Editorial
Front Page - Friday, January 22, 2010
Under Analysis
Fearless predictions for the new decade, whenever it starts
Mark Levison
It is been a contentious week here in the Levison towers. The argument that has raged is not what one would expect for this time of year. That’s not entirely true; there have been some discussions about NFL playoffs and college basketball, especially among the new associates. But the most contentious argument has been about the new year.
This argument actually started some 11 years ago, in 1999. The discussion originated at that time, renewed this year — is 2010 the start of a new decade or end of the last one? This type of seemingly meaningless debate goes to the very heart and soul of the law. It is an argument without an answer, winners or relevance to most folks. Perhaps that is the very reason law people enjoy it so.
Whether it’s the end of the decade or the beginning of one, I’m taking this opportunity to make my fearless predictions for the next 10 years. Faithful readers will recall my predictions made long ago, and the ones that have come true: the invention of the Internet, electric cars, and Rosie the robot-like cleaning devices. I also claimed a near hit in my prediction of the invention of the iPhone. Although my name for the device (portable phone music thingy or PorPhoMuGy) didn’t catch on, the device did.
Nonhumans will serve on juries.
Perhaps I’m fudging a little bit on this one. Sal Esposito of Boston is already scheduled to show up at a Massachusetts courthouse for jury duty on March 23. Sal is the cat living with Guy and Anna Esposito. Normally, one would expect an obvious mistake like this to be caught quickly. Sal was listed as a cat on the Esposito census form but earned a jury summons like other Massachusetts residents. When the Espositos explained the misunderstanding to the jury commissioner in an attempt to exempt the feline from service, their request was denied and Sal was directed to report as ordered.
I for one wouldn’t mind seeing pets on a jury, although I would most likely opt for dogs rather than cats. Cats are a bit finicky. If you make a point with the dog, you would know it immediately from the wagging tail. Jury consultants would become immediately obsolete.
Trial lawyers will be replaced by smart phones.
Electronic devices have already replaced checkout clerks, toll attendants, and even traffic cops. Within the next 10 years, expect them to make trial lawyers obsolete as well. Just last year, a jury verdict was overturned when jurors “tweeted” comments during and post deliberation. In most jurisdictions, juror use of smart phones and other electronic devices is prohibited. This is to keep jurors from doing independent research and bypassing the rules of evidence.
Imagine the cost savings however, if this prohibition were turned into a mandatory practice — make jurors figure out what really happened. Advocates could post blogs with evidence, and “tweet” inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Much like a correspondence course, the jurors would Sleuth the Truth (TM) and return a verdict. Judges could simultaneously preside over several cases as sequestration expenses would become a thing of the past. (Clearly this will present a problem with my earlier prediction; dogs lack of opposable thumbs and could never operate a Blackberry.)
Law schools will offer minor degrees in small engine repair.
Clearly this one is a leap of faith on my part, as law schools don’t currently offer minors at all. Changes are sure to come if the current extremely tight job market for lawyers persists.
My alma mater sent me a letter recently asking me to hire a new graduate. I’m always amused with correspondence from my law school. As a student who received no financial aid during law school, requests for money immediately go to the recycling bin. I opened this letter, however, and read the optimism in the line, “Despite the economy, we are convinced that good jobs exist or will exist in the near future.” The rest of the letter implored me to make such a job exist.
Law schools are extremely profitable to their universities. Unlike medical or engineering schools, law schools operate with a minimum of expensive equipment (unless you count law professors). Given the high demand for a law degree, tuition costs have exceeded inflation in most parts of the country. Some suggest that a responsible law school would limit enrollment rather than glut the profession it serves. Law schools counter that it is not their place to limit entry into the profession.
Being able to rebuild a lawnmower would certainly be a worthwhile skill for an unemployed new lawyer. In fact, there are days when a Briggs and Stratton engine seems much more manageable than my dockets.
©2010 Under Analysis, LLC. Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Spencer Farris is the founding partner of The S.E. Farris Law Firm in St Louis, Missouri. He only fixes lawnmowers on the weekends, and snowblowers during blizzards. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent c/o this paper or directly to the Levison Group via email at comments@levisongroup .com.
|
|