Uncivil Litigation

Joytown was a nice place to live. Everyone got on well with each other. People respected each other. People looked out for each other. People cared for each other.

One day a lawyer moved to Joytown. He soon noticed that one of the two houses across the road from his house had trees growing in its garden. So he called on the person living next door to the house with trees and convinced the person that the trees that were being allowed to grow amounted to ‘an attack’ on his ‘community rights’. At first the man didn’t seem so sure, but over time the lawyer deftly explained to him how, according to his interpretation of the law, his neighbour (with whom he’d been friends for many years) was actually abusing him and should be made to pay for his wilful act of un-community-minded abuse. The lawyer seemed so caring and concerned about his ‘community rights’ that the man soon began to perceive his neighbour in a different way. He now saw his erstwhile friend in a ‘legal light’ and so he agreed to issuing proceedings against him for his ‘abuse’.

At about this time another lawyer moved into the town that was called Joytown. He’d heard that the first lawyer had arrived, and as often happens, where one goes, many others follow. Now, when the startled neighbour of the man who had agreed to issue proceeding against him received the letter from his one-time friend (which demanded $10,000 dollars in compensation for his ‘abusive action’ under the threat of legal proceedings) he sought out the newer of the two lawyers immediately. And, as you might have expected, the newer of the two lawyers was very pleased to see him. He informed the man that he would be happy to defend him against his old friend, for a ‘small fee’. And so, in the ‘time honoured’ (although honour probably doesn’t have very much to do with it) tradition of uncivil litigation according to the protocols of law, the defending lawyer responded to the threatening lawyer, by letter, on behalf of his client (which cost the neighbour a significant amount of money for the short letter to be produced and sent on his behalf). This in turn meant that, according to the protocols of law, the threatening lawyer had to respond to the defending lawyer, on behalf of his client, for a ‘small fee’ of course (which actually was really quite large). And the situation carried on like this for a year-and-a-half.

Every few days a letter was sent (for a ‘small fee’) by one lawyer to the other (‘on behalf’ of his client) which (remember) according to the protocols of law required a response (also at the cost of a ‘small fee’). And these ‘small fees' spiralled upward and upward becoming larger and larger. Very soon the two lawyers were able to afford to move into bigger houses and work from bigger offices. The two neighbours however were becoming poorer and poorer.

Eventually ‘the case’ reached its conclusion when the litigants (who had once been friends) ‘agreed to settle’ out of court. (Which is what both of the lawyers had secretly expected would happen at the outset of the situation.) Feigning emotion each lawyer ‘comforted' his client and advised them that it was, in their ‘considered opinion, the best thing to do’. So ‘settle’ the one-time friends did - at great cost to themselves! And as it turned out neither litigant won in reality. The only beneficiaries were the lawyers.

Now, while this case had been going on, never ones to miss opportunities, the two lawyers had been promoting their services to the rest of the town in various ways. This included placing eye-catching adverts in the local newspaper and skilfully crafted television and radio advertising too (people 'in the know' call this badvertising). In essence each advert (or badvert) was focussed on encouraging their potential clients to search high-and-low for potential reasons to sue their neighbours. Joytown was fast becoming a sad town. The uncivil litigation that was taking place was tearing the heart out of the community. No one trusted anyone any more. Friends were no longer friends. People were poorer in all kinds of ways. And just as before, the only people that were really benefiting from the debacle were the lawyers.

Fortunately, one day an Honest Lawyer (and you may be surprised to know that there are in fact many of those) was passing through the town on holiday. Being trained in the affairs of law he soon noticed what problems all the uncivil litigation was causing - and who was the cause of it! So being a good and honest man, and a credit of his profession, at his own expense and out of the goodness of his heart he contacted the Senior Attorney in the land and the highest ranking Government Official and together they agreed to do whatever was necessary for the poor people of the town to ensure that this uncivil litigation would no longer take place. The Honest Lawyer along with the Senior Attorney and Government Official knew that it would indeed be a great task to accomplish; to unravel, sometimes complex points of law, in order to extract the spirit of the law from the dead letter of the law, but, being decent and honest people they believed that it would be worth it in the long run for lots of reasons, not least being for the overall good of the community and (importantly) to restore faith in the legal system amongst the people. It was now very plain for all to see that when people become lawyers, first and foremost as a means of making a lot of money, then this can become something of a dangerous situation, whereas, when people enter into the profession of law first and foremost to uphold justice (like the Honest Lawyer) then they have the makings of very good lawyers indeed.

Together, over time, diligently (because they knew it was the right thing to do) the Honest Lawyer, The Senior Attorney and the Government Official set right the wrongs that were inherent in the legal system. The people expressed their gratitude to them in a most heartfelt way and the joy returned to Joytown once again.

(c) Kerin Webb 2006-2010.

Here's an article about a wise judge who is now seeking to put an end to the problems addressed in this article.  And here's a link to a Wikipedia page about the movie called A Civil Action, starring John Travolta, which is based on actual events concerning a real-life lawyer called Jan Schlichtmann.  Mr Schlictmann is a man possessing strong moral values who was prepared to stand up against the 'system' in a 'David and Goliath' battle, to protect the vulnerable, at considerable cost to himself. We need more lawyers like Jan Schlictmann.