Posted by Our profession is driven by ideas. It is also driven by truth. Lawyers are often called upon to come up with creative solutions to complex problems and to develop arguments in support of a position. And a judge’s job is to discern the truth in a given case and reach a truthful result based on the law. The very foundation of the legal profession is the exchange of ideas between people who may differ from each other. That is why intellectual diversity, freedom of speech, and civilized debate are critical for the survival of a profession grounded in integrity and mutual respect.
Intellectual diversity is under attack in our society. The internet is full of hateful content with opposing sides vilifying the other as things they are not. And there are viewpoints that many are scared to express for fear of retaliation, doxxing, or marginalization. For the last several years, our country has undergone a transformation in which it is commonplace for people to despise others solely because of their viewpoints. As lawyers, we must not allow this culture of hate to seep into and consume our profession.
A willingness to engage in good faith with opposing viewpoints, rather than succumbing to the modern culture of hate, benefits the legal profession in many ways. Practically speaking, the ability to understand an opposing viewpoint, assume it is not rooted in bad faith, and formulate a reasoned response is essential for any advocate. Consider a generation of new lawyers who cannot stand to hear an idea they disagree with (or believe they disagree with). How can they step into a courtroom and effectively represent their clients if they are too shaken by an opposing view to think clearly and respond rationally?
And the assumption that pervades our society that people with opposing views are motivated by racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other evil only does a disservice to the profession. When we assume bad faith in others, we lose the ability to operate with the detached, rational approach that wins out in court and in negotiations. Also, any time we assume the bad faith in our opponents, our arguments become infected with motivation-based arguments which almost never win. We should embrace a world where we don’t automatically assume that our opponents have malicious intent. Rather, imagine a world where we can fiercely disagree with each other but still maintain mutual respect and professional courtesy.
Many lawyers and law students, including myself, try to stay away from politics. We do this because the nature of our job is to speak for our clients, not for ourselves. Lawyers represent clients with whom they disagree, and even strongly dislike, all the time. It is in our nature to put our own feelings and beliefs aside and zealously represent our client. But the reality is that politics and the law are intertwined and it is only natural to have political opinions. And when fellow lawyers or law students express opinions with which we disagree, we are prone to feel that twinge of uneasiness in our gut, that quiet signal that what they’re saying clashes sharply with our own convictions.
In that situation, although it is difficult, we should resist the urge to jump to conclusions. We should attempt to understand our colleagues’ points of view, we should engage with their ideas in good faith, and we should strike a tone that signals our willingness to accept others and foster civilized discussion. Lawyers are active contributors to the marketplace of ideas, and the more vibrant that marketplace is, the stronger our profession becomes.
Shmuel Wyckoff is a dedicated law student at Chicago-Kent College of Law and an aspiring appellate attorney. He has a passion for exploring issues in criminal law, constitutional law, and appellate litigation. Shmuel’s goal is to provide readers with engaging discussions of current issues in the law while also empowering readers with practical legal information. While not immersed in classes and externship work, Shmuel enjoys watching football and baseball, cooking, reading, and hiking.