The Lawyer's Myth: Reviving Ideals in the Legal Profession

• Author: Major Peter H. Tran
• Pages: 09

236 MILITARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 179

THE LAWYER'S MYTH: REVIVING IDEALS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION1

REVIEWED BY MAJOR PETER H. TRAN2

[T]he true danger in practicing law as an amoral technician is that, when that course is rigorously followed in the hyper-competitive world of legal practice, it becomes more than a professional role. It becomes a way of life. The blocking out of moral compunction soon changes from a temporarily induced state by which lawyers avoid moral qualms about their clients and their work, to a permanent mind-set that colors almost everything they do.3

1. Introduction

   Like many lawyers in America, Walter Bennett has observed a growing trend of incivility and outlandish, aggressive behavior within the legal profession. In his book, The Lawyer's Myth, Bennett analyzes the alarming development he believes is clearly reflected in the growing public perception of lawyers as aggressive, manipulative, and unscrupulous people doing whatever it takes to win. Bennett describes this "moral malaise"4 as profound, because it grows primarily out of a self-inflicted wound.5 Believing that the dominant modern professional archetype is the "go-for-the jugular" trial lawyer, he explains that "[i]n essence, the warrior-like, super-masculine part of our professional psyche has at least temporarily prevailed in the internal struggle for the soul of the profession . . . . The dominance of this type, this negative

   ideal . . . has deeply affected the professional psyche."6 When winning and the resulting financial rewards become the overriding measure of professional success, "moral doubt and civility towards others"7 simply become obstacles to success.8 He believes that in order to treat this wound to the profession, one has to look at the source of the malaise. In describing why the modern dominant archetype is so anathematic to our profession, Bennett presents his fundamental thesis:

   Basically [this dominant archetype] has destroyed our professional mythology and, more importantly, our capacity to create professional myths that allow us to grow and to understand ourselves and the social and moral significance of our profession. This is the true nature of our self-inflicted wound―a wound that will not heal until we begin to ask ourselves the essential mythmaking questions about who we are and whom we serve.9

2. Background

   Some background may be helpful in understanding the context of Bennett's analysis. Bennett graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1972. He spent sixteen years practicing in Charlotte, North Carolina, first as a trial attorney and then as a trial court judge, before returning to his alma mater to pursue an LL.M. Upon completion of this graduate program, he began work as a clinical law professor at the University of North Carolina Law School. While on the faculty, he was asked to teach a course on professional responsibility at the law school.10

   Trying to convince his students about the importance of legal ethics, Bennett observed an inclination within many modern law students towards what he described as two fundamental problems; "the compulsion to moral minimalism" and "the feelings of impotency and loneliness."11 As used by Bennett, the term "moral minimalism" described the idea that "moral predilections should be repressed lest they

   complicate legal analysis and inhibit decisive winning action."12 In trying to address these systemic problems, he developed the idea of teaching a seminar on the oral histories of great lawyers and judges. After gathering and listening to the stories presented by their classmates, the students, Bennett hoped, would not only benefit from some wisdom and legal insight, but also be able to personally witness "a life dedicated to moral purpose and know that even in the legal profession, there is help for the lonely."13 The oral histories, Bennett observed, not only had a noticeable effect on the students in the seminar, but also had a surprisingly profound and lasting effect on him. From these stories, he began a journey of self-exploration, which ultimately lead him to develop a path for a balanced life as a lawyer.

   The Lawyer's Myth is the culmination of his personal search and the truths learned during that quest.14 Consequently, it reads very much like someone's recognition of a personal epiphany and the resultant soul-searching. Epiphanies, however, are like any other aspect of our lives; they are necessarily shaped by our experiences and our environment. The challenge is to present the theory extrapolated from the personal journey into a compelling and supported argument for a course of action. From that perspective, Bennett makes a good effort, but ultimately cannot capture or persuade the reader to accept his personal ideology as a reasoned analysis on the ills of the legal profession.

   There is no denying Bennett's breadth of legal experience. His experiences, however, are still limited to the one jurisdiction; North Carolina.15 Bennett's personal experience is limited by the constraints of practicing in one defined geographical and sociological region. Often the limitations of personal experience can be tempered with careful research and analysis beyond one's own borders. It becomes painfully clear in the course of the text, however, that even if Bennett conducted thorough research in other jurisdictions, he failed to integrate his

   research into the examples and anecdotes used to support his thesis. Except for a few notable national figures,16 the lack of supporting role models outside of the North Carolina Bar is a glaring omission readily identifiable by lawyers practicing in other states or practicing in multiple jurisdictions.17

   Although, in some cases, one can draw parallels and generalities to a profession from the experiences of one jurisdiction, Bennett never once acknowledges the limits of his observations or research.18 Fairly or not, this absence of outside authority and provincial approach diminishes the credibility of the work as an authoritative study encompassing the legal profession in America.

3. Analysis

   Myths, narratives, and Jungian19 archetypes are imperative to Bennett's critical paradigm. Understanding these interrelated concepts is crucial to his thesis on the "revitalization of the legal profession."20

   Myths, explains Bennett, are really just special, powerful narratives.21

   Evolving through numerous retellings, these special narratives are "distilled to a purer and deeper form which connects to the timeless forces in our own natures―forces in the individual and collective

   subconscious which teach us eternal lessons."22 In describing how this relates to lawyers, Bennett explains that the myths give "transcendent meaning"23 to our professional lives. He sees this happening on two basic levels.

   The first is on a Jungian primal level revealed only in the form of universal archetypes. He believes that this primal connection is essential "for a healthy, vibrant, and unstagnated society."24 The second and more important level, is an orienting function in which myths help us "define ourselves in relation to our communities and to our greater society and help explain our and our society's eternal significance."25 According to Bennett, lawyer myths orient us by providing us a "purpose for lawyers' work that is community based and spiritually transcendent."26

   Spirituality, at least by the Western transcendental definition, is crucial to his paradigm. Although never explicitly stated, it becomes clear to any student of philosophy and theology that Bennett bases his analysis of the universality of myths and archetypes and their significance to a lawyer's spiritual transcendence within the profession, purely on a Western Christian point of view. This, in itself, should not discount his critical analysis but for two reasons. First, it would have been much more effective to use his concept of spiritual transcendence simply as a tool to help the reader understand the steps through his syllogism rather than using a specific cultural-religious view as the foundation in building his critical paradigm. Second, Bennett's essential reliance on this concept as a key element in his paradigm could still...