Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:06 PM
Blawg Book Highlighter #14: Philadelphia Lawyer: A Decade of Cheating, Stealing, & Screwing in the Circus of Modern Law
The origin of the term “Philadelphia lawyer” reportedly derives from way back when in colonial times the Philadelphia bar was held in high esteem. Back then, you’d be flattered to be called a Philadelphia lawyer.
Not so today.
I’m not sure what kind of reputation Philly lawyers now have, but over time, for whatever reason, the term Philadelphia lawyer taken the opposite meaning it once had. According to Law Encyclopedia from Answers.com, “It has become a disparaging label for an attorney who is skillful in manipulation of the technicalities and intricacies of the law to the advantage of his or her client, although the spirit of the law might be violated.”
It is this more recent incarnation of the term that gave rise to the upcoming book, “Philadelphia Lawyer: A Decade of Cheating, Stealing, & Screwing in the Circus of Modern Law,” to be published by the infamous Judith Regan’s ReganBooks. (Regan, you’ll recall, was fired from HarperCollins after public backlash of her announced plan to publish O.J. Simpson’s book, “If I Did It,” and more controversy stemming from anti-Semitic comments that she allegedly made.)
Although there’s no date set for when “Philadelphia Lawyer” will be out in bookstores, you can get a preview of it at the author’s anonymous website, philalawyer.net. Like the previously highlighted “Anonymous Lawyer” by Jeremy Blachman, “Philadelphia Lawyer” is based on a blog. Unlike “Anonymous,” “Philadelphia” isn’t fiction and it’s author is truly anonymous.
The Waxman Literary Agency, which represents the author, describes the author’s website posts as “brutally honest stories about his life and career that expose the legal profession’s absurd insistence that lawyers are agents of truth.”
The stories are filled with amusing anecdotes and the author's own philosophies on the law. While at times they may border on rants, the writing is so entertaining that you don't mind.
Never does the author hold back. Rather, he tends to punch like he's wearing brass knuckles. In a recent post titled, "I Need a Miracle (An Odyssey of Idiocy)," the author describes legal advocacy this way:
Litigation's as much about not losing as it is winning. If you've pled anything before a Court, you know sometimes you have to argue junk. The papers, the law, the rules – it all says your client's doomed. But you're paid to replay – to advocate something in opposition… Suspend disbelief and bark out the absurd with conviction, as forcefully as possible, as though it were credible, accurate and correct on every point… the sheer force of your argument compelling the opponent to engage you. Once you're engaged, you are credible. And once you're credible, you're past offensive or sanctionable – skirting legitimate – an advocate pleading an argument that just might win. You won't ultimately, but you've dodged sanctions, embarrassment and probably a few of the bigger claims against your client. A win of sorts, or at least a non-loss – all for acting impassioned and repeating yourself a lot.
He's just as tough on law school. In an early post titled "ChapStick," he writes, "I knew law school was a bad idea when the first person I met was wearing a foam pirate hat and a day-glo Hawaiian shirt."
Oh, and he's not a fan of legal theory, either, stating that he'd "choose an enema over the theoretical discussion of The Law." He chastises most lawyers for lacking common sense and engaging in "esoteric debates about hypothetical cases which could never occur…" With characteristic bite, he writes that lawyers "read endless reams of dense legal rulings and spit out memos guessing how some court, somewhere, someday, might rule on issues beyond obscure – handicapping racing that'll never be run, among horses that'll never be born…Often betting on the unicorn."
You can see why the author has not given us his identity. He does reveal a little in an interview he conducted for his website host, Rudius Media. Asked how much liberty he takes when writing his own stories, he says: "I have to protect my identity for now and those of friends. I also have to make it literary and entertaining. It's impossible to perfectly recite decade plus old dialogue, particularly involving those scenes, so in the older recollections, that's reconstructed. I think the liberties are unacceptable when they warp the situation described into something it wasn't, which is where I draw the line.
Thank you to Cheryl Hagedorn at Blooking Central for tipping us on to this one.
************************************************************************************
Randy Richardson is an author, humorist, former journalist, and a lawyer. His fiction debut, Lost in the Ivy, a murder mystery set against the backdrop of Chicago's storied Wrigley Field, won the Writers Marketing Association's “Fresh Voices” Book Award and the Illinois Woman's Press Association's Mate E. Palmer Communications Contest. He writes the Dad Libs column for SanityCentral.com and is a frequent contributor to Chicago Parent magazine. In his day job, he is an attorney for the Social Security Administration’s disability appeals branch. At night and during lunch breaks, he serves as president of the Chicago Writers Association (chicagowrites.org) and works on his second novel while a 4-year-old tugs on his legs. Visit his website at www.lostintheivy.com.
***********************************************************************************