A fictious problem is given (say 2-3 pages long)... with lots of legal issues and 2 parties... one that goes to court and the other been taken to court...we are told beforehand which side we are to represent and after some 10 days of work ... we submit our memorial with arguments on facts and law for our side...a day after that we argue out the case in front of a bench of "judges" .. who may be seniors, faculty or lawyers from outside...then we're ranked on the basis of our performance..right now selections are on... we have some 3 rounds of internal moots.. after which the "moot team" is formed.. consisting 30 speakers and 10 researchers... these people pick national and international moots based on their ranks and the prestige involved in the said moot!
Now that we have that in the clear... I'd like to draw your attention to one segment that struck me , other than the fact that lawyers, medicos, desginers etc have amazing hands on experience (damn engineering) ... we are told beforehand which side we are to represent ...
Hmmm... told beforehand which side to take? Agreed that its just a college competition and more of a learning experience. But still, for people with zoolch idea about the judicial system (read: The Bourgeois Buffoon), its sorta weird. To me, a stand can be taken based on three circumstances. Either you have studied the situation and chosen a side of the argument using logic and rationale. Or you just blindly accept a trustworthy person's opinion on an unkown subject. Of course, most common of all is the way we refuse to change our stance no matter how much ever logic or reasoning is introduced either way (Its easier for our personal social fabric this way).
But imagine the plight of a young lawyer, passionate about... say, the environment, when he/she is asked to defend a factory which releases enough carbon everyday to cover the vatican city ten times over! Now this lawyer has two choices. Either chuck a good career in this prestigious firm and hold steadfast to his/her beliefs. Else mutely execute the order with a silent vow to never take up such a case when he/she has a firm of his/her own.
I don't know if any other profession would face such a moral grind with such a regular basis as these lawyers do. And knowing the fickleness of the human morality, this explains why lawyers often turn out to be the most hated group of them all. Not that the other guys don't face tough ethical decisions. Like Jeffrey Wigand, an executive in the tobacco industry who showed inside information on what additives are added by tobacco companies intentionally... so that smokers are addicted to their brands of ciggarettes, something that any common worker should be inspired by. He brought a the cartel of Tobacco companies to heel. A $264 billion settlement against them. The movie 'The insider', beautifully potrays his struggle to get the truth heard. With only a handful of lawyers actually coming to his aid. Rest of the law community in the pockets of the cartel. Although the evidence is mounted against them.
Unfortunate. I guess that's why its a Devil's advocate.I am each and every lawyer/judge understands this. I just
hope he/she realises it. In time.
1 comment:
Where did the Moot court happen? I remember times when my dad would coach those would be/wanna be lawyers on how to argue, with yourself too sometimes.
Post a Comment