A Change in Focus
Or perhaps an addition?
O Faithful Readers, I'm thinking about adding another dimension to my writing here. I initially conceived of this space as a log, or journal. (Hence, the unique name.) Personally, I don't think that I need to be in the business of writing generally about politics, since many do that much better than I. In addition, I don't think that writing about legal stories in the news is particularly useful. In many respects, every case is important. I'm not sure that salacious facts or a well paid legal team necessarily mean that a case is more interesting.
I have tried to avoid getting too esoteric here, in fear of alienating the three people who visit and aren't actually public defenders. So I've mostly tried to write about things that are interesting or things that might help counteract the clear pro-prosecution bias that exists in the world we live in. Afterall, our criminal justice system is adversarial, and I think it is helpful for us, the public defenders, to promote our point of view. It's my own educational project, or sorts.
Before I returned to criminal defense, I was working at the Federal Court of Appeals here, as a staff attorney. That office was pretty clearly divided politically when I was there. And, because we were all lawyers, no one was scared of backing down from an argument. I've realized in the last month or so that I miss the debates that we had about overarching issues. Some of the things that I have ranted about here are echoes of the exchanges that I had then, but without rolling up the sleeves and talking about the gritty technical issues.
And that got me to thinking.
Obviously, I went to law school. But, if you ask any that has been to law school, they'll tell you that isn't actually designed for teaching, or learning, the law. The law school curriculum pretty clearly is designed to accomplish other ends. I've realized that there are a lot of things that I haven't learned. For instance, just where the hell is Justice Scalia coming from? I mean, what's that all about? What was Justice Rehnquist reading that inspired him to rekindle the Federalist revolution? And, just how many copies of jury instructions are you supposed to file with the court?
So, I've decided to start studying again, allowing my curiousity to take me where it will. And, from time to time, I might just write about here.
Right now, I'm reading parts of The Common Law, by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Good stuff, and food for thought, which I might be tempted to share soon.
O Faithful Readers, I'm thinking about adding another dimension to my writing here. I initially conceived of this space as a log, or journal. (Hence, the unique name.) Personally, I don't think that I need to be in the business of writing generally about politics, since many do that much better than I. In addition, I don't think that writing about legal stories in the news is particularly useful. In many respects, every case is important. I'm not sure that salacious facts or a well paid legal team necessarily mean that a case is more interesting.
I have tried to avoid getting too esoteric here, in fear of alienating the three people who visit and aren't actually public defenders. So I've mostly tried to write about things that are interesting or things that might help counteract the clear pro-prosecution bias that exists in the world we live in. Afterall, our criminal justice system is adversarial, and I think it is helpful for us, the public defenders, to promote our point of view. It's my own educational project, or sorts.
Before I returned to criminal defense, I was working at the Federal Court of Appeals here, as a staff attorney. That office was pretty clearly divided politically when I was there. And, because we were all lawyers, no one was scared of backing down from an argument. I've realized in the last month or so that I miss the debates that we had about overarching issues. Some of the things that I have ranted about here are echoes of the exchanges that I had then, but without rolling up the sleeves and talking about the gritty technical issues.
And that got me to thinking.
Obviously, I went to law school. But, if you ask any that has been to law school, they'll tell you that isn't actually designed for teaching, or learning, the law. The law school curriculum pretty clearly is designed to accomplish other ends. I've realized that there are a lot of things that I haven't learned. For instance, just where the hell is Justice Scalia coming from? I mean, what's that all about? What was Justice Rehnquist reading that inspired him to rekindle the Federalist revolution? And, just how many copies of jury instructions are you supposed to file with the court?
So, I've decided to start studying again, allowing my curiousity to take me where it will. And, from time to time, I might just write about here.
Right now, I'm reading parts of The Common Law, by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Good stuff, and food for thought, which I might be tempted to share soon.
posted by swd at 7:41 PM
2 Comments:
So exactly how many sets are you supposed to file.
The part about law school has been a bone in my craw since I began law school. I'm just wrapping up my final semester and it wasn't until this semester (that's number 9 if you're counting at home, I go part time) that I was introduced to the directed study, public interest practicum, and student law offices. I learned more about "being" and advocate in those three classes than in any of the other courses I've taken.
I still believe that law school should be 1 year of fundamentals, and then 2 (or 3) years of course work with at least half of those hours actual practice under supervision.
It turns out that, here, the answer is four. The Judge gets two copies.
I graduated a dozen years ago, and I am so glad that law school is far, far behind me.
Hang in there, chief. You're almost done!
Post a Comment
<< Home