{"title":"无天堂可回——评罗素·g·皮尔斯和伊莱·沃尔德《律师治愈公民文化的义务:面对法律实践中不文明行为的折磨》","authors":"Kenneth S. Gallant","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1852857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This piece responds to Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law (presented at the 2011 Altheimer Symposium, UALR-Bowen School of Law). It agrees with their view that arguments from \"relational self-interest\" (viewing self interest as necessarily connected to the interests of others) can address issues of incivility in the American politics and the practice of law in ways that other arguments cannot. It disagrees with them on a few specific points: 1. The so-called Ordeal of Incivility in American politics, culture and law practice is not particularly a new thing; 2. Claims that society as a whole used to be more civil ignore that the state of society at these earlier times excluded large segments of society from civic participation; 3.Claims that the practice of law has recently become less civil ignore the fact that most of the tools of incivility (except discovery abuse) are old--but this piece admits that the fragmentation of specialties such as torts and criminal law into plaintiff (or prosecution) and defense bars does make seeing both sides of issues much more difficult, and 4.any definition of civility in the practice of law must allow for vigorous cross-examination and closing argument (which would be uncivil if done outside of the courtroom context, and even in that context appear uncivil to non-lawyers) and must allow litigators to argue for legal positions that many people in society might consider uncivil and disruptive.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Paradise to Regain: Comments on Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth S. Gallant\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1852857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This piece responds to Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law (presented at the 2011 Altheimer Symposium, UALR-Bowen School of Law). It agrees with their view that arguments from \\\"relational self-interest\\\" (viewing self interest as necessarily connected to the interests of others) can address issues of incivility in the American politics and the practice of law in ways that other arguments cannot. It disagrees with them on a few specific points: 1. The so-called Ordeal of Incivility in American politics, culture and law practice is not particularly a new thing; 2. Claims that society as a whole used to be more civil ignore that the state of society at these earlier times excluded large segments of society from civic participation; 3.Claims that the practice of law has recently become less civil ignore the fact that most of the tools of incivility (except discovery abuse) are old--but this piece admits that the fragmentation of specialties such as torts and criminal law into plaintiff (or prosecution) and defense bars does make seeing both sides of issues much more difficult, and 4.any definition of civility in the practice of law must allow for vigorous cross-examination and closing argument (which would be uncivil if done outside of the courtroom context, and even in that context appear uncivil to non-lawyers) and must allow litigators to argue for legal positions that many people in society might consider uncivil and disruptive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":144785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1852857\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1852857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
这篇文章是对Russell G. Pearce和Eli Wald的《律师治愈公民文化的义务:面对法律实践中不文明的折磨》(2011年Altheimer研讨会,UALR-Bowen法学院)的回应。它同意他们的观点,即从“关系自身利益”(将自身利益视为与他人利益必然联系在一起)出发的论点可以以其他论点无法做到的方式解决美国政治和法律实践中的不文明问题。它在几个具体问题上与他们不一致:美国政治、文化和法律实践中所谓的“不文明的折磨”并不是什么新鲜事;2. 认为社会作为一个整体曾经更加文明的说法忽略了一个事实,即早期的社会状况将大部分社会群体排除在公民参与之外;3.声称法律实践最近变得不那么文明的说法忽视了这样一个事实,即大多数不文明的工具(除了证据开示滥用)都是旧的——但这篇文章承认,侵权和刑法等专业的分裂,分为原告(或起诉)和辩护,确实使看到问题的双方变得更加困难。在法律实践中,任何对文明的定义都必须允许有力的交叉询问和结案辩论(如果在法庭之外进行,这将是不文明的,即使在这种情况下,对非律师来说也是不文明的),必须允许诉讼律师为社会上许多人可能认为不文明和破坏性的法律立场进行辩论。
No Paradise to Regain: Comments on Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law
This piece responds to Russell G. Pearce and Eli Wald, The Obligation of Lawyers to Heal Civic Culture: Confronting the Ordeal of Incivility in the Practice of Law (presented at the 2011 Altheimer Symposium, UALR-Bowen School of Law). It agrees with their view that arguments from "relational self-interest" (viewing self interest as necessarily connected to the interests of others) can address issues of incivility in the American politics and the practice of law in ways that other arguments cannot. It disagrees with them on a few specific points: 1. The so-called Ordeal of Incivility in American politics, culture and law practice is not particularly a new thing; 2. Claims that society as a whole used to be more civil ignore that the state of society at these earlier times excluded large segments of society from civic participation; 3.Claims that the practice of law has recently become less civil ignore the fact that most of the tools of incivility (except discovery abuse) are old--but this piece admits that the fragmentation of specialties such as torts and criminal law into plaintiff (or prosecution) and defense bars does make seeing both sides of issues much more difficult, and 4.any definition of civility in the practice of law must allow for vigorous cross-examination and closing argument (which would be uncivil if done outside of the courtroom context, and even in that context appear uncivil to non-lawyers) and must allow litigators to argue for legal positions that many people in society might consider uncivil and disruptive.