Response to an Anti-Lawyer Letter in the Paper

This morning my brother tipped me off to a scurrilous anti-lawyer letter in the Fresno Bee. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

The infestation of lawyers in all levels of governance is probably at the root of all stagnation in government, not just in the perceptions of the public regarding the presidential race. Many years ago, exposure to the legal department of the regional regulatory agency for which I toiled made it clear, with the help of a former enforcement inspector promoted to investigator, that the manner in which lawyers are trained is mainly responsible for the behaviors found in lawyers everywhere. When asked for an opinion, their first answer is always, “That depends.”

Roy Bailey
Sanger

Remarks like those require a response. So here is what I sent to the Bee:

Roy Bailey substitutes his visceral loathing of lawyers for a thoughtful critique. He cannot abide the classic lawyerly response, “That depends”—despite the fact that everything does.

Lawyers are trained to recognize contingencies and evaluate possibilities. They learn quickly in law school that litigation, destroyer of lives and fortunes, most often arises from the conduct of those who never stopped to reflect on the consequences of their actions.

But many people turn to lawyers—or, more affordably, to their own reason and conscience—not in advance of their breaches, to check their passions, but later, when everything has gone awry.

Doctors extol the value of preventative measures like eating right and exercising. But with legal problems, lawyers know the most effective “preventative measure” is stopping to reflect on the range contingencies and possibilities: “That depends.” No one demonizes doctors for promoting healthy living, but lawyers are looked upon with contempt for advocating healthy thinking.

Every group of people, including doctors, lawyers, and writers of letters to the editor, has some who are good and some who are bad. Undifferentiated disgust with an entire group is never warranted. On that basis, Mr. Bailey ought to reconsider his remarks.

We shall see if the Bee chooses to print that.