All right, I’m prejudiced: before What’s Right with Lawyers went to print, Harrison Sheppard sent me a complimentary copy and asked for my comments.
|
Although I wasn’t able to offer anything to improve on the technique or format of this gem, he graciously characterizes my passivity as the “contribution of [a] critical reader” in his acknowledgements. This man’s gallantry is boundless.

In this case, my bias is justified; this little book works like a charm. Depending on whether you start with the volume rightside up or upside down (this enigmatic reference will make immediate sense with the book in hand), you will embark on a carefully selected literary description of What’s Right with Lawyers, or—pandering to what many say is the current majority view of the profession—What’s Wrong with Lawyers. The white book or the red book, take your pick.

Sheppard, a quintessential master of the art of lawyering, passionately believes that lawyers are the frontline guardians of our most precious rights and freedoms. He believes that the current standard of law practice risks—at least in one respect—knocking the profession off course. Perhaps more accurately, he believes that the common, contemporary legal approach to problem solving overlooks a core avenue of opportunity.

In Sheppard’s view, a lawyer can address a legal situation in one of two ways. Counsel can adopt a Rambo-like, gun-for-hire approach (the red side) and, with time sheets blazing and creativity flowing out of control, transform a basic set of legal colored blocks into a Rubik’s Cube that will require hours of billable time to resolve. Or, harkening back to the genesis of the profession, counsel can assume the more multi-faceted mantle of the “lawyer-statesman” (the white side). In choosing this road, Sheppard asserts,

The best lawyers habitually seek to understand and help resolve the client’s situation, not just fight a ‘case.’ They

understand that the legal aspect of their client’s problem may not be its most important dimension... and that empathy toward all parties in a dispute is often indispensable in achieving an acceptable settlement.

On paper, the better method seems clear, but in practice, it is more elusive. Sheppard’s work implicitly forces the reader to address the question: why did I become a lawyer in the first place? On a slow day, you can read this entire volume of short essays in half an hour—including the brief interval needed to flip it over from white side to red side. Brevity is part of its beauty. In a mere twenty-eight pages, Sheppard pinpoints many of the perceived ills of the legal profession (which are mostly contemporary), and many of the unchallenged virtues (which are, unsettlingly, mostly historic). Each piece addresses the practice of law in an interesting and thought-provoking manner, and each is worth revisiting. The accompanying illustrations by Craig Frazier also merit pondering. It is an altogether excellent package.

As I reviewed this book, I wondered how it might be best put to use. Obviously, I think attorneys should read it from time to time to keep their practices in perspective, but on reflection, I thought of an even more effective use: give a copy to your client. When standing on the threshold of litigation, it is often the client who wants Rambo with the blazing guns to protect whatever interests he or she perceives to be at stake. Those stakes, however, are frequently defined by the client’s sense of insult or outrage at having been sued in the first place. Self-righteousness abounds, and an immediate palliative is needed. Rather than whipping out a stinging set of interrogatories or filing a desultory demurrer, step back, take a breath, and let your client see what a good lawyer you really are: hand over What’s Right with Lawyers, with the white side facing up.

Justice James L Warren currently serves as the law & motion judge of the San Francisco Superior Court He also teaches and lectures on the topic of advanced litigation techniques.