krugman wrote today on his blog about “the influential analysis of Autor, Levy, and Murnane . . . , which argued that the crucial difference in terms of possible replacement of humans by machines was one of routine versus non-routine, rather than white-collar versus blue-collar . . . .”

In the article Krugman refers to, the authors set forth a chart dividing different tasks into “analytic and interactive tasks” and “manual tasks.” They also then divide each of those categories into those that are “routine” and “nonroutine.” I was relieved, but not surprised, to find that legal writing is an analytic and interactive task that is nonroutine:

DIY, from This American Life: you get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law?

It’s easy sometimes to lose sight of the fact our legal system is called a justice system and that law doesn’t exist for it’s own sake. I suppose, however, that William Gaddis had that confusion in mind when he opened one of his novels with this line:

You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law

Today I made a brief car ride with my son last an hour so I could hear all of the latest episode of This American Life. Entitled “DIY,” the summary set forth below, from the This American Life web sitem fails to do justice to a story that brought me to tears, that reminds me again what this whole life of the law ultimately boils down to. Fortunately, you can hear the whole episode yourself from the player pasted in below the summary:

PROLOGUE.

Carl King, a self-taught investigator, talks about the murder case he’s working on now—one the police think they’ve already solved. Carl got started in this business after freeing his close friend from prison. He now runs an organization, called Success to Freedom, devoted to helping wrongfully convicted inmates. (2 minutes)

ACT ONE.

Reporter Anya Bourg tells the story of Carl King’s first case, where he’s able to accomplish what experienced detectives and lawyers were not. He proves that his friend was innocent. In this first half of the show, we hear the story of the crime. In 1980, Mario Hamilton was gunned down in the street in Brooklyn. A teenager claimed to have seen it happen. With police prompting, he fingered a guy named Collin Warner as the shooter. No matter that everyone in the neighborhood said someone else murdered Hamilton and that Warner had nothing to do with it. And no matter that the teenager hadn’t witnessed the murder at all. A jury convicted Warner, and he was sentenced to 15 years to life for killing a man he’d never even heard of. Carl, his childhood friend couldn’t let it rest, and started to fight the conviction. He tells everyone he can about the case. He tracks down witnesses. He teaches himself to read court documents. Eventually, he gets a real estate lawyer hooked on the case. (29 minutes)

ACT TWO.

The story of Collin Warner continues. His friend Carl manages to convince the real shooter and the victim’s brother (who watched him die on the sidewalk) to testify on Collin’s behalf. After 21 years in prison, Collin goes free. (24 minutes)

Arbitration often isn’t fast and cheap.

I’ve written before that the instinctive preference many express for arbitration over litigation in court is not always good for the client. But now it seems, according to Law.com, that litigators are beginning to question the very basis of that instinctive preference — that arbitration is faster and cheaper:

Large-scale commercial contracts often include arbitration clauses in the hopes of avoiding large-scale commercial litigation. But litigators are starting to find the quicker, cheaper, more private aspects of arbitration have turned into lengthy, expensive and often public quasi-trials.

This has a growing number of attorneys advising clients to either take their chances in court or tailor very specific arbitration clauses with the hopes of limiting the expense of arbitration. It’s a slow-moving process, however, as litigators are rarely consulted when corporate attorneys are drafting contracts.

In the old days, Cozen O’Connor litigator Philip G. Kircher said, arbitration used to mean a six-month process “from cradle to grave.” There was very little discovery, fewer depositions and less case management. The parties would go before one or three arbitrators and have a short, informal hearing with the rules of evidence more relaxed than in court.

As arbitration became more popular because of the expense of litigation, corporations’ growing distrust of juries and the length of time it took a case to get to trial, the arbitrators became all the more sophisticated. That resulted in the parties asking more of those arbitrators in terms of complex discovery, more depositions and pretrial conferences, he said.

“Slowly but surely, what was once supposed to be fast and cheap was becoming probably just as expensive, if not more so, than going to court,” Kircher said.

Kircher had two arbitrations recently that have gone through weeks of trial, hundreds if not thousands of exhibits, dozens of witnesses and lots of briefing. The panel then sits with the cases for months to review all of that material.

“Even when there’s a final award, more often than not the losing party tries to find a way to appeal it anyway, so [it gets] hung up for another year before the award is rendered to judgment,” Kircher said.

He is part of a growing segment of attorneys who would rather have the security of an appeal and the finality of a court decision by taking their cases to court. Kircher is advising his clients to create clauses in their contracts that agree to have a nonjury trial in the event of a dispute or at least agree on a certain jurisdiction, preferably in federal court.

[Hat tip to Philip Loree.]

Judges: you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.

Dahlia Lithwick writes of her legal hero, Atticus Finch, and the noxious myth that empathy has nothing to do with being an effective judge:

Atticus’s life instruction to his daughter, Scout. As he explains, “If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” In summer 2009, and again this July, the United States was roiled by debate about Barack Obama’s promise to appoint a supreme court justice who embodies this quality of “empathy”. Scores of critics asserted that judicial empathy is the same as judicial bias; that judges are at their best when they coldly and mechanically apply the law. There is no place for climbing inside anyone else’s skin as a judge. There is only truth and cold fact.

How strange it is, that we have come to a place in the national debate about justice when Atticus Finch’s mild admonition to his daughter to try to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes has become the definition of dangerous judicial activism. While Atticus still has much to teach lawyers about race and violence and prejudice and the rule of law, I have also come to think of him as the patron saint of patient, quiet listening; a quality to which all of us ought to aspire.

If you think lawyers lifting other lawyers’ language is proof lawyering is easy, you know nothing about true creativity.

There’s always the danger that when someone suggests that genuine creativity can and is built from earlier creative works that someone else will believe the implication is that creativity is no big deal. If I feel I can cut-and-paste from other lawyers’ works then lawyering must be nothing but a cut-and-paste job, right?

It’s not as if I’ve never dealt with these matters for real, as if I’m dealing with it from an academic perspective “unsullied” by the realities of practice. A client who retained me to draft a contract for him once said to me, after we’d spent a considerable amount of time discussing the details of his deal, “It’s all boilerplate, right?”

I responded, “I don’t do boilerplate. Every deal is different, and if you know the lawyer who’s done exactly your deal before and you’re confident the contract he wrote then is just fine for you, go hire him.”

Which isn’t to say I didn’t review a lot of other contracts or that I didn’t lift language from those other contracts. I did. I took a line or two from this one, a paragraph from that, another line from another, etc. And I put those things all together with my notes, shuffled things around, revised a lot of the language I’d lifted from other sources, wrote far more language necessary to express what was necessary to express this particular deal, worked and reworked, checked and rechecked, revised and revised, and at the end I had a document that set forth the client’s deal in all its precision, breadth, and ambiguity. It wasn’t boilerplate at all. But were there lines and even, perhaps, a paragraph lifted from other contracts? Of course.

I obsess about these matters in part because there is terrible confusion about what genuine creativity (in art, music, literature, the practice of law or a myriad of other endeavors) is. The confusion arises because, I believe, there is so much money at stake in the legal and rhetorical wars over copyright. So there are a lot of people who will look at Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster and the photo Fairey used as the poster image’s source, and write things like the following:

Any director, writer or actor interested in making long-term money in the entertainment industry should be calling Fairey what he is: A plagiarist.

While I recognize the attitudes underlying these views — no one else is entitled to make a buck from my work! — the blindness to the creativity involved, even acknowledging the appropriation, is astounding. I’ve gone on at length about my view on this, but no one can deny that Fairey’s poster had a profound resonance and impact during the 2008 presidential campaign, and no one can suggest that the poster would have had any similar impact if the original photo had appeared on the poster rather than Fairey’s reworking. So how can anyone possibly suggest the level of creativity in the poster wasn’t profound?

The KLF “were one of the seminal bands of the British acid house movement during the late 1980s and early 1990s.” Their relevance here is that, “despite their protestations of 1988 about not wishing to be seen as crusaders for sampling, the [KLF] continue to be associated with the cultural movement which retrospectively bundles together those literary and artistic works that make use of ‘creative plagiarism’. 1987: What the Fuck Is Going On? is considered a landmark work in the early history of sampling music in the United Kingdom.” Their #1 British hit, “Doctorin’ the Tardis” “is predominantly a mash-up of the Doctor Who theme music, Gary Glitter’s ‘Rock and Roll (Part Two)’ with sections from ‘Blockbuster!’ by Sweet and ‘Let’s Get Together Tonite’ by Steve Walsh.”

Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond — who were the KLF — are also very smart fellows. Among a never-ending series of creative works in a wide range of media, they wrote The Manual: How to Have a Number One the Easy Way, which I’ve heard some describe as a cynical con job but that is far more intelligent and complicated than that. On the one hand, The Manual explains

Every Number One song ever written is only made up from bits from other songs. There is no lost chord. No changes untried. No extra notes to the scale or hidden beats to the bar. There is no point in searching for originality. In the past, most writers of songs spent months in their lonely rooms strumming their guitars or bands in rehearsals have ground their way through endless riffs before arriving at the song that takes them to the very top. Of course, most of them would be mortally upset to be told that all they were doing was leaving it to chance before they stumbled across the tried and tested. They have to believe it is through this sojourn they arrive at the grail; the great and original song that the world will be unable to resist.

But Drummond and Cauty are not accusing successful musical artists of being “mere plagiarists.” They recognize that even if a song can be broken down into bits and pieces of other songs, there is real genius in great pop music:

So why don’t all songs sound the same? Why are some artists great, write dozens of classics that move you to tears, say it like it’s never been said before, make you laugh, dance, blow your mind, fall in love, take to the streets and riot? Well, it’s because although the chords, notes, harmonies, beats and words have all been used before their own soul shines through; their personality demands attention. This doesn’t just come via the great vocalist or virtuoso instrumentalist. The Techno sound of Detroit, the most totally linear programmed music ever, lacking any human musicianship in its execution reeks of sweat, sex and desire. The creators of that music just press a few buttons and out comes – a million years of pain and lust.

Lewis Hyde makes a similar point in Common as Air, the new book that was the starting point for my exploration the other day of lawyerly “plagiarism”:

“Intellectual property” is the phrase now used to denote ownership of art and ideas, but what exactly does it mean? Does it make sense, to begin with, to say that “intellect” is the source of the “properties” in question? A novel like Ulysses, the know-how for making antiviral drugs, Martin Luther King, Jr’s “Dream” speech, the poems of Rimbaud, Andy Warhol screen prints, Mississippi Delta blues, the source code for electronic voting machines: who could name the range of human powers and historical conditions that attends such creations? All that we make and do is shaped by the communities and traditions that contain us, not to mention by money, power, politics, and luck. And even should the artist or scientist think she has extracted herself from the world to stand alone in the studio, a tremendous array of faculties and mind- states may well attend her creativity.

There is intellect, of course, but also imagination, intuition, sagacity, persistence, prudence, fantasy, lust, humor, sympathy, serendipity, will, prayer, grief, courage, visual acuity, ambition, guesswork, mother wit, memory, delight, vitality, venality, kindness, generosity, fortitude, fear, awe, compassion, surrender, sincerity, humility, and the ability to integrate diametrically opposed states of mind into harmonious wholes . . . We would need quite a few new categories to fully map this territory — “dream property,” “courage property,” “grief property” — and even if we had that list, only half the problem would have been addressed.

Do you want a great lawyer? You can have one even if he cuts-and-pastes the work of other lawyers into his work. But please — don’t believe for a second that means that lawyering can be reduced to cutting-and-pasting. Lawyering requires as much creativity as any endeavor on earth — if I didn’t believe that why would I write a blog devoted to law and creativity? And creativity is infinitely more complex a matter than tracking down the bits and pieces that make up the creative work. It requires the imagination necessary to find those bits and pieces, the vision to understand how to select and fit them together to due the present job, the skill borne of years of work to write in the stuff that can’t be found anywhere else and without which those bits and pieces would be just a bunch of crude boilerplate that doesn’t fit well into any specific situation at all, the passion and energy necessary to do the work to bring all this stuff together, the courage to stick to one’s vision even as one’s adversary is insisting you’re wrong, the delight without which the strength to do all of these difficult things would be impossible to muster, the generosity of spirit that can identify a client’s problems as your own, and a million other things.

So don’t you dare suggest that taking some language that is useful for doing the job that needs to be done from another lawyer is evidence lawyering is like putting together tinker toys.

Words and Ideas as Common Property: Lewis Hyde, Stanley Fish and lawyers as “plagiarists”

In yesterday’s New York Times, Robert Darnton reviewed Lewis Hyde’s newly published Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership, describing it as “an eloquent and erudite plea for protecting our cultural patrimony from appropriation by commercial interests.” As Darnton explains, “Hyde invokes the [founding fathers] in order to warn us against a new enclosure movement, one that would fence off large sectors of the public domain — in science, the arts, literature, and the entire world of knowledge — in order to exploit monopolies.” Acknowledging that Hyde’s historical approach might seem a “dubious” way of “defending the cultural commons” and that in other hands it could amount to nothing more than picking and choosing among “a stockpile of quotable chunks of wisdom,” Darnton finds the book compelling:

[Hyde] does not merely cull the works of the founding fathers for quotations. He pitches his argument at a level where historians and political philosophers have contributed most to our understanding of intellectual history. Instead of treating the ideas of the founders as self-contained units of meaning, he explores their interconnections and shows how they shared a common conceptual frame. Not that he pretends to have uncovered anything unknown to the authorities he cites, notably the historian J. G. A. Pocock, whose studies of civic republicanism reveal how early modern philosophers drew on a current of thought about the nature of citizenship that goes back to ancient Greece and Rome. Hyde builds his argument by telling stories, and he tells them well. His book brims with vignettes, which may be familiar but complement one other in ways that produce original insights.

It is one of the genuine highlights of my professional career that Hyde draws on an article I’ve written. Hyde’s scope is wide, and he explores in depth the practices of many different “communities” — including, among others, the world of scientific research and the programmers that collectively created the World Wide Web — to show that treating knowledge and invention as a commons is both widespread and productive. One such community is the legal profession, which might seem odd in that the widely held understanding that your intellectual product is as much your property as is your house is such a legalistic conception:

Many . . . communities of practice have common holdings made durable and lively through normative rather than legal stints.

One of these may be found, oddly enough, in the legal community itself, where, as in some scientific circles, collective tasks get done and “collective beings” come to life through the agreed-upon non-ownership of creative labors. The fact is that in legal circles when judges issue opinions they often “plagiarize” from the briefs presented by contending parties. To take but one example, in 1937 Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo lifted, without attribution, verbatim sections of the Roosevelt administration’s brief in his decision upholding the Social Security system. Of course, “plagiarism” is the wrong term here, for legal writing does not come from the kind of author to whom credit is due. Legal writing is mostly collaborative, for one thing, produced by writing communities. In addition, legal opinions are public documents, belonging to no one because they belong to all of us. Nobody has ever successfully claimed copyright infringement for the unauthorized use of someone else’s legal argument. In fact, legal writers want to have their work appropriated. Peter Friedman, a lawyer whose analysis I’m drawing on here, has written: “I knew I had written the best brief I possibly could on a motion when the court’s opinion announcing its decision was directly cut-and-pasted from my brief.”

If lawyers were the kind of authors who claimed a property in their work, they would potentially deprive both the work and themselves of their public roles. As with eighteenth-century pamphleteers, or with the creators of the World Wide Web, self-erasure attends a lawyer’s entry into the public sphere, not self-assertion. The law is collective; it belongs to all citizens, and consequently we ask that its practitioners present themselves as public persons with copyduties rather than copyrights. In this context, to sample someone else’s brief is a favor, not a theft; it helps a lawyer be a lawyer. Common ownership makes that species of public life possible. (Common as Air at 248-249.)

Interestingly enough, this passage has some bearing on an exchange I had recently with the incredibly accomplished lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield. Greenfield wrote a blog post criticizing a piece Stanley Fish wrote in the New York Times that argued that plagiarism as an offense is not a moral wrong, but, rather, the product of particular rules against the use in particular contexts of others’ words and ideas without attribution. [Fish wrote a second piece on the topic, responding to critics of the first piece, here.] The necessary corollary of Fish’s point is that in other contexts the use of others’ words and ideas without attribution is perfectly acceptable. Greenfield’s disagreement with Fish focused on Fish’s assertion that “lawyers and judges in fact do [appropriate words and ideas without attribution] all the time without the benefit or hindrance of any metaphysical rap.” Greenfield wrote, “No, Stanley, I will not turn the other cheek, no matter how much I love the platitude about reinventing the wheel.”

I tried to explain in the comments to Greenfield’s post where I thought he had missed Fish’s point (which is very much related to Hyde’s). I will try to do so more clearly here inasmuch as he and I seemed to speak past one another in that particular exchange.

In law school, plagiarism is the use of the words or ideas of others without attribution. It is a grave offense that can lead to harsh discipline and even might threaten the student’s ability to someday be certified to practice law. Strict compliance with the need to attribute words and ideas drawn from others is deemed necessary because the point of the academic process is to teach the students to put together and convey ideas clearly and to assess their capacity to do so. Thus, using words or ideas of others without attribution is tantamount to fraud — the reader of those words and the ideas they convey is misled into believing they are the product of the student’s intellectual processes alone, and the reader conducts an activity central to the academic process — grading those words — in reliance on that belief. If I were to read Scott Greenfield’s words under the mistaken belief they were the words of a student whose paper I was grading, I would give him a much better grade than he would earn if I knew he were just quoting Greenfield.

In legal practice, however, it is only the quality of the words that matter. Whether contract language originated with the lawyer who drafted the contract or a paragraph in a brief explaining a line of authority relevant to the brief’s argument was cut-and-pasted from a brief the lawyer who submitted the brief found online doesn’t matter. What matters is the effect of the words themselves. And, in fact, lawyers almost always begin drafting contracts by cannibalizing other contracts and forms. Yet they never cite to or otherwise acknowledge those sources. There is no reason for them to do so. And, as the passage from Hyde above makes clear, judges cut-and-paste from lawyers’ briefs. In fact, the entire arena of legal writing in practice is rife with unacknowledged borrowing.

And of course it’s no sin. That’s the point. Which Greenfield acknowledges without realizing it’s the point when he writes that a judge who appropriates the words from a lawyer’s brief is accepting a “gift,” not engaging in plagiarism:

As for judges taking language out of my brief, that’s not plagiarizing, but the purpose of a legal brief, to provide the court with the language to use in his decision. That’s exactly what I’ve written it for, as my “gift” to the judge to use in deciding the case. Again, entirely different from plagiarizing.

But that precisely is Fish’s point. Appropriation without attribution isn’t the moral equivalent of the theft of private property. It’s wrong in some contexts and not in others. So in some contexts it is defined as plagiarism and in others to call it “plagiarism” is to misspeak.

Greenfield’s other retort to Fish also reflects his misunderstanding of the point. Greenfield states that lawyers do provide attribution to the words and ideas for others. That’s what the whole obsession with citation is about:

[W]e do not lift language without attribution. Indeed, that’s what all those silly case names and the “358 U.S. 973″ stuff is all about. It’s the lawyers’ way of attributing, Stanley. It’s called a citation, and it’s our regime. What you do not see at the end of a court decision is the copyright and command that it not be used without permission. Use of court decisions is not merely anticipated, but required in most circumstances. That’s the peculiar way law works.

But the attribution provided by citation in legal briefs and opinions does not serve the same purpose as does attribution to a student’s sources. Lawyer’s don’t provide citations to the authorities they quote and rely on because their failure to do so would result in prosecution for a moral offense. Instead, lawyers provide citations because the citations signal the identity of sources for words, actions, and ideas that have persuasive weight because of who those sources are.

In other words, if I lifted language verbatim from a court decision without quotation marks or citation in a brief I wrote to a court I would suffer no harm. You might object that this possibility is a mere hypothetical, but you would be wrong. If an argument — and even precise words — come from a court that has no controlling weight in the court to whom I am submitting the brief and I have no reason to believe the identity of the court would lend any genuine persuasive weight to the argument, I would be remiss if I did provide the citation. The citation itself would raise a question in the mind of the judge to whom I was submitting the brief — why should I care about this court’s words, ideas, or actions? — that would distract from the persuasive effect of the argument itself.

And, indeed, as a general matter as a lawyer there is little reason to cite to law review articles unless there is reason to believe the author of the article is someone who carries genuine persuasive weight. A judge’s reaction otherwise is likely to be along the lines of this: “A law review article can pretty much assert anything that can win the approval of a student editor. Why should I assume it has any authority merely because it’s published in a law review?”

Would the article’s author have any claim against a lawyer who lifted words or ideas from his article and used them in a brief without attribution? I cannot believe so, nor am I aware of any standard or rule the lawyer would be violating.

And in contract and instrument drafting, of course, lawyers don’t even provide citation for the sources of their words.

I think it is important in understanding what Fish was writing about to understand these different functions of citation. On the one hand, there’s citation to validate the relationship between the words and ideas and the author’s identity. On the other, there’s citation to signal that particular words and ideas come from a source that must be reckoned with by the reader. They are two entirely different functions, and in legal practice the latter is the one that matters. The former does not. And so you have never seen a lawyer suffer any adverse consequences for plagiarizing.

But if any of my legal writing students are reading this, be on guard! Students must provide attribution to the words and ideas they appropriate from others.

Campbell Soup’s response to Andy Warhol’s appropriation

Anonymous online writing: bad writing that wouldn’t see the light of day if the writer knew readers could match the words to the person.

Wow. I apparently touched a nerve the other day when I blogged on this post and the thread of comments following it and expressed my preference for Dan Hull’s view that anonymous blogging is cowardly.

At the risk of offending one anonymous commenter who desperately wants me to condemn Dan’s insistence on insulting him and forget what I care about — writing words that one is willing to stand behind and justify — I will try to clarify and expand upon what I wrote:

I never said one cannot write anonymously. Quite plainly I don’t ban anonymous comments on my blog. Quite plainly I’ll never be Lord of the Internet with the power to ban anonymous writers. Nor, if I were Lord of the Internet, would I ban anonymous writing. I believe in the freedom of speech, even speech that expresses views I despise. Views I think are stupid are another tolerable phenomenon.

But I do care deeply about the quality of writing. I teach law students how to write as lawyers, and the vast majority of my professional life as a law professor and a lawyer depends on the effectiveness of what I write. One thing I am convinced of and try passionately to convince my students of is that that you cannot be an effective writer if you do not have the courage to own your words. By that I mean, among other things, that you must believe in your words, believe those are the  best words you could come up with under the circumstances to express your point of  view. If you don’t do so, you’re just parroting things you haven’t truly thought through. Your failure to think them through typically means you haven’t entirely grasped what it is you’re trying to say (and what the writer of what you’re parroting meant to say). It also means your words will not convince the intelligent reader who isn’t already convinced that you’re right.

One necessary implication of my belief in the necessity of owning your words is that anonymous online writing loses a lot of its credibility by the very fact that it is anonymous.

My view does not mean that anonymous writing entirely lacks credibility.The anonymous author’s character (and an anonymous author has a character, one that makes an alert reader wonder why he isn’t willing to claim his words as his own) detracts from the reader’s valuation of that anonymous author’s writing. But a myriad of factors go into influencing a given text’s persuasive force. The author’s character is only one, albeit an important one.

The point that really seems to have hit a nerve is that it seems plain to me that choosing to write anonymously is for all relevant purposes grounded in fear. Sometimes that fear justifies the anonymity because (a) the author’s fear is of sufficient immediate and substantial harm and (b) the message is so important that even if it is compromised by anonymity it is worth getting out. Where those so offended by my views and I differ is in the amount of courage we think is appropriate. They have fears of the consequences of identifying themselves online when they write and they’re deeply offended that I don’t believe those fears justify their ways of using anonymity.

Thinking he had caught me questioning the courage of one of my colleagues (whose views, not courage, I question) one anonymous commenter pointed out that Jonathan Adler blogged anonymously on the Volokh Conspiracy as “Juan non-Volokh” prior to being granted tenure. At the time, Jonathan had a legitimate fear that the mere act of blogging would jeopardize his shot at tenure. As a general matter at that time, blogging was not only considered beneath legal scholars, but also to be an actual drain on time better devoted to “real” scholarship. (While blogging is no longer a negative in the eyes of most professors, it still is considered by most entirely irrelevant to scholarly achievement). I have absolutely no reason to believe Jonathan chose anonymity to hide the substance of the views he expressed on the Volokh Conspiracy. Those views were quite well known among his colleagues (and to the public) and in substance were entirely of a piece with the public writing he did under his own name. Nonetheless, I do believe that Jonathan’s writing under his own name has more force than his writing did under his chosen pseudonym. Nor do I have any reason to believe he would disagree.

To take one of Dan Hull’s more obvious examples of non-cowardly fear justifying anonymity, an Iranian dissident has good reasons for writing under a pseudonym. But one question his anonymous identity might raise, among others is this: is he really a dissident or is he in fact a CIA or Saudi plant? All sorts of credibility problems arise when one chooses to separate one’s writing from one’s identity.

Ken, who chooses anonymity, has written that he prefers to remain anonymous because his favorite styles are, as he describes them, “satire, sarcasm, and ridicule.” Ken also believes that “these are potent weapons in the fight over ideas.” But, unfortunately, poor Ken is too subtle for most people and he therefore fears their reactions:

People don’t like being made fun of. Moreover, some people are functionally incapable of understanding irony, sarcasm, and satire. Other people are offended easily, and particularly by pop culture, sexual references, and the various forms of juvenile self-indulgence occasionally featured here to the extent it amuses us.

I would suggest to Ken words he so proudly identifies as satire, sarcasm, and ridicule are not really the “potent weapons” he believes they are. It is well known that online writing in particular is a very poor medium for the effective use sarcasm. Effective satire that actually persuades someone previously unconvinced of the writer’s point of view is a very rare thing. Far more often, satire is just the words of someone seeking affirmation from others who share the writer’s contempt for the object of the satire. And ridicule? Ridicule amuses your toadies. To everyone else, it’s just name-calling.

But Ken is no Jonathan Swift, and I think he knows it. In fact, Ken’s “satire, sarcasm, and ridicule” are, to my mind (and to the mind of those who are convinced by me, but plainly not to Ken and his anonymous colleagues), merely the lazy expression of hostility and disagreement.

But, regardless of how we characterize the writing that Ken believes to be a “potent weapon in the war of ideas,” what he fears is the risk those “functionally incapable” of understanding his meaning would pose to him. Who are these people? Well, he once worked for big firms that would so dislike what he wrote he feared his employment would be threatened. He has clients he fears he’d lose if they knew the truth of his views on social issues. He fears needing to justify his writing to opposing lawyers or judges who might use those words against him. He fears he or his family will be stalked or threatened like other bloggers have been. And he bravely wrote critically once about a white supremacist who lived just one town over from him.

Are these fears the legitimate fears of a brilliant writer wielding potent tools in the war of ideas? You can judge for yourself. The fear of the law firms, the clients, and opposing counsel and judges seems to me more likely fears of being busted for using stupid words by people to whom one has the responsibility to express oneself intelligently. The fear of being stalked seems to me the fear of something so unlikely (even though it does happen, of course) that it’s really nothing but an empty rationalization. The fear of the white supremacist? I might grant Ken that one, but then why does all of his writing need to be anonymous?

To address the question more generally: are your political views so inconsistent with your employment that your job would be threatened if you really expressed them? Are you so desperate for a job you need to keep that one despite the fact it is inconsistent with true expression of what you believe? Are you writing online about your employer despite an employment policy that forbids you to do so? Is that a legitimate exercise of anonymity? If you’re Karen Silkwood or Daniel Ellsberg, it would be, but I have grave doubts that the people complaining to me are in that league.

And if it’s your clients’ reactions you fear, why would they not like what you write? Would they like it if they knew you were hiding your real thoughts from them? Why do you represent them if legitimate expression of what you really believe would offend them? Are you really capable of representing them zealously if you harbor secret thoughts that, if known, would cause them to retain different lawyers? Is a blog really an appropriate place for telling stories about how dumb your clients are? You enjoy doing it. You want to do it. But does being able to do that justify anonymous blogging?

I AM NOT suggesting that  fears are always illegitimate. What I am suggesting is that a free-floating fear of being stalked as a result of online writing is pretty far off the wall. And I’ve worked for big law firms and clients of all sorts. It’s not the everyday law firm or client who would fire you for thoughtful writing online. There would have to be something really atrocious about the employer. And clients care far more about courage, skill, and passion than they do about disagreements on social issues that are irrelevant to their representation, especially if those views are expressed cogently and the lawyer is willing to stand behind those views. The last thing clients want is a lawyer who’s afraid to let the world know that he believes in and will stand behind his words.

And are these fears so real that they justify anonymity on everything a blogger writes? Selective, tactical anonymity is an option, guys. And choosing to remain silent on matters that you can’t write about in ways that won’t endanger you with people who matter to you is an option too. That of course, is a whole other topic: a good lawyer takes a lot of really interesting stuff to his grave with him.

And, honestly, I don’t see substance on Popehat (the site I originally linked to and from which the hostile commenters came) that would usually be the sort of thing that would threaten the livelihood of its authors or commenters. They’re a bunch of guys who might like to romanticize the subversiveness of what they write, but, really, they’re not exactly a threat to anyone or anything.

Nor am I.

Then again, while the content at Popehat is pretty run of the mill, the words themselves do not really do that substance a lot of justice. And that indeed is a major part of the problem. As Charles wrote, anonymity allows you to write that a cop was a “fascist” without people who know you and would be offended by those words know that you wrote them. But merely writing that a cop is a “fascist” is just nasty name-calling, not credible writing. And Patrick, in the very first comment responding to my blog post – writing anonymously, of course — explained that he’s never heard about me but that if he really cared he could “write a blogpost mocking [me], that would stick to the front page of a Google search for [my] name forever.”

A put down and a threat as an opening move? That’s a perfect example of why I called anonymous writing online cowardly. If one is going to insult and threaten, one ought to have the courage to let one’s employers, clients, loved ones, and targets know that being a bully is what one is in the business of doing.

Or one could claim to use insults rhetorically, to highlight a point, but that’s a dangerous game, and it takes a special person to get away with it, and Dan Hull happens to be a special person.

But the most important thing about Dan Hull for purposes of this discussion (though quite plainly Patrick and his Popehat People want to make anyone who happens upon this post or the last one on this point think otherwise) is that Dan Hull wrote those insults under his own name! He’s willing to own and justify those insults. And doing so has benefited him immensely. Clients love lawyers who make the work their own. And it sure doesn’t seem that the Popehat guys are big believers in political correctness, so I can’t believe they were genuinely hurt by his words except to the extent the substance behind his insults hit home.

My point is that if you don’t own your writing you cannot truly be persuasive. That’s why I emphasized that my students, as lawyers in training, must learn to own their words, to be ready to justify the choices they made in writing the words they wrote.

And Charles happens to be right about one thing — outside the law (and too much within it, truth be told) the courage to own one’s words is sorely lacking. I think that’s a real shame and a major loss for the quality of any discourse, be it about politics, literature, science, religion, etc. Charles, I guess, expects less of people than I do. I also think that people would be surprised how much they’d benefit from saying what they mean in ways they’d be proud to claim as their own to anyone.

Finally, I am making no demands. I am stating my point of view. Yes, I am an Associate Professor of Legal Writing, but that’s just a title. And I hardly use it to put on airs. Anyone who knows anything of the status wars within academia or has read much into my archives knows I write quite openly, under my own name, about (1) the fact my title is reflective of a remarkably low status and an absence of job security and (2) my opinion that (contra Patrick) law professors are NOT an elevated class.

Am I a nobody? Well, Mike (whoever he might be) certainly things so. One thing I do know — anyone with access to an internet connection has about as good an opportunity to determine that for themselves as they would for anyone who writes openly under his own name.

And they can take that information and factor it into their judgment whether and the extent to which they agree with me.

Here’s my suggestion to everyone, including the Popehat guys: try writing under your own names. You might find your words and views become far more compelling not only to your readers but also, far more importantly, to yourselves. But be careful: being thoughtful and precise — writing things that you’re willing to justify to those who challenge them — might make you rethink some of the stuff you hold to so passionately.

Or you can ignore me entirely. That’s entirely your prerogative. You can even, if you wish, go on thinking of me as a narcissistic nobody who doesn’t matter, and I’ll go on thinking of of most anonymous bloggers as a bunch of cowards who write to please themselves and don’t persuade anyone who hasn’t already bought into their point of view.

And when it gets down to it, tthe vast majority of anonymous online writing is simply bad writing that wouldn’t see the light of day if the writer knew everyone he knows could match the words to the person.

Own your words. Anonymity is cowardice, and cowards aren’t known for their wisdom.

An important lesson for my legal writing students: you must own your words to be genuinely persuasive.

By that, of course, I do not mean that their words are their property. There’s a lot of confusion about that issue, but that’s not today’s lesson.

What I mean is that it’s not enough to parrot words you believe are authoritative to make your case. You must use words you know in your heart state what you mean. Parroting the words of others, even if they are authoritative, won’t do that. Which is why one of my favorite quotes is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s: “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” (I love paradox too.)

But in order to own your words you have to have the courage to stand behind them too. It’s one reason I bemoan the influence of anonymous student evaluations. It’s why too I’m all in with Dan Hull in this insane exchange about his insistence that anonymity is the death of productive discussion on the internet.

What possible conviction can you hold in your words if you’re not even willing to put your name to them? As Dan makes clear, there are of course exceptions to this rule — there are times anonymity is necessary to preserve one’s safety. But legitimate fear for one’s safety for stating disagreement is a rare thing that we don’t encounter terribly often in 2010 on the internet in the United States. It’s almost hilarious to find people disputing Dan under the pseudonyms “Publius” and “Marcus Agrippa.” Almost hilarious. Really, it’s pathetic.

If you can’t own your words, put yourself forward as the authority behind your words and rely on the force of those words and your own integrity for their persuasive effects, you cannot be a lawyer. I’ve said it recently: a good thing about being a lawyer is there is always someone telling you your wrong. You have to be willing to put your ideas and words to the test, and you have to be willing to adapt and adjust when your words have been successfully challenged. To hide behind a pseudonym is nothing but cowardice, and cowards aren’t known for their wisdom.

Khan Academy: an invaluable new resource in your effort to learn everything

As I’ve written before,  good lawyers need to know everything. In other words, your professional life is  a constant and endless process of learning. One of the foremost skills you bring to your clients is an ability to become fluent in their affairs and to be able to communicate your understanding of those affairs clearly, concisely, and persuasively to audiences who may never have encountered those things.

Libraries, of course, are therefore invaluable. And the internet is a miracle. But still, finding the right resources to learn a particular topic is difficult. I came out of college and law school knowing Latin and Ancient Greek and a lot of history and literature, but I needed to learn an awful lot very quickly about things like finance, insurance, economics, and business, and the effort to educate myself was an adventure. The internet has, of course, only multiplied the tedious, obscure, and downright erroneous “authorities.” So I am always thrilled to find a source that speaks to me and genuinely teaches me. And I am thrilled to have found Khan Academy. As the home page explains:

The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit organization with the mission of providing a high quality education to anyone, anywhere.

We have 1400+ videos on YouTube covering everything from basic arithmetic and algebra to differential equations, physics, chemistry, biology and finance which have been recorded by Salman Khan. . . .

The Khan Academy and Salman Khan have received a 2009 Tech Award in Education. The Tech Awards is an international awards program that honors innovators from around the world who are applying technology to benefit humanity.

Here is Mr. Khan’s introductory video:

The good thing about being a lawyer is there’s always someone to tell you you’re wrong.

Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Houston-Victoria, writes in “In Praise of Tough Criticism” that academics are reluctant to criticize one another and that, as a result, their disagreements are couched either in faint praise or anonymity, both of which neutralize the very disagreement that ought to be the foundation of intellectual life:

[G]iving faint praise is far worse than saying nothing at all. Why? Because silence is not a critical judgment—but faint praise, in contrast to honest and direct criticism, is empty criticism, the most banal form imaginable.

Another way that compassionate, caring critics get around their credo is to shroud their negative comments in anonymity. . . .

Like faint praise, anonymous criticism is empty criticism. Consider a recent example from The Chronicle Review. Carlin Romano’s article “Heil Heidegger!” was savaged in numerous anonymous comments. “Romano writes like an undergrad convinced by the argument of the last book he has read,” wrote one critic. “And, yes, he is a professor of philosophy, and yes, he was a Pulitzer Prize finalist, but his understanding of philosophy is so paltry that it beggars belief.” To that and other similar comments, Romano responded: “Those who savage me and my article from behind anonymous Internet tags emulate the cowardice, dishonesty, and taste for mobbing of the Nazi thinker they revere. It has often been that way with dupes who defend Heidegger—an abysmal thinker and writer, an immoral monster, and a disgrace to the historic enterprise of philosophy.”

Whether or not one agrees with Romano’s views of Heidegger, his take on anonymity is worth thinking about. Anonymity has more in common with cowardice than with courage—and is antithetical to critical dialogue. The common rationale for academic anonymity is quite clear: Honesty and truth require anonymity. To offer critical judgment anonymously, or, as Michel Foucault puts it in The Archaeology of Knowledge (Pantheon Books, 1972), as “a nameless voice,” allows one to stand outside the order of discourse, dialogue, and language. Writes Foucault, “I don’t want to have to enter this risky world of discourse; I want nothing to do with it insofar as it is decisive and final; I would like to feel it all around me, calm and transparent, profound, infinitely open, with others responding to my expectations, and truth emerging, one by one.” In other words, anonymity is more calming and less risky—or even more cowardly—than named criticism.

The inclination to pull one’s punches, to refrain from stating straight out one’s disagreement with one’s colleagues and the reasons for the disagreement, seems to me a particular problem in law schools. I always tell my students that one of the blessings of being a lawyer is that there’s always someone telling you you’re wrong, whether it’s your adversary, a judge, or even your client. That constant challenge to your views forces you to both be as thoughtful and well-spoken as is possible, and it forces you too to trust in your own judgment, not to defer always to authority. Lawyers disagree as a matter of professional duty. If law professors refuse to voice disagreement, they are therefore doing their students a disservice. they are like parents who model irresponsible behavior to their children.

I’m not suggesting one not be civil. Nasty adversaries make wonderful work unpleasant. But professional adversaries are a pleasure. They recognize that disagreement is one’s professional duty, and they don’t take your disagreement with them personally.

Addendum: Law professors don’t like telling their students they’re wrong either.

Slow reading: one piece in a good reader’s arsenal.

I sometimes read very slowly, and sometimes very quickly. It may be that attention spans are shrinking. I often have a difficult time getting my students to simply stop and think about what they’ve read. And so I’m all on board with the “slow reading” movement:

“The idea is not to read everything as slowly as possible, however. As with the slow food movement, the goal is a closer connection between readers and their information, said John Miedema, whose 2009 book Slow Reading explores the movement.

“‘It’s not just about students reading as slowly as possible,’ he said. ‘To me, slow reading is about bringing more of the person to bear on the book.’”

Even my 17 year old son makes fun of how slowly I read the many novels and history books I’m always trudging through, but, as I tell him, I tend to remember almost everything I read in those books. And as I research, I come across articles and books I move very slowly through, trying to make sense of every last word. It drives me particularly crazy when I ask my students what a new legal word means and none of them know. How can they read law — something they’re trying to learn — without a dictionary and without the effort to understand what it is they’re reading?

But sometimes I have to read quickly too. If you research a difficult legal question, you’ll often have to read, literally, hundreds of cases. You don’t engage in “slow reading” to find your way through hundreds of cases to the handful that merit serious study and will genuinely help answer the question you’re researching.

So, slow reading is good. So is fast reading, skimming. What makes a truly good reader is doing both and deploying them effectively.

Just say it!

It is a truth often assumed that a lawyer in need of an argument must arm herself with rules stated in legalese. There could be few more difficult assumptions to overcome in educating new lawyers.

One of my more profound light bulb moments as a young lawyer came a few months into my first job, after I’d written the first draft of a brief for a partner. After he’d had a chance to review the draft he called me into his office to discuss it. I entered, carrying, of course, the draft that by this time I’d virtually memorized. He asked me why I thought we’d win. I glanced at the draft and he said, “No. Put it down. I want you to tell me in your own words, in plain English, without telling me what the cases say.” So I slowly sputtered out a brief explanation in plain English, thinking that this was going to be painstaking, that the simple plain English explanation would be followed with a discussion of each case and the reasoning of each judge in each case, and then we’d have to cobble all these pieces together . . .

In response to my plain English explanation, he said, “Then why didn’t you just say that?” I blinked, and asked in stupid amazement, “I can do that?” He laughed, and answered, “That’s exactly what you are supposed to do.” Wow, just explain in plain English, without resort to legalistic rules and long chains of reasoning from premises established by Lord Blackstone? What an amazing idea, and what a truly difficult one to grasp.

I was reminded of this today when I read the post at Lawyerist.com entitled “Improve Your Legal Writing: Just Say It“:

Say what you want to say. Do not imply it, do not hint at it, just say it. This can be difficult at times, but it will improve your writing, and make your arguments more persuasive.

Losing $500 million was a legal win: outcomes and predictions from a lawyer’s point-of-view

In case you haven’t read it already, there’s a new study that purports to establish that lawyers consistently overestimate the chances of success in their cases (pdf). David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy takes the study and applies the typical academic condescension to practitioners: “I’m constantly amazed, given the obvious fact that half of all litigants are holding losing hands, at how easily most lawyers can persuade themselves of the rightness of their client’s cause.”

Jeff Gamso, a criminal defense attorney (and former English professor!) in Toledo, Ohio who writes a terrific blog, Gamso for the Defense, takes a much more nuanced approach to the study in his post, “Blessed are the Oddsmakers.” First, it’s important to note the difference between criminal defense and civil litigation. As Gamso reminds his readers, in his practice, “[m]ost trials result in guilty verdicts. But most cases aren’t tried; they’re resolved by pleas of one sort or another.” It reminds me of what a friend of mine, a public defender, once told my class in response to the question “what’s the hardest part of your job?” He answered, “Losing 95% of my cases.”

But Gamso reminds us that pleas, the criminal analog to a civil settlement, is a strategic move made with the best possible` estimation of likelihood of success at trial, an estimation by no means easy to make:

The idea of the plea is that it’s a compromise because trials are problematic. They’re a lot of work and they are, ultimately, uncertain. Anyone who’s been at this for a while can tell you that juries and judges sometimes surprise. We win (whatver that means) some cases we should lose. We lose (whatever that means) some cases we should win. The jury, the judge, the world sometimes just gets it wrong.

Accordingly, the decision to accept an offer from the other side is a complicated combination of prediction of an uncertain future, the ability to convey the relevant information to the client, the other side’s own predictions and resulting offer (if any), the client’s own inclinations and decision (it is his decision), and the adversary’s response to the client’s decision.

Perhaps most importantly, however, it’s fundamental to any effective legal representation to understand that lawsuits and prosecutions are not binary, win/loss situations. Overcoming binary thinking is, in fact, one of the most important and difficult tasks in teaching first year law students. It’s difficult enough to get students to understand that the outcome of a case is the only thing that matters to a client, but then also to get them to realize that the result is usually a whole lot more complicated matter than merely stating that the plaintiff or defendant won or lost. (And it’s a shame that Remedies is one of the most neglected courses in law schools these days.) Let’s get this straight: Exxon won the litigation which resulted in it paying over $500 million in punitive damages. Or, as Gamso so pungently puts it in connection with criminal defense:

[David] Dow tells of Van Orman, an innocent man on death row. He simply didn’t commit the crime. He’s also got mental retardation. Dow proves the retardation and gets him off the row. Now the innocent man will do life in prison. “But I’m a death-penalty lawyer and Van Orman won’t get executed, so I count it as a victory. One of my clients committed suicide a week before his execution. That’s a victory. Another died of AIDS. A victory.”

You bet. I had a client who died of hepatitis right after I filed the papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. He died before the state had a chance to reply, certainly before the Court ruled. That goes down as a win. That’s how it works when you’re doing death penalty defense. Whenever the government doesn’t murder your client, you’ve got a win.

All of which is a way of saying that in this business, winning often isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. Confession suppressed? Win. Even if the drugs aren’t suppressed? Yep. Just not a complete win.

•Get some of the charges dismissed? Win. Even if the client’s found guilty of some things? Yep. Just not a complete win.

•Get a five year sentence? Win if the client might have gotten 8. Or 50.

•LWOP? Win if the alternative was death.

•Continuance? Hung jury? Wins. Even if they’re only temporary. (The old line is that a continuance is as good as an acquittal – it just doesn’t last as long.)

•Client goes home after a not guilty verdict? Big Win.

And on it goes.

The key isn’t that what counts as a win depends. The key is that you need to have a sense of things. (emphasis added)

Yes, the key is to have a sense of things. A win is getting the best outcome the circumstances permit you to get for a client. Do human beings tend to be overconfident in their predictions? Cognitive science establishes that does indeed seem to be the case, and as a lawyer you ought to be aware of it, and you ought to be aware that your adversary shares the same bias, and you ought to be aware of the risks associated with going to trial, and you ought to be aware of your client’s fears and desires and his ability to deal with risk and loss. You need to have a sense of an infinite number of things, and the better your sense of these things is and the better you are at communicating them to your client, the better you will be as a lawyer and the better the outcomes you will produce. Will you be able to tally those outcomes as wins and losses? Only if you have a very flexible understanding of what constitutes a win or a loss.

A key to effective creative effort: copying. Or “don’t reinvent the wheel.”

A genius with whom I once worked, Gene Anderson, ran our firm pursuant to “10 principles” (there were more than 10, but that discrepancy was entirely consistent with the principles). An important one was “don’t reinvent the wheel.” You’re job is to represent the client as well as you can, and that means as efficiently as you can. If someone else has written the great brief on the point you’re arguing, start with that brief (even if it was an adversary’s). As I’ve written in an article to be published, this notion is entirely consistent with legal authorship. More importantly by far, it is good business. So Scott Berkun is acting wisely in his most recent Bloomberg Businessweek column, “Stop Trying to Reinvent the Wheel,” in which he identifies ignorance and the over-valuing of novelty as the principal reasons for failing to appreciate the utility of recycling:

The key reason people look to reinvent things is that they don’t know what’s already been done. Ignorance, one way or another, is the leading cause of wasted effort everywhere. People who don’t spend time studying the problems they’re trying to solve are bound to reinvent something, and likely not nearly as well. There are only so many ways to design a website, a marketing campaign, or even a product strategy. Instead of driving minions into further brainstorming sessions, it would be wise to ask: Who else has tried to solve this problem? Can we learn from what they have done?

The second reason for reinvention pertains to ego and rewards. In many corporations there is more prestige to be gained for making something new than for reusing work done elsewhere in the company or industry. This is true even when the newly made thing is much worse that what already existed. An executive might proclaim the wonders of the new (worse) thing to his division without encountering anyone willing to stand up for the old (better) thing. It’s harder to inflate the importance of one’s own work if the key decision was to buy or borrow from elsewhere. The verbs “make,” “invent,” and “create” lead to more promotions than “reuse,” “borrow,” or “convert.” In Pavlovian terms, if a culture rewards unnecessary reinvention more than it honors wise reuse, the ambitious will follow suit. Asking people to behave one way while rewarding them for another has predictable results. The counter notion to NIH—”PFE,” or “Proudly Found Elsewhere”—has been talked about before, but I’ve rarely seen it thrive.

A lawyer must separate bluster from truth and act accordingly: Halsey Minor’s fall.

Being an effective lawyer requires an enormous amount of confidence in one’s own judgment. As I tell my students, when you’re a lawyer, there is always someone who is telling you you’re wrong. You have to figure out the extent to which the person telling you you’re wrong is right, adjust your position accordingly, and move on. Frequently, the person telling you you’re wrong is wrong himself. It’s not always easy to tell the difference between wrong and right. But the real signs of maturity are (1) being able to adjust your position to what’s right in someone else’s words, and (2) being able to reject disagreement you judge for yourself is without merit.

[One of my pet peeves with contemporary journalists is precisely there lack of nerve -- rather than making judgments and explaining them, most journalists merely "report" the words of people who disagree without judgment.]

An example of being told I was flat-out wrong occurred over a year and a half ago, when I wrote about Sotheby’s $16.8 million lawsuit against the art collector and Internet entrepreneur Halsey Minor for refusing to pay the auction house for three paintings he bought in May” (including The Peaceable Kingdom and the Leopard of Serenity by Edward Hicks). I explained that I didn’t see merit in Minor’s claims that Sotheby’s had been in the wrong in failing to disclose to Minor that it had a security interest in The Peacable Kingdom and that the painting’s owner had agreed Sotheby’s would receive the proceeds of the sale. Minor argued that he had relied on Sotheby’s expertise in connection with the painting, and that if he had known of Sotheby’s security interest in the painting he would not have been willing to pay so much. In short, he claimed, Sotheby’s had been supposed to be working on his behalf in giving him advice regarding the painting but in fact had been acting on its own behalf and to his detriment.

Minor agreed to buy the paintings in May 2008. We all know what happened subsequently — we all experienced financial disaster. As a result, the art market collapsed, and the paintings Minor had bought were worth significantly less than he had agreed to pay. Moreover, one could presume,Minor might have suffered severe financial problems in and after 2008. I suspected strongly that Minor either no longer had the money to buy the paintings or, at least, no longer saw them as worth owning at the price he had agreed to pay.

Minor, though, made plain in a comment to my post (as he had to other people who had written skeptically of his claims) that he thought I was wrong, concluding

Sotheby’s committed Fraud and will pay for it and its disappointing to see you allow them to get away with charging outrageous fees and then blaming lack on knowledge on the victim.

What do you say to someone so vehement when you think he’s full of it? You ignore him, and you let the evidence speak for itself. Which, apparently, is what Sotheby’s did. As Donn Zaretetsky of the Art Law Blog reported over 2 months ago, the federal judge who heard the case ruled on March 30 in favor of Sotheby’s on all counts, entering judgment in Sotheby’s favor for $4.4 million plus interest, late charges, and legal fees. (Decision embedded below.)

And now Zaretsky points out  too that my suspicions regarding Minor’s financial hardships are, apparently, well-founded. According to the New York Post:

Fallen Internet tycoon Halsey Minor is so hard up for cash that he can’t even afford to send Sotheby’s his art collection to make good on his $6.6 million debt to the famed auction house. Court papers filed yesterday say the CNet.com co-founder ‘has represented that he cannot pay shippers to transport his fine and decorative art as directed.

And Elizabeth Lesly Stevens of the Bay Citizen reports that Minor has defaulted on the rent for the offices of his corporate home, offices which he has abandoned:

Minor Ventures, Minor’s investment vehicle and corporate home in recent years, has recently cleared out of its 12th-floor, 17,000-square-foot space at 199 Fremont, in San Francisco’s trendy SoMa neighborhood. Minor left behind artwork, office equipment and cubicles, says Laura Binai, a staffer with the building’s management company.

“All their mail comes here, but no one comes to get it,” she said.

Minor Ventures is technically a subtenant of insurance giant Aon Corp., which is “hunting down Minor for rent,” Binai says. An Aon spokesman declined to comment, and efforts to reach Minor have been unsuccessful.

And a second part of Minor’s design collection is set to be sold on Wednesday by some of Minor’s creditors. And a court has allowed Sotheby’s “to register the $6.6 million judgment in the Western District of Virginia and the District of Delaware, where Minor has significant assets,” including “a $6.52 million mortgage for a farm near Charlottesville, Va., that he recently brought current after it was foreclosed upon.”

So what does it seem happened? Minor suffered severe financial losses in the second half of 2008 and his emphatic assertions of wrongdoing by Sotheby’s were just so much bluster.

Sothebys v. Minor Judgment

David Souter gives a lesson in judging and the failures of Originalism.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter recently gave the commencement address at Harvard. In doing so, he set forth clearly and in ways anyone can understand why it is ridiculous to suggest that interpretation of the Constitution merely requires a judge to engage in a “straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.” He makes clear that, in his words, such a simplistic view “has only a tenuous connection to reality.” In doing so, he answers “criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties.”

The entire speech is worth reading for anyone interested in a high-level lesson in constitutional analysis given in clear, straightforward prose. I will try here to touch on a few of its highlights.

First, Souter points out that many of the Constitution’ guarantees are phrased in such open-ended language that they necessarily will require a large degree of interpretive work to determine their application to new facts in new times: ‘The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.” He contrasts these provisions to provisions that provide bright lines that make decision easy — provisions such as the requirement that Senators be 30 years old.

But, as he makes clear, pointing out that determining, for example, whether a given governmental action satisfies the requirement of “due process” “hardly scratches the surface” of constitutional judging. First, provisions may be clear and yet any consideration of their real implications makes obvious that they cannot be applied literally. Second, as I’ve pointed out before (in discussing why “empathy” plays a far greater part in judging than implied those who would suggest empathy is merely soft-heartedness), determining which facts are more or less significant makes all the difference in the world of a judge:

The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them.

To make these points, Souter uses two examples. The first was the Pentagon Papers case, in which the “New York Times and the Washington Post had each obtained copies of classified documents prepared and compiled by government officials responsible for conducting the Vietnam War. The newspapers intended to publish some of those documents, and the government sought a court order forbidding the publication.” While the Court ruled that the newspapers had the right under the First Amendment to publish the Pentagon Papers, it did not do so on the simple basis that the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (emphasis added.) Instead, the Court adopted the interpretation advanced by Irwin Griswold, who responded to the suggestion by Justice Black that the case was a simple one of applying the rule that “no law” means “no law” with the argument that it was not so simple:

Now Mr. Justice, your construction of that is well-known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.

Thus, the [C]ourt’s majority decided only that the government had not met a high burden of showing facts that could justify a prior restraint, and particular members of the court spoke of examples that might have turned the case around, to go the other way. Threatened publication of something like the D-Day invasion plans could have been enjoined; Justice Brennan mentioned a publication that would risk a nuclear holocaust in peacetime.”

How can it be that “no law” does not mean “no law”? Isn’t that kind of “interpretation” exactly the kind of thing that gives judges a bad name? As Souter makes clear, it is nothing of the sort; it’s the reason we consider judging an activity requiring the utmost in wisdom, intelligence, and experience. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press cannot possibly be absolute because the Constitution provides for a plethora of other individual rights and governmental obligations, no one of which is entirely consistent with the other. As the examples above illustrate, we also have to account for the constitutional authority of the President to provide for national security . As anyone who has considered matters of individual liberty at any depth know, individual liberty is often necessarily at odds with equality. Yet the Constitution guarantees both individual liberty and equality. As Souter explains, an interpretation based on merely believing “no law” in the First Amendment means “no law”

fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.

Souter’s second example is The Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools imposed violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. As Souter explains, “Brown ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites.”

Souter, significantly, thinks that best explanation for the differences in the results between Plessy and Brown is an explanation that is forbidden to those who would believe the Constitution means now what it did in 1789 and must always mean what it meant in 1789: “the difference between the cases is the dates they were decided.”

How can this be so? It is because the significance of facts differ from judge to judge, and, of course, the significance of facts differs over time. What seemed equal treatment of the races in 1896 — when the contrast was to the recent legality of slavery — no longer seemed equal in 1954, and it would be folly to suggest otherwise:

[T]he generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery to make it look unexceptional by contrast. As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see. That meaning is not captured by descriptions of physically identical schools or physically identical railroad cars. The meaning of facts arises elsewhere, and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own. Meaning comes from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page. And when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent inferiority on the part of the minority race. The judges who understood the meaning that was apparent in 1954 would have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution if they had not held the segregation mandate unconstitutional.

As Souter so succinctly puts the matter: “So much for the assumption that facts just lie there waiting for an objective judge to view them.” And so much for the contention by John Roberts that judging is merely a matter of “calling balls and strikes.” As Souter says, such a simplistic view of what judges do “fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do.” “Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.”

Most fundamentally, Souter sees the contrast between his view of the Constitution and the view of those who would have it that judging his way means that he is making it up along the way to evade the plain language of the law as the contrast between those who would impose certainty in a world where there is no certainty. Most importantly, Souter believes that, in the face of uncertainty, we fulfill our national aspirations best by applying reason and judgment to the application of the principles that our nation was established to uphold:

Where I suspect [I] differ most fundamentally[from the those who would apply a simple, literal meaning to constitutional language] is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.

That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

What is the best preparation for law school? I’d suggest it is a liberal arts education.

I am often asked what type of undergraduate education best prepares a student for law school. Most of my life I’ve been completely baffled by the question. It never occurred to me that my very Classical liberal arts education — I double majored in Ancient Greek and Latin — would be something to recommend, and while I have always been a huge supporter of liberal arts education, I never felt confident in recommending it as preparation for law school. But neither was I ever persuaded that my students who had thought long and hard about choosing the “right” major to prepare for law school — and ended up thereby majoring in political science, business, or economics — were any better prepared than those students who had not chosen an undergraduate major based on a desire to “prepare” for law school.

I was reminded of this question in reading Rebecca Mead’s commentary on the views of certain economists that an undergraduate degree is not an economically wise way of earning a living. As Mead explains, this conclusion is based in part on the fact that the greatest opportunities to earn money in the near future are in fields in which a college degree is not required:

Economics majors aren’t doing badly . . . : their starting salary averages about fifty thousand a year, rising to a mid-career median of a hundred and one thousand. Special note should be taken of the fact that if you have an economics degree you can, eventually, make a living proposing that other people shouldn’t bother going to college. This, at least, is the approach of Professor Richard K. Vedder, of Ohio University, who is the founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. According to the Times, eight out of the ten job categories that will add the most employees during the next decade—including home-health aide, customer-service representative, and store clerk—can be performed by someone without a college degree. “Professor Vedder likes to ask why fifteen percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees,” the paper reported.

In addition, “[a]nother economist, Professor Robert I. Lerman, of American University (Ph.D., M.I.T.), told the Times that high schools, rather than readying all students for college, should focus on the acquisition of skills appropriate to the workplace. According to the Times, these include the ability to ‘solve problems and make decisions,’ ‘resolve conflict and negotiate,’ ‘coöperate with others,’ and’listen actively.’”

These opinions awoke in me a gnawing feeling that has been building in me the past couple of years — the feeling that the best educational preparation for being a lawyer is a liberal arts education.

One particular moment in the last 2 years stands out form me in considering this question. I was reviewing an exam with a student and explaining a clever argument another student had come up with in connection with the interpretation of ambiguous contract language. The contract called for the supply of sweetener to the manufacturer of a soda being marketed to the types of buyers who would be interested in “healthier” alternatives to mass market sodas. The contract provided for the supply of “sugar,” and the dispute arose when the supplier substituted high fructose corn syrup for granulated sugar as the sweetener. The other students argument was based on the greater attractiveness of granulated sugar to the buyers the soda manufacturer was targeting to argue in favor of an interpretation that would limit “sugar” to granulated sugar even though high fructose corn syrup is also, chemically, a “sugar.”  The student with whom I was meeting thought about this point, realized the argument was a good one and one she herself had not come up with, but still felt my point was objectionable because the argument was grounded in facts about the world she didn’t know. So she told me, “You’re not testing us on Contracts. You’re testing us on what we know about the world!”

I smiled, and I explained: if you don’t know about the world, you can’t understand law. Law doesn’t supply answers that exist independent of the world it answers questions about. In contract interpretation, courts are asked to determine, based on the available evidence, what they believe people  intended contracts to mean. The “rules” that govern those interpretive acts don’t work like mathematical formulas — they constitute a structured way of approaching the question of what people intended, nothing more, and therefore don’t provide any way out of answering the question; what do you think the people entering this contract intended? While the rules might limit the scope of evidence that can be considered, within that scope anything that persuades the court about the intended meaning is fair game for the court to consider. So, in the question I was considering with my student, the attractiveness of granulated sugar to the  manufacturer’s target market was a very relevant consideration — if you could show that both the supplier and the manufacturer knew and understood the marketing strategy, you could argue persuasively that they both intended “sugar” in the contract to mean only “granulated sugar” and not to include high fructose corn syrup.

And so, more and more often I have found myself telling my students that in addition to studying law they should be learning everything they possibly can about everything. I hate to be that vague, but, at the same time, I am quite serious. Would a better education in “decision making” have helped BP decision makers planning for offshore oil drilling than an education grounded in Greek Tragedy? I don’t think so.

Why would a mail carrier consider an undergraduate education worthwhile even if the tuition is economically out of balance with his earnings as a mail carrier? I hate to say it — because I hate the thought it needs to be said — but the education might make him a happier person and the money he will earn is not the only measure of his happiness.

And what should you learn to prepare for law school? Anything and everything, but learn it well.