Yours truly.. before my dream was stolen by "the man"
In a recent symposium on women in the legal profession, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louise Charron suggests that the business of law is treating women unfairly because it is focused on "profit".
Seriously.
Keep in mind, Justice Charron has an intimate understanding of the realities of the business of law, having worked in private practice for three (3) years since she became a lawyer in 1977. So I'm sure she understands the full scope of risk and rewards in a capitalist enterprise.
But, hey, let's not be too hard on her. I think her notion of an egalitarian society has some merit.
Really.
Take my own aspirations for example.
I have always had a dream of being the first line center for the Toronto Maple Leafs. However, due to family commitments, I was not able to put in the hundreds of hours demanded to develop what the NHL refers to as "skills" and to maintain what they suggest is a required level of "fitness".
What the hell.
I think that it is completely unfair that a 47 year old, somewhat overweight lawyer with marginal hockey skills should be denied his dreams because the Toronto Maple Leafs and the NHL put a misguided priority on "profit" and "winning". Just another excuse to keep the fat man down, I say.
To paraphrase Justice Charron,
"The ‘priority of profit’ represents a significant barrier to institutional change in the professional hockey environment. Many hockey teams are so focused on profit that they may be unable to appreciate the value of apparently ‘competing’ priorities like shorter hours, flexible work schedules or pro bono ticket sales.So.
Hockey players who value non-monetary goods, including family, social time or community endeavours, may feel that they simply cannot or do not wish to compete in the money-driven world of the NHL.”
Called to action with Justice Charron's comments in mind, I'm calling for an immediate Parliamentary Inquiry into the lack of fat, middle-aged men (and women) playing in the National Hockey League. To suggest that fans would prefer to pay to watch high caliber players is simply another excuse to perpetuate the "ice ceiling" that has kept so many others like me from realizing on their dreams.
I mean, it's not like I could do any worse than the current Leaf crew, is it?
9 comments:
too funny.
Well Rob don't you find it amazing that lawyer of varying skills and intelligence roughly all bill the same amount? Maybe if the field was not such a hermitically sealed echo chamber...
Lawyers: no further proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect needed...
Affirmative action seems to work for Women of Mediocre Intellect in becoming judges on the SCoC!
C'mon she really had to work for that!
Let all female lawyers and judges work " pro bono", this will eliminate the angst of profit
CWTF..
Ok. First. Yes, I find it irriating that clients have no source of a reasonable barometer of their lawyer's skill-set. As lawyers, we have ethical prohibitions against basically telling the truth about other lawyers, and, if nothing else, libel laws allow marginally competent lawyers to bill more or less the same as excellent lawyers.
No argument here on that point.
But, honestly, do you want the profession to start marketing itself like GMC? Will that really help? The lawyer with the best marketing budget will "appear" more competent.. which won't necessarily make it so.
Or, do you want to do away with pesky requirements of University Degrees and Bar Admissions?
And, pal, the Dunning-Kruger effect is hardly limited to lawyers.. go ahead and apply the theory to any profession, including doctors, nurses, teachers.. or plumbers, mechanics and electricians for that matter.
But here's the point my friend.
The people that come see us, often, are in great need of help. And they need or at least perceive that they need that help NOW. Not tomorrow, not next week, not "in a while", but like yesterday.
So. You're in the midst of a divorce. Your wife obtains an ex parte (no notice) order preventing you from accessing your home, or seeing your children. By the time you see your lawyer, you now haven't seen your children for 10 days, your wife has cleaned $50,000.00 out of your joint bank account, leaving you with nothing to even get a hotel and so you are sleeping on your brother's couch, amongst he, his wife and their four children.
You go to your lawyer on Friday and seek help to get some of your money back from the account, to get your clothes and some personal goods, and to be able to say goodnight to your children and maybe just see them and tell them you love them and that everything will be ok.
Your lawyer looks at you, with great compassion, and says, "Sorry, I don't work weekends or evenings. I'll get to your problem in the next week or two."
Is that good enough for you?
Is your angst and fear subject to their desire for "lifestyle considerations"?
Or, do you say thank-you and go see a lawyer who works all weekend to file a motion on your behalf and happens to miss their kids soccer game that weekend while doing it?
Trust me, my friend, everyone hates a lawyer, until they need one.
Everyone supports free lifestyle choices, except for the lifestyle choice of THEIR lawyer.
Oh. And fyi. My last evening was spent preparing just such a motion for a client who came to see me Tuesday and needs help now. Not when it fits into my lifestyle.
If you had any idea how many lawyers (not all by any means) bleed for their clients. Stay up night worrying about whether they are "good enough" and whether or not they are up to the task of remedying their client's pain - well, maybe you'd be a little less critical of so may in the profession who work in their "hermitically sealed echo chamber".
..as a thought, go google "Collaborative Law" and ask yourself why so may lawyers would work so hard to create a movement that discourages litigation? (Much more lucrative than collaborative law)
Equality as a principle of how the state should treat people makes sense, as do our human values of respecting (most) others. I reserve the right to disrespect thieves, cheaters and lazy people who demand entitlements.
However, equality has been over-extended and morphed into rights and entitlements. I have always intuitively hated affirmative action quotas, although I do like educating people that they might have stereotypes. Some jobs really do require a huge commitment of time: a fact of life.
Every child learns, by about age 5, that people's skills and effort are not equal. I could see that my drawing in kindergarten was not as good as my friend's. Sports, school and dancing and games teach this too. As well, I never had to study much until the last year of grad school, but some friends and my brother had to work very hard. Yes, it is not fair, but it is. And when I had babies, I learned that my women's lib dream was impractical - I could not have the dream of a career right then because we had chosen to have children (public daycare did not exist much and I was the best person to get them started in life). Even later when I did have a dynamic career, I learned that most families with teenagers can not have manage well with two aggressive careerists. I think I finally grew up when I decided that someone in our family had to be on the "mommy track" and I was best suited to the role. Yes there was a career cost, and life is not fair, so tough! I agree with the lawyer - some jobs require an almost 18/7 commitment that will always be incompatible with a balanced lifestyle.
Well Rob, for every collaborative lawyer in Canada, I'd be ready to bet that there are at least 10 who are not so generous or reasonable.
we have ethical prohibitions against basically telling the truth about other lawyers, and, if nothing else, libel laws allow marginally competent lawyers to bill more or less the same as excellent lawyers.
And, you could add there are some family lawyers that do have certain skills, while not ethical, are legal, and will advice their clients to be more litigious...
The welfare, the morality or the common sense of the situation does not matter to these lawyers as much as winning.
I've had the chance (or misfortune) of befriending a few lawyers and judges and the overall impression I get is that they are human. That means, in the case of the lawyers, gossipy about their clients, gossipy between each other and their clients, easily swayed by emotions instead of facts, not really interested in the truth.
But do you really think that lawyers will be educating the public when it affects their salary directly?
I don't hate lawyers - just the greedy self-serving ones.
Post a Comment