Corrupting the Rule of Law.

 
   A Russian, a Cuban, an American, and a lawyer are seated in the same 
   compartment on a train. The Russian takes a bottle of vodka out of his 
   luggage, pours some into a glass, drinks it, and firmly states: "In Russia, 
   we have best wodka in the vorld, nowhere in the vorld you can find wodka as 
   good as one we make in mother Russia. And, we have much of it, so much we 
   can just throw it away like vater." That said, the Russian opens the 
   train's window and hurls the vodka out of the train. The others in the 
   compartment are quite impressed. Then the Cuban removes a box of Havana 
   cigars from his luggage, takes one, lights it, and begins to smoke. "In 
   Kooba, we have de best cigars of de world, habanas, nowhere in de world are 
   dere such many and good cigars, and we have much of dem also, such many dat 
   we can just trow dem away." Making that bold statement, the Cuban sends the 
   box of Havanas the way of the vodka. Once again, the compartment's 
   occupants are quite impressed. Then, not to be outdone, the American 
   abruptly stands up, opens the window wide, and throws out the lawyer. 

1. Introduction

This joke concerns a subject near to my heart after twenty-one years as a law professor. The question I want to address can be variously put. What has happened to our law schools? What has happened to our profession? What havoc are we, who train our lawyers, wreaking on them, on American society, on American culture?

According to a 1990 Johns Hopkins University study, lawyers have the highest suicide rate of twenty-three professions studied, and are the least likely of all professionals to recommend their profession to their children.(1) Does this have anything to do with what is going on at law schools?

My answer must begin with a comment on what it means to be a professional. The idea of a profession, a wise pursuit of a difficult and noble calling, assumed importance in the second half of the nineteenth century.(2) The defense, promotion, and understanding of the rule of law make for our calling. Famous advocates from Abe Lincoln to Atticus Finch exemplify the contemplative wisdom required of us as professionals. So do less well-known jurists like Baltimore's David Hoffman, the founder of the University of Maryland Law School and the father of legal ethics in the United States.(3) Hoffman wrote Fifty Resolutions in Regard to Professional Deportment. Here is Resolution 33: "What I believe as a professional."

 
   What is wrong is not the less so from being common. And though few dare to 
   be singular, even in a right cause, I am resolved to make my own, and not 
   the conscience of others, my sole guide. What is morally wrong cannot be 
   professionally right, however it may be sanctioned by time or custom. It is 
   better to be right with a few, or even none, than wrong though with a 
   multitude. 

Another way of making Hoffman's point is by indicating that our Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. To early generations of Americans, republicanism conveyed two clear and important concepts: one of rights (through popular sovereignty and governments of limited powers); the other of responsibilities expressed through a civic virtue independent of popular passions. Both rights and responsibilities are in part activated through democratically adopted laws (lois, Gesetze), of course; but without constant teaching of higher law (droit, Recht), the civic virtue required in a republic will wither and die a majoritarian death. Lawyers versed only in laws are mere technicians, while attorneys trained in a republic where Law predominates are the noblest of professionals. Henry Stimson, a great member of the New York Bar who served as Secretary of War and as Secretary of State, wrote of my profession this way: