LSC Chapter 4: Legal Methods 103
They say that a good law professor can look at a classroom of students and see what kind of lawyer each student will turn out to be, and through a skillful use of the socratic method, they can push each of their students into becoming that lawyer.
I sometimes wonder if Professor Sovern could see what kind of lawyer I was going to become. I didn't have too many interactions with him, and I was fairly terrified throughout most of them. Through most of my socratic onslaughts I scraped by with one or two correct answers and the feeling that my insignificant mind was not worthy of receiving the rest of his questions.
He was a great and magnificent wizard - I mean lawyer! And we all knew it. Once he was so disappointed by our display of fumbling incompetence that he decided to answer the question he had asked himself. He had asked the class to divide up into groups that would defend each party. The plaintiffs “counsel” had already presented their argument and he then asked the defendants “counsel” to present their points. It was fairly hard. It seemed obvious to anyone with half a brain that the defendant was a large national corporation trying to screw a small time local business for all they were worth. Defending the visibly amoral corporate giant was no easy task. Disgusted by the paltry and lackluster defense presented by my classmates he took it upon himself to demonstrate to us what a real defense looked like.
It was… brilliant. Jaw dropping. Magnificent. We stood in awe as we saw magic done before us. With his words he transformed this emotionally bankrupt large multinational corporation into a helpless and unjustly accused victim who’s only crime was demanding a fair trial. And we believed it. It became real to us. It reminded me of the Razzle Dazzle number in the musical Chicago but without the glitter and sequence. This was no performance. His words made the story true. For us it became reality. At that moment we knew that his version had been correct all along and that our small minds had not allowed us to comprehend the reality that had existed just underneath the facts. We were in the presence of a real lawyer. And we were imbeciles with less than half a brain.
Once we realized we were less than students, just mere spectators to his magic show, we became more afraid to challenge him and simultaneously more desperate to try. For perhaps if we could pull back the curtain on the great and powerful wizard it would mean that we ourselves had attained God-like, I mean lawyer-like, status. Most such attempts by students were laughable. That is, if anyone could have found such failures funny. But each failure was both a reflection on our collective ineptitude, and also a challenge presented which we were impossibly driven to overcome.
Even I once tried to press a challenge when Professor Sovern pushed me to the brink of my intellect. It was civil rights case (of course) about a foreign citizen who refused to take the national oath in order to become a US citizen. The plaintiff in the case claimed that it was against his religion as a Quaker to take up arms in order to defend the United States and so he refused to speak the oath, which would have obligated him to. In his argument he pled with the court, stating that he would willing serve as a nurse to the wounded in battle, or serve in civic office for the good of his country men. It was not a lack of love for his intended country that kept him from saying the oath, only that he could not turn against the tenants of his religion to kill another human being. It was a truly beautiful case that had empassioned me when I read it the night before. I considered it divine grace that I had been called upon first to present the case. I answered Sovern’s first three questions with ease. Then he changed the direction of his questioning and began asking about the dissenting opinion. I hadn't actually read all of the dissenting Judge’s opinion because it had enraged me while I was reading it. I had argued with the long dead judge as I read his heartless, dissenting opinion and after an hour of fruitless debate with a static page I gave up and moved on to the next assignment. Unfortunately, because I had not finished reading the first assignment I didn't really understand the dissenting Judge’s argument. All I knew about his argument was that it was obviously not worth understanding because it was stupid, incompetent and clearly in the wrong. Yet, this meant that I couldn't really articulate a counter argument. Finding that I failed in his line of questioning Professor Sovern decided to move on to the next unsuspecting victim.
For the first time, I felt the need to fight back, to justify, not just my intellectual skill, but the validity of the majority opinion. The judge who had authored the victorious opinion was not just thoughtful and articulate, but he was RIGHT. And I would not let my shoddy worksmanship prevent everyone from understanding that. I was not content to sit by and be inadequate. Not today - I wasn't having it. I quickly began to read over the dissenting opinion again and I began to highlight through the first few controversial paragraphs. However, once again I found myself getting too angry at the arguments and was once again unable to finish the whole opinion. That's all right, I told myself, three paragraphs would have to be enough. I raised my hand again. With an expression of amused indifference in his eyes he turned to me and called on me again. This was my chance.
Through my anger I struggled to articulate not the dissenting opinion (because that was just stupid) but the counter argument to one of dissent’s arguments. Interested he pushed my point harder by bringing in another point from the dissent. Shit. I stuttered some failed attempt at a coherent argument. Fail; he moved on to the next person. Nonono. I was really frustrated now. I went back to that damn dissent and made myself spend a whole two minutes on it, really trying my best to take it some of it in. I skimmed through each of what I thought were the main arguments and then I shot my hand back up in the air.
His eyes flickered to me and then moved away. He ignored me and went on to the next student for questioning.
I would not be ignored. I stuck my hand a little straighter in the air. Was that the ghost of a smile on his face as he looked at me? He called on another person. I stood rigid as a ruler, hand conspicuously in the air, staring, pleading, quivering. I wanted another chance. Clearly amused by this point, he decided to give it to me. I tried once again to articulate why the dissenting judge's opinion was clearly wrong. I still was unable to really explain what the dissent’s arguments were, but man I did a fairly mediocre job of explaining why they were each wrong. I think by the end of it he could only shake his head at my passionate failed attempts. At the time I was really frustrated with myself for how poorly I had performed during my moment of truth, despite what I had perceived to be a courageous effort. However, in hindsight, I am amazed at how quickly he was able to hone in on my weakness as a passionate advocate too enamored with her own self-righteous sense of justice to consider opposing arguments. Three questions was all it took for him to spot my Achilles heel and he zoomed in on it, then pushed me up against the limits of it again and again until I made myself dizzy with my own ignorance. I wasn't ready to come to terms with it then, but I see now how he forced me to confront my limitations as a student to help pave a path for the future growth of my advocacy. Sometimes even now I wonder what he was thinking as he shook his head at my overzealous ineptitude, eyes twinkling above that amused smile. What kind of lawyer did he see in me?
I sometimes wonder if Professor Sovern could see what kind of lawyer I was going to become. I didn't have too many interactions with him, and I was fairly terrified throughout most of them. Through most of my socratic onslaughts I scraped by with one or two correct answers and the feeling that my insignificant mind was not worthy of receiving the rest of his questions.
He was a great and magnificent wizard - I mean lawyer! And we all knew it. Once he was so disappointed by our display of fumbling incompetence that he decided to answer the question he had asked himself. He had asked the class to divide up into groups that would defend each party. The plaintiffs “counsel” had already presented their argument and he then asked the defendants “counsel” to present their points. It was fairly hard. It seemed obvious to anyone with half a brain that the defendant was a large national corporation trying to screw a small time local business for all they were worth. Defending the visibly amoral corporate giant was no easy task. Disgusted by the paltry and lackluster defense presented by my classmates he took it upon himself to demonstrate to us what a real defense looked like.
It was… brilliant. Jaw dropping. Magnificent. We stood in awe as we saw magic done before us. With his words he transformed this emotionally bankrupt large multinational corporation into a helpless and unjustly accused victim who’s only crime was demanding a fair trial. And we believed it. It became real to us. It reminded me of the Razzle Dazzle number in the musical Chicago but without the glitter and sequence. This was no performance. His words made the story true. For us it became reality. At that moment we knew that his version had been correct all along and that our small minds had not allowed us to comprehend the reality that had existed just underneath the facts. We were in the presence of a real lawyer. And we were imbeciles with less than half a brain.
Once we realized we were less than students, just mere spectators to his magic show, we became more afraid to challenge him and simultaneously more desperate to try. For perhaps if we could pull back the curtain on the great and powerful wizard it would mean that we ourselves had attained God-like, I mean lawyer-like, status. Most such attempts by students were laughable. That is, if anyone could have found such failures funny. But each failure was both a reflection on our collective ineptitude, and also a challenge presented which we were impossibly driven to overcome.
Even I once tried to press a challenge when Professor Sovern pushed me to the brink of my intellect. It was civil rights case (of course) about a foreign citizen who refused to take the national oath in order to become a US citizen. The plaintiff in the case claimed that it was against his religion as a Quaker to take up arms in order to defend the United States and so he refused to speak the oath, which would have obligated him to. In his argument he pled with the court, stating that he would willing serve as a nurse to the wounded in battle, or serve in civic office for the good of his country men. It was not a lack of love for his intended country that kept him from saying the oath, only that he could not turn against the tenants of his religion to kill another human being. It was a truly beautiful case that had empassioned me when I read it the night before. I considered it divine grace that I had been called upon first to present the case. I answered Sovern’s first three questions with ease. Then he changed the direction of his questioning and began asking about the dissenting opinion. I hadn't actually read all of the dissenting Judge’s opinion because it had enraged me while I was reading it. I had argued with the long dead judge as I read his heartless, dissenting opinion and after an hour of fruitless debate with a static page I gave up and moved on to the next assignment. Unfortunately, because I had not finished reading the first assignment I didn't really understand the dissenting Judge’s argument. All I knew about his argument was that it was obviously not worth understanding because it was stupid, incompetent and clearly in the wrong. Yet, this meant that I couldn't really articulate a counter argument. Finding that I failed in his line of questioning Professor Sovern decided to move on to the next unsuspecting victim.
For the first time, I felt the need to fight back, to justify, not just my intellectual skill, but the validity of the majority opinion. The judge who had authored the victorious opinion was not just thoughtful and articulate, but he was RIGHT. And I would not let my shoddy worksmanship prevent everyone from understanding that. I was not content to sit by and be inadequate. Not today - I wasn't having it. I quickly began to read over the dissenting opinion again and I began to highlight through the first few controversial paragraphs. However, once again I found myself getting too angry at the arguments and was once again unable to finish the whole opinion. That's all right, I told myself, three paragraphs would have to be enough. I raised my hand again. With an expression of amused indifference in his eyes he turned to me and called on me again. This was my chance.
Through my anger I struggled to articulate not the dissenting opinion (because that was just stupid) but the counter argument to one of dissent’s arguments. Interested he pushed my point harder by bringing in another point from the dissent. Shit. I stuttered some failed attempt at a coherent argument. Fail; he moved on to the next person. Nonono. I was really frustrated now. I went back to that damn dissent and made myself spend a whole two minutes on it, really trying my best to take it some of it in. I skimmed through each of what I thought were the main arguments and then I shot my hand back up in the air.
His eyes flickered to me and then moved away. He ignored me and went on to the next student for questioning.
I would not be ignored. I stuck my hand a little straighter in the air. Was that the ghost of a smile on his face as he looked at me? He called on another person. I stood rigid as a ruler, hand conspicuously in the air, staring, pleading, quivering. I wanted another chance. Clearly amused by this point, he decided to give it to me. I tried once again to articulate why the dissenting judge's opinion was clearly wrong. I still was unable to really explain what the dissent’s arguments were, but man I did a fairly mediocre job of explaining why they were each wrong. I think by the end of it he could only shake his head at my passionate failed attempts. At the time I was really frustrated with myself for how poorly I had performed during my moment of truth, despite what I had perceived to be a courageous effort. However, in hindsight, I am amazed at how quickly he was able to hone in on my weakness as a passionate advocate too enamored with her own self-righteous sense of justice to consider opposing arguments. Three questions was all it took for him to spot my Achilles heel and he zoomed in on it, then pushed me up against the limits of it again and again until I made myself dizzy with my own ignorance. I wasn't ready to come to terms with it then, but I see now how he forced me to confront my limitations as a student to help pave a path for the future growth of my advocacy. Sometimes even now I wonder what he was thinking as he shook his head at my overzealous ineptitude, eyes twinkling above that amused smile. What kind of lawyer did he see in me?