Mandatory Education in Civility!?

The Illinois Supreme Court adopted new rules in September effective September 29, 2005, requiring CLE (Continuing Legal Education) and instruction in civility to combat what Chief Justice Thomas referred to as lawyer conduct which degenerates "into a Rambo-style, win-at-all cost attitude by attorneys." Beginning in 2006 every new lawyer admitted to practice will be required to complete a Basic Skills Course, totaling at least 15 hours of instruction. For the rest of us uncivilized attorneys if your last name begins with A - M you will have to complete 20 hours of CLE between July 1, 2006 and July 1, 2008 and 24 hours by July 1 every even year thereafter. If your last name begins with N - Z you will have to complete 20 hours of CLE between July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2009 and 24 hours by July 1 of every odd year thereafter. Part of that CLE must include training in civility.

The new rules further established a permanent Commission on Professionalism making Illinois only the 13th state to have such a commission. "The Commission's creation reflects the Illinois Supreme Court's commitment to elevating the overall level of professionalism within the Illinois legal community, as well as to identifying and addressing the sources of incivility and acrimony within the profession." Chief Justice Thomas said. I am glad that one of the members selected by the court to serve on this committee which he announced earlier this week was Patrick Kinnally. Mr. Kinnally won the pro bono public service award this year in Kane County and is an excellent attorney who should help steer the course in civility with some civility.

The committee which drafted the rule changes was chaired by attorney David Rolewick who said, "These new rules signal a change in how attorneys are expected to deliver their services to the citizens of Illinois... The Court has also identified divisiveness and bias as characteristics that must be eliminated from the legal system of the state, providing our profession with an opportunity to be an example to the larger society rather than a reflection of it."

I strongly agree that our profession should serve as an example to the larger society, but despite media to the contrary, I believe we do that. I see attorneys helping the poor and those in need on a daily basis and they do it simply because they care and want to make a difference. These men and women may not be heralded by the press but they are making justice a reality for many in need. Divisiveness and bias are certainly not characteristic of their service. Rather like good Samaritan these men and women are helping individuals regardless of race, sex, national origin or any other status. In ancient Israel it was thought that there was no such thing as a good Samaritan because of racial and religious bias and in modern Illinois there is apparently no such thing as a good lawyer. Rather we are like the joke of the boy who asked his father at the cemetery why they buried two people in the same grave. "What do you mean?" asked the father. That tombstone reads, "Herein lies a lawyer and an honest man."

I think CLE and civility are good and I know we can do better, but rather than deplore the actions of a few I prefer to commend the actions of many who are carrying out what our legislators sought to encourage when adopting our Good Samaritan Act, 745 ILCS 49/1 et. seq. to encourage the "generous and compassionate acts" of our citizens "who volunteer their time and talents to help others." Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are doing that in fact Administer Justice exist for that purpose. We desire to show mercy and compassion to those in need. Regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or other differences our calling is caring. We believe the vast majority of attorneys share that calling and appreciate the volunteer attorneys who sacrificially serve others in need. We hope you will join us in our continuing efforts to administer justice for all!

Thankful for a Lawyer?!

Thanksgiving Tribute to a Lawyer. That ought to get anyone's attention. How can you be thankful for a lawyer. Honestly I'm very thankful for the 49 attorneys who volunteer at Administer Justice and I'm not alone: "Thank you for empowering me to try to help myself. The quality, caring and kindness shown me was superior" "If I had money I would donate to help the funding of Administer Justice. This organization could mean a second chance for a lot of people." Those are but some of the recent comments received from individuals our attorneys have assisted. But I'm thankful for another attorney who asked a question, the answer to which has made a great difference in my life and in the life of many others.

The story of that lawyer is found in Luke 10:25-37. We know the story as the story of the Good Samaritan, but have you ever really given thought to what the story means? The Good Samaritan has become a cultural icon and we even have laws called Good Samaritan Laws, 745 ILCS 49/1 named after this story to encourage the "generous and compassionate acts" of our citizens "who volunteer their time and talents to help others." But why was the Samaritan Good? What was the point of the story?

We are told that on one occasion a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. Why was he testing Jesus? This isn't one of the many traps that the Pharisees and lawyers tried to set for Jesus, rather this man seems to genuinely want answers. We read about the teachers of the law frequently and it is likely that this man had been following Jesus for some time and had heard him speak. Like many lawyers he was very inquisitive and wanted to press Jesus so he asked, "Teacher (this is a good indication he was trying to learn and referred to Jesus with the respectful phrase Rabbi or teacher) what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Let's give the lawyer some credit for asking a great question. Jesus, however, knew this was not what was really bothering the lawyer. Lawyers love to set up questions with introductory questions and this lawyer was no different. So Jesus simply asked the lawyer what he thought. The lawyer is agreeing with statements made by Jesus on another occasion as reflected in Matthew and Mark where the lawyer was likely present - "To love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus replies simply, "Do this and you will live." But Jesus knew this was not what was bothering the lawyer which is why we read the lawyer wanted to justify himself and so here was the real question - "And who is my neighbor?"

In Jesus time there were divisions not unlike today between rich and poor, educated and un-educated, Jew and Samaritan. The lawyer would have been at the top of the societal pyramid much like today. This lawyer was undoubtedly disturbed by many of the teachings of Jesus and was not certain he had heard him correctly - did you really say I should love those who hate me and do good to those who persecute me? I think that was what was going on inside the lawyers head. Jesus confirms this by turning the lawyers preconceived notions upside down.

Jesus could have told a story of a good Jew who saved an injured Samaritan confirming the superiority of the Jewish lawyer but instead he stripped all external claims to goodness away and proved that only the internal heart mattered. To do that he chose two highly respected individuals - one by selection, a priest, and one by birth, a levite. Both these Jewish religious leaders would be highly regarded and yet both ignore an injured brother in need.

Instead Jesus chooses a Samaritan to take pity on the man. Ripping his own clothes to make bandages, using his own wine and oil to tend to the wounds the Samaritan places the man on his donkey and walks the narrow, treachorous path to an innkeeper where he uses his own money to pay for the care of the injured man and guarantees future payment as well.

The Jewish Lawyer would have been shocked. To him, and all Jews, there was no such thing as a good Samaritan. The best comparison to today would be the joke of the boy at the cemetary who asked his father why they buried two people in a single grave. What do you mean? he asked. That tombstone over there says 'Herein lies a lawyer and an honest man.' An honest lawyer would be as axiomatic as a good Samaritan. And yet the Samaritan not only volunteered his time, he volunteered his resources and his money without a second thought to the very real likelihood that the injured Jew may never appreciate the help. Jews and Samaritans typically avoided each other which is why the woman at the well was so suspicious of Jesus in John 4. There were religious, racial and ethnic differences which most people on both sides could not see past. But the man in Jesus parable saw only another person in need. He looked at none of the externals to serve as an excuse not to serve, he saw a person in need.

The message was not lost on the lawyer who would have been wrapped in many external trappings that set him apart from others. He would have understood the message of the importance not of a birthright, a position, or any external merit but that what mattered was the heart. Jesus turned the parable back on the lawyer and asked him which was the neighbor. The lawyer understood and he said, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus final comment is a ringing statement of what it means to show true mercy and compassion to one another. "Go and do likewise." I am so grateful for the men and women who volunteer their time and talents to help others. They understand what it means to serve the least of these. They understand and serve, not because of any prestige or merit of their own but because they care about the men and women in our community who are in need of a good Samaritan. Thank You and have a blessed Thanksgiving.