Self-interest always clouds one's view . . . it is all a matter of perspective.

A Little Legal History
Posted by Mike Madison

Following my account of the Prawsblawg dialogue on the role of Ph.D.'s in interdisciplinary scholarship, a colleague of mine, far wiser than I, pointed me to Thomas F. Bergin, The Law Teacher: A Man Divided Against Himself, 54 Va. L. Rev. 637 (1968). The law teaching profession has trod this ground before, and long ago.

Professor Bergin wrote:

By compelling true academics, or those who have the potential for serious scholarship, to play out a Hessian-trainer role, and by compelling highly skilled Hessian-trainers to make believe they are legal scholars, the disease dilutes both scholarship and Hessian training to the advantages of neither. That this compulsion (I am using the word in as many senses as I lawfully may) exists in today%u2019s law schools seems to me plain upon inspection; for there is no fact more visible in our law schools than that teachers with extraordinary scholarly skills are being made to "pay for their keep" by rule preaching and case parsing. The time they must give over to preparation for the Hessian-trainer roles makes it literally impossible to produce serious works of scholarship. (at 645)
[ Conglomerate Blog: A Little Legal History ]

My comment (not posted elsewhere):

It is inherently funny to hear credential holders question the value of their credentials. In a micro economic perspective it is in no ones individual self-interest to challenge the system while in the macro-economic perspective it dilutes the value of the credential itself.

I like the quote you reference in response to the post on interdisciplinary study.

I have remarked in one of my ranting letters to the General Counsel of the Oregon State Bar that there might be a value to having someone outside the bar perpetually sticking their nose in the business of the bar and their efforts to assure that lawyers act in the "public interest" consistent with the statutorily recognized voluntary/involuntary association.

But who would take a law school flunky's opinion seriously anyway? Not the bar? I can't even compel anyone to cough up attorney fees if I should win any case on behalf of myself or even where I can manage to obtain standing in a matter that matches the equivalent of a public interest case. I would contrast this with the power of a judge to double the award of attorney fees to my old civil liberties professor because he might advance a cause on behalf of a class of folks subject to invidious discrimination. But what about my civil liberty to be free from the power of the ABA to serve to filert out those folks who can or cannot take the bar exam.

I suffer 1,200 to 2,000 dollars each and every workday in lost opportunity as a consequence of Hessian-trainers that self-proclaim themselves as acting in the public interest.

Early in law school I had a discussion with a fellow student on the notion of monopolies and found myself face-to-face with a clown that believed that monopoly is good. I suppose it all depends on one's perspective.

Would Judge Posner's writings be less persuasive if he did not carry the title of lawyer? Would Thorsten Veblen's writings (an extreme kind of interdisciplinary writer) carry any more weight if he carried the title of of lawyer?

Should I reference points about religious organizations that become dependant upon political support for their very survival?

http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/09/a_little_legal_.html

UPDATE: My posted comment:

If a lawyer confined their claim to expertise to that of process, sort of like expounding upon the conceptual merits of the scientific method, then they would crawl back into their little hole rather than use (bootstrap) their knowledge of process to hammer other areas of study.

PDXNAG BlogNote on Hessian Trainer note in: Conglomerate Blog: A Little Legal History

Is there any lawyer that would argue that process is [NOT (oops)] more significant to results and actual practice, practice for personal gain, than any other consideration?

Judge Posner is the only writer that I presently respect for writing on the interplay of economics and law. The rest of the folks are like clumsy resource allocation minions in the economics department of the old USSR but wearing the hat of lawyer instead; it has become that absurd, it is more absurd than . . . (I am at a loss for finding something comparable).