Lawyer in Your Living Room

davidPapkeI enjoyed serving on “the jury” chosen by the American Bar Association to pick the top 25 law shows during the history of prime-time television.  Our list and sketches of the shows just appeared in the August, 2009 ABA Journal.  I was pleased but surprised that “The Defenders,” a fine series from the early 1960s ranked third.  The other top series – “L.A. Law,” “Perry Mason,” and “Law & Order” – are not only great law shows but also milestones in the history of entertainment television.  Meanwhile, I’m not sure “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” and “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” deserve their places on the list.  I enjoy both, but they seem to me police procedurals rather than law shows.

If anyone is curious, here’s the full list:

  1. “L.A. Law” (1986-94)
  2. “Perry Mason” (1957-66)
  3. “The Defenders” (1961-65)
  4. “Law & Order” (1990-present)
  5. “The Practice” (1997-2004)
  6. “Ally McBeal “ (1997-2002)
  7. “Rumpole of the Bailey” (1978-1992)
  8. “Boston Legal” (2004-08)
  9. “Damages” (2007-present)
  10. “Night Court” (1984-1992)
  11. “Judging Amy” (1999-2005
  12. “Owen Marshall: Counselor at Law” (1971-74)
  13. “JAG” (1995-2005)
  14. “Shark” (2006-08)
  15. “Civil Wars” (1991-93)
  16. “Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law” (2000-9)
  17. “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” (2001-present)
  18. “Murder One” (1995-97)
  19. “Matlock” (1986-1995)
  20. “Reasonable Doubts” (1991-93)
  21. “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” (1999-present)
  22. “Judd for the Defense” (1967-69)
  23. “Paper Chase” (1978-79, 1983-86)
  24. “Petrocelli” (1974-76)
  25. “Eli Stone” (2008-09)
Continue ReadingLawyer in Your Living Room

Sonia Sotomayor: Activist Grammarian

William Safire reported in a recent column that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has a pronounced distaste for bad writing.  She wants the briefs she reads to be written properly, and she believes in carefully crafting opinions.  In particular, Sotomayor says, “the unnecessary use of the passive voice” causes her “to blister.”

When I was a young man, I worked briefly as a journalist, and all of my editors argued the active voice was a more direct and vigorous mode of expression.  The passive voice, they insisted, denied human agency by sticking a helping verb such as “is” or “was” between the subject of a sentence and an action verb.  Since becoming a legal academic, I have noticed the passive voice everywhere I look in legal prose, and I have struggled (with limited success) to stop the passive voice’s creeping incursion in my own writing.

Why is the passive voice so common in legal writing?  It would be too simple, I think, to say lawyers are lousy writers.  Surely we are no worse than accountants, bankers, doctors, and track coaches.  Perhaps the ubiquity of the passive voice in legal writing relates to the positivist assumptions most legalists internalize.  We like to believe laws, legal principles, and precedents stand tall and clear.  When we apply the law to controversies, neutral and certain answers emerge.  It is easy and ideologically convenient to announce, “It is so ordered.”   Might Sonia Sotomayor be prepared to say instead, “I think the correct result is . . . .” 

Continue ReadingSonia Sotomayor: Activist Grammarian

Sotomayor, Obama, and Ideology

I am among what must be a million or so people who receive e-mail messages from President Obama. They come addressed to “David” and are signed “President Barack Obama.” The most recent concerned the Sotomayor nomination and included an earnest four-minute video in which the President offered his reasons for the nomination.

I found the video impressive for various reasons. The President of course comes across as photogenic, genuine, and articulate. My goodness, he did not muff a single word! He also is a superb ideologue. In discussing the Sotomayor nomination, he skillfully invokes the importance of hard work, the rags-to-riches myth, the notion of a neutral rule of law, and assorted other staples of the dominant ideology. The President also assures us that the nominee herself is not an ideologue. The disavowal of ideology might in itself be the video’s most ideological ploy.

Continue ReadingSotomayor, Obama, and Ideology