Lawyer Jokes

First, pop culture lawyers were heroes. Then, pop culture lawyers were devils. These two extremes capture most of what the world sees of lawyers—they are either pursuers or destroyers of justice based on the angle of perception or bias. However both of these extremes leave out a major aspect of every real American lawyer: their humanity.

Let’s face it; most real lawyers are not as serious or somber as they have been portrayed for years across pop cultural mediums. Real lawyers like every other human being have their moments of weakness and self doubt, of romantic uplift and heartache, and of senseless comedic revelry. The development of the jester lawyer began with shows at the turn of the millennium such as “Ally McBeal” and “Boston Legal.” Both television shows featured large metropolitan law firms with a slew of jester lawyers for a cast. The humor however was based not in their humanity, but their quirks. The shows were just extended lawyer jokes featuring lawyers who were old and senile, neurotic and paranoid, or just plain weird, with catty women and dogs of men. In this era of television, while lawyers were beginning to demonstrate some depth through the moral issues they faced both in and outside their cases, and through their personal and romantic lives, the laughter was still aimed at the lawyer.

Two more recent lawyer comedy shows have hit the airwaves in the last few years and both, I would argue, feature jester lawyers as main characters who you laugh with more so than you laugh at. These two shows, “Drop Dead Diva” and “Franklin & Bash” feature young attorneys who often tap into their humanity to find creative and persuasive ways of winning their cases. These young attorneys both recognize and understand the things they are doing are both outlandish and likely unprofessional—but they invite the audience to laugh with them as they continue to seek justice in an often confusing legal system.

Continue ReadingLawyer Jokes

Technology Has Enhanced Legal Education Significantly, But Its Essential Components Remain the Same

[Editor’s Note: This month, we asked a few veteran faculty members to share their reflections on what has changed the most in legal education since they became law professors.  This is the fifth in the series.]

As I finish my twenty-second year as a law professor, I marvel at how technological advances and the proliferation of specialty courses have changed (and, in most instances, improved) legal education since I began my academic career in 1990.  Yet I am mindful that the essential components of a high-quality legal education remain unchanged (e.g., an interactive and engaging academic environment that stimulates critical thinking, reasoned legal analysis, creative problem solving, an understanding of legal doctrine and policy, and the development of effective verbal and written communication skills).

There were no laptops in the classroom when I begin teaching twenty-two years ago, and handwritten exam answers were the norm. Now it’s rare to see any student without his or her PC during class.  

Continue ReadingTechnology Has Enhanced Legal Education Significantly, But Its Essential Components Remain the Same

Evolution and the Constitution

Recent news reports make much of the fact that, with one exception, none of the current Republican candidates for President has been willing to embrace the theory of evolution as the commonly accepted explanation of how the multiple forms of life currently existing on our planet came to be.  Instead, several of the Republican hopefuls have argued pointedly that creationism (the belief that all life was created by God in its current form) is an equally legitimate scientific theory on a par with evolution.  For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared that evolution is “just one theory” among several that might explain the current state of biodiversity on the earth. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is the only Republican candidate willing to take a strong position supporting the theory of evolution as a scientifically proven fact.

According to a December, 2010 Gallup Poll, a combined 54% of Americans believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms, either under God’s guidance or without any participation from God.  Meanwhile, 40% of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form.  The survey results also indicate that the relative percentage of Americans who believe in some form of evolution (as opposed to creationism) rises as education levels rise.

Why then, do the Republican presidential hopefuls almost uniformly reject a scientific theory that is accepted by the majority of Americans?

Continue ReadingEvolution and the Constitution