An oldie but goodie:
What’s the difference between a lawyer and God?
God doesn’t think he’s a lawyer.
And a follow-up by Eduardo J. Couture (1904-1956), who taught law at University of Montevideo in Uruguay (translation by James A. Diaz):
The Lawyer’s Commandments
1. Study: Law is in constant transformation. If you do not follow its steps every day, every day you will be less a Lawyer.
2. Think: Law is learnt by means of studying, but is exercised by means of thinking.
3. Work: Advocacy is an arduous fatigue to the service of Justice.
4. Fight: You must fight for the Law; but in that day when Law and Justice come to conflict, fight for Justice.
5. Be Loyal: Loyal to your client, whom you mustn’t abandon until you learn he is unworthy of you. Loyal to the judge, whom ignores the facts and must trust your word; and, in regard with the Law, he must, sometimes, trust the one you invoke.
6. Tolerate: Tolerate the other’s truth as much as you want your truth to be tolerated.
7. Be Patient: Time takes revenge from those things that are made without its collaboration.
8. Have Faith: Have faith in Law, as the best instrument in order for human beings to live together; in Justice as the normal destiny of Law; in Peace, as a good-natured substitute for Justice; and, above all, have faith in Liberty, without which there is no Law, nor Justice, nor Peace.
9. Forget: Advocacy is a fight amongst passions. If in every battle you were to fill your soul with rancor, there will come a day in which your life will be impossible for you. Once combat is over, forget your victory as soon as your defeat.
10. Love your Profession: Try to consider advocacy in such a way that, at the time your son asks your advice regarding his destiny, you consider it an honor to advise him to be a Lawyer.
Thanks to Melany Morris of the Birmingham Law School (UK) for the heads up on the commandments.
Tolerate the other’s truth as much as you want your truth to be tolerated.
Good advice. Now think about it, in light of your own actions.
Here’s a question to you guys:
LawIsCool: Oratio Ultima Regem is a a statement referring to the Divine Right of Kings, as justified by the following:
The example of King Solomon is classically used when citing Daniel in conjunction with 1 Kings 3:9 to demonstrate the inspiration afforded to the regent. Romans instructs obedience to the rulers with submission and quietness, and Peter suggests that doing so is part of one’s duty. Titus is used to convey that Christians must live in this world, and are not of it.
However, the concept is further used to describe fellowship with others in Christ, but also the notion of secularism. This ideology was unique in that the Church emerged under a hostile political entity; the Jewish tradition that preceded it practiced de facto secularism due to circumstance, resulting in their dominion subject to Roman rule, but maintained the integration of a theocracy in the abstract form.
When the rulers of Europe themselves became Christian, the notion of obeying the ruler was still retained regardless. Thus the endorsement of the Church of Constnatine to Charlemagne. This was perhaps best personified by Louis XIV, who said, “L’État, c’est moi.” However, he also stated “”Je m’en vais, mais l’État demeurera toujours,” indicating the applicability to subsequent monarchs as well. Aquinas himself said a regent could only be disposed of if he was himself an illegitimate claimant to the throne, i.e. Richard III. However, later Christian thought expounded on this further to allow protest when the throne acted in a fashion that was ultra vires. In general, however, the Divine Right of Kings established that good Christians obeyed the King, or effectually, obeyed the law. This was confirmed in the Anglican church under the Caroline divines. James I wrote the Trew Law of Free Monarchies in response to Puritanism and stated,
However, Catholics responded to James I through Francisco Suárez in Defensio catholicae fidei contra anglicanae sectae errores. But this can be perceived as more of a defense of the legitimacy of monarchs approved by the Pope over the Church of England because Suárez himself indicates in Tractatus de legibus ac deo legislatore that legislative power is derived from God. He does however modify the theory to more of a social contract with the subjects, similar to Hobbes, Lockeand and Rousseau that followed, and therefore can be considered as part of the impetus behind classic liberalism and the formation of democracy. The proposal of a social contract later provided the justification of the Continental Army to established their independence from the Crown.
We would not normally engage in abstract theological posturing, but we assume some relevance to the law as outlined above. The concept also effectually in many ways outlines the differences between the U.S. and Canada, the latter who retain the monarch as the official head of state to this day.
We do hope you did not take this post too seriously and take offence.
Very compelling and thought-provoking read. I like the Lawyer’s commandments.