I'm Lazy
Today was a pretty productive day.
First, Alley was being all Blue Heeler today. I forgot to take her collar off when I brought her in from her morning bathroom break. I just took the leash off. I don't like putting her in the crate with a collar on because I worry that the collar might somehow get caught on the crate and she might hang herself. Paranoid, yes, but better safe than sorry. Anyway, she wouldn't settle down enough for me to get the collar off. When I got a treat to give her so she'd go on her crate, she ran from the kitchen into my bedroom, then she ran into the living room, ran into her crate, hopped up on the couch, and I finally got her collar off. Then I went over the the crate and in she went.
I had class in the morning and went to a information meeting of the Public Interest Group. Basically, that's law that affects public interest (however nebulous that may be), including prosecution and public defense. It was interesting. The people seemed nice and they go to a meeting in D.C. every year, so it might be worth pursuing.
After class, I made it to the gym to lift weights (and I'm so proud of myself for that because I was really on the fence about going), then took a nap before I took Alley for her doggie daycare evaluation.
And that's where the problem came in: For whatever reason, the appointment wasn't written down, so the dog they used for evaluation wasn't there. The woman was very apologetic and offered to do it on the day I wanted to bring her in for daycare. So, I'm taking her in tomorrow at 7:00AM...which means that I need to fill out her paperwork tonight.
So, I guess the question you might ask after reading about a day where I left the house at about 8:15 and (with the exception of a thirty minute nap) was on the go till after 7PM, how can I say "I'm lazy?" Simple. The first thing I thought when I got up this morning was "How can I fit in a nap this afternoon?"
Anyway, in Professional Responsibility, we discussed the Berkey-Kodak case. Basically, it involved a partner in a law firm lying and saying that he destroyed a witness report that was somewhat unfavorable to his side, then breaking down and admitting it. The lawyer, of course, as in some hot water, but there was another issue about what to do about a senior associate who worked under him and knew the the guy was concealing the document and lying about it. He said nothing.
The question was what the associate should have done. My contention was that he should have at least talked to other people in the firm or someone to get advice, since he apparently did have a problem with what was being done. Instead, he went along with it.
We divided up into groups to talk about it. I said something like "I don't know what I'd do, but I'd hope that in that case, I would at least do something." One person said something to the effect of "I don't see what the issue is. We would all do the exact same thing in that case and anyone who says they wouldn't is either lying to themselves or incredibly naive." I dn't remember the exact words.
What bothered me about it wasn't the idea that the majority of people probably would have a hard time saying something in that case if it meant the possibility of losing a job and being blackballed. I get that and, while I don't think it's right, I sympathize. What bothers me is the fact that it was treated as a foregone conclusion and that the guy did nothing wrong at all. No one even wanted to qualify it. It was just "He had to do it to keep his job, so it was okay."
I'm all for looking at situations realistically, but there's realism and fatalism. Realism is acknowledging that there were other factors to be considered when the associate was trying to decide what to do. Fatalism is saying that there was no choice in that situation.
There's always a choice.
I hate it when I start sounding all idealistic. Someone slap me with the real world, quick.
First, Alley was being all Blue Heeler today. I forgot to take her collar off when I brought her in from her morning bathroom break. I just took the leash off. I don't like putting her in the crate with a collar on because I worry that the collar might somehow get caught on the crate and she might hang herself. Paranoid, yes, but better safe than sorry. Anyway, she wouldn't settle down enough for me to get the collar off. When I got a treat to give her so she'd go on her crate, she ran from the kitchen into my bedroom, then she ran into the living room, ran into her crate, hopped up on the couch, and I finally got her collar off. Then I went over the the crate and in she went.
I had class in the morning and went to a information meeting of the Public Interest Group. Basically, that's law that affects public interest (however nebulous that may be), including prosecution and public defense. It was interesting. The people seemed nice and they go to a meeting in D.C. every year, so it might be worth pursuing.
After class, I made it to the gym to lift weights (and I'm so proud of myself for that because I was really on the fence about going), then took a nap before I took Alley for her doggie daycare evaluation.
And that's where the problem came in: For whatever reason, the appointment wasn't written down, so the dog they used for evaluation wasn't there. The woman was very apologetic and offered to do it on the day I wanted to bring her in for daycare. So, I'm taking her in tomorrow at 7:00AM...which means that I need to fill out her paperwork tonight.
So, I guess the question you might ask after reading about a day where I left the house at about 8:15 and (with the exception of a thirty minute nap) was on the go till after 7PM, how can I say "I'm lazy?" Simple. The first thing I thought when I got up this morning was "How can I fit in a nap this afternoon?"
Anyway, in Professional Responsibility, we discussed the Berkey-Kodak case. Basically, it involved a partner in a law firm lying and saying that he destroyed a witness report that was somewhat unfavorable to his side, then breaking down and admitting it. The lawyer, of course, as in some hot water, but there was another issue about what to do about a senior associate who worked under him and knew the the guy was concealing the document and lying about it. He said nothing.
The question was what the associate should have done. My contention was that he should have at least talked to other people in the firm or someone to get advice, since he apparently did have a problem with what was being done. Instead, he went along with it.
We divided up into groups to talk about it. I said something like "I don't know what I'd do, but I'd hope that in that case, I would at least do something." One person said something to the effect of "I don't see what the issue is. We would all do the exact same thing in that case and anyone who says they wouldn't is either lying to themselves or incredibly naive." I dn't remember the exact words.
What bothered me about it wasn't the idea that the majority of people probably would have a hard time saying something in that case if it meant the possibility of losing a job and being blackballed. I get that and, while I don't think it's right, I sympathize. What bothers me is the fact that it was treated as a foregone conclusion and that the guy did nothing wrong at all. No one even wanted to qualify it. It was just "He had to do it to keep his job, so it was okay."
I'm all for looking at situations realistically, but there's realism and fatalism. Realism is acknowledging that there were other factors to be considered when the associate was trying to decide what to do. Fatalism is saying that there was no choice in that situation.
There's always a choice.
I hate it when I start sounding all idealistic. Someone slap me with the real world, quick.