海角大神

鈥楲aw on Trial鈥�: Making a case for moral reflection in law practice

Like many institutions in American society, the legal profession faces a raft of challenges. The high cost of legal services, unequal access to representation, long delays in resolving disputes, ethical lapses, and the politicization of the judiciary have each been widely examined. But rarely has the role of lawyers been analyzed as comprehensively as in Shaun Ossei-Owusu鈥檚 鈥淟aw on Trial: An Unlikely Insider Reckons With Our Legal System.鈥�

The author is well qualified to tackle this subject. He grew up in poverty in the Bronx, received both a Ph.D. and a JD from the University of California, Berkeley, and worked for a major law firm and also as a public defender in several cities. Now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, he has seen the legal system from many angles.聽

Ossei-Owusu considers the phrase 鈥淓qual justice under law,鈥� chiseled into the facade of the United States Supreme Court, to be aspirational at best. His central point is that the practice of law 鈥� starting with law students and progressing to firms, prosecutors, municipal attorneys, and even public defenders 鈥� often reinforces and even magnifies systemic unfairness in the legal system. 聽

Law school is devoted to teaching students to think like lawyers. He writes, 鈥淧art of their training ... involves processing human problems into technical questions.鈥� But such thinking has a downside: It 鈥渃an strip away the sociopolitical, economic and moral factors that shape lawmaking and legal inequality.鈥� Students are rarely exposed to discussions of 鈥渢he role of special interest groups like police unions or race-baiting, tough on crime politicians.鈥澛�

Ossei-Owusu systematically (as one would expect from a law professor) walks readers through seven major courses that nearly all law students take, and makes clear how each of them 鈥渢reats emotional detachment like a professional imperative.鈥� He continues, 鈥淭hese conditions make it possible for blatant wrongs to become legally contestable or nonissues.鈥� Law schools 鈥渃onfer undue legitimacy on the American legal system in part by pushing questions about money, politics, power and history to the side.鈥澛� 聽

Many lawyers begin their careers working in big law firms, where both 鈥減rincipled and problematic work鈥� takes place. But in looking at the work such firms do in healthcare, environmental regulation, and workplace matters, he repeatedly points to the problematic aspects and finds little that is praiseworthy.

In healthcare, for example, hospital consolidations 鈥� a significant part of the mergers and acquisitions work at many law firms 鈥� often result in the closing of healthcare facilities, service reductions (like the closing of emergency departments and staffing cuts), and the elimination of community health programs. Often these consequences are most directly felt in rural and low-income urban areas where healthcare needs are especially acute. This does not happen because the attorneys intend harm. Rather, it occurs because 鈥渢hese lawyers created the legal frameworks that make these outcomes economically rational for their clients鈥� while overlooking or soft-pedaling the likely consequences. 鈥淭hese lawyers exist in professional ecosystems that reward technical competence while actively discouraging moral reflection,鈥澛燨ssei-Owusu writes.

He acknowledges that his political leanings fall to the left of center, but his analysis is evenhanded, clear, and accessible. This is a rigorously researched book that makes its points and聽places blame on the entire legal system 鈥� not simply on rogue actors. The system itself, he argues, bears responsibility for the inequities that are an unwelcome by-product of its operations. 聽 聽

For lawyers and those hoping to join the profession, 鈥淟aw on Trial鈥� should be required reading. Readers without a legal background will find helpful definitions and explanations. Ossei-Owusu鈥檚 writing is bright, easily grasped, and the analysis never flags. The author even injects some humor into the text.聽

In the end, this is a sweeping, broad-based indictment of the American legal system. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the scope of the problem he lays out, the solutions he proposes seem small-bore and, to his credit, it鈥檚 evident that the author would have preferred to have avoided the 鈥淲hat do we do about it?鈥� chapter. But the first step in solving problems is a clear diagnosis of the nature and extent of the challenge. This book is a superb and convincing step in that direction and deserves to be widely read.