Rule of law vs. rule of man.

• Author: Davis, Winston R.
• Position: Letters

Chesterfield Smith was no doubt an exceptional man and the tributes in the November issue show he affected many lives and mentored many lawyers. From the testimonials and quotations, however, something becomes very clear to me. The main body of influential lawyers in Florida and elsewhere really do not "get it": The public doesn't like us very much as a group.

One initiative after another has been tried in recent years, pretty much without success, to influence public opinion. As a result, we are now saddled with obligations to report pro bone work and a Code of Professional Responsibility so unfathomable that I doubt there is a lawyer practicing today who is not in violation of one or more provisions.

I have never been president of a bar association. I was published only once in law school I am not active in community bar activities. However, I have never been disciplined and have had only one grievance filed in more than 20 years of practice. I do understand what the problem is: A great many members of the legal community today believe that, if legislation doesn't get us what we feel is necessary, it is fine for the courts to do so. If that is the case, then it is also fine for lawyers to use the legal system as a sort of video game, where the object isn't justice but winning.

If we can use the courts to change the plain meaning of the United States Constitution because it should "meet the needs of the people," then we can use forum shopping, jury tampering, weasel wording, slander, and lies and make up our own law as we go along. All we have to do is find a judge who will buy it. After all, we need to meet the needs of our clients, don't we? The average nonlawyer doesn't perhaps see this in the same way as our professional elites do. The average guy sees a lot of snooty professionals...