Monday, January 19, 2015
Friday, December 19, 2014
(thanks to wallyconger.com)
I've always admired "Duke" (or Hunter S Thompson as he's known in the mundane world). For anyone who could consume the amount of drugs he did and yet write as brilliantly as he could must be professional.
I have written a post for the legal profession section of Jotwell on Nick Robinson's paper, When Lawyers Don’t Get All the Profits: Non-Lawyer Ownership of Legal Services, Access, and Professionalism (Harvard Law School Program Legal Profession Research Paper No. 2014-20) available at SSRN.
He raises some serious questions during his comparison of non-lawyer ownership in three countries: UK, Australia, and the US. I've tried to give this a sociological gloss in my review. It's a good paper and should be read widely.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
(thanks to kardsunlimited)
Years ago, as a naive graduate student at Warwick, I was invited to a conference on lawyers, doctors and others at Oxford. Philip Lewis organised it. What I loved about the conference was that all my heroes in the sociology of the professions and lawyers were there--Eliot Freidson, Terry Johnson, Marc Galanter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Maureen Cain, plus more. These were the people whose work I was reading and using to guide my own research.
The resulting book was published in 1983 and became an essential text for anybody researching in the field of professions. It still is an essential text, losing none of its force and acuity. Unfortunately the book went out of print.
But I'm glad to say that The Sociology of Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and Others, edited by Robert Dingwall and Philip Lewis has been reissued by Quid Pro Books. The publisher has commissioned a new foreword to this edition by Sida Liu of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sida Liu writes:
“it is a rare effort to fully compare the two classic cases of doctors and lawyers in the professions literature. The contributors of the book include a number of prominent authors on the professions in Britain and the United States. Until today, it remains a vitally important volume for scholars and students interested in various aspects of professional life...Looking back one must be struck by the extent to which theorists of professions and empirical researchers on doctors and lawyers from both the UK and US fully engage with one another throughout the book.”I'm glad to see this book back. It has so much to tell us. I was thinking about it as I addressed a graduating class of law students today at UCD. It would have been great to have been able to give each of them a copy.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
I was asked to speak at a roundtable on lawyers and careers at StudentSlingshot. The event was arranged by the indefatigable Patrick Guiney of UCD Smurfit Business School. It brought students from all around Ireland to Dublin Castle to meet and talk with entrepreneurs, techies, business people and, of course, lawyers.
The invitation said clearly "Dress casual". So guess who were the only people wearing business suits? Yes, the lawyers. Both men and women.
Given that there were many tech people at the StudentSlingshot--after all both Google and Facebook have their European headquarters here--I thought it would be useful for the students to know something about the influence of technology in law and the role played by legal tech startups. (By the way I wasn't wearing a suit.) During my talk I said something about the use of boilerplate documents by law firms (implicitly referring to Gulati's work on pari passu).
A managing partner of a sizeable Dublin law firm, sitting next to me, exploded. They never used such things and it was tantamount to heresy to suggest otherwise. I referred to research on this saying that bespoke legal work is very expensive and not all clients need it. She refused to accept this.
A barrister then talked about becoming a barrister in Dublin. I was reminded of the UK situation years ago. He said it was normal for an aspiring barrister to wait years before earning any money, let alone a living wage.
I have been travelling in a time machine here and I can begin to understand why the Troika demanded changes to the profession and its regulation. It creates too many barriers. I hope the legal services reformation bill passes into law soon. The legal profession needs to come into the 21st century.
The evening was great fun though.
Monday, October 27, 2014
|(Thanks to Dilbert.com)|
The result is of course equivalent to how long is that string? As long or as short as you'd like. This type of approach doesn't get you anywhere.
What is particularly noticeable to anyone who studies lawyers, legal professions and professions in general is Goldsmith's singular lack mention of the types of conditions under which lawyers and professionals work. The organisation whether it be law firm or hospital is now crucial to understanding the nature of professional life and work.
Goldsmith talks about "the lawyer" in the abstract as a myth almost rather than someone engaged in expert labour within an organisational setting. Even that most singular of legal professions, the barrister, is really a creature of the organisation.
The Lawyer today published a report on the UK top 200 law firms with a special section on the top ten chambers. They are listed by chambers earnings and revenue per barristers within each chambers, not by single barristers.
Being a lawyer is another occupation like most. Goldsmith's thinking is indicative of a desire for a "golden age" of lawyering, which probably never existed--only in misty dreams. He alludes to but tries to avoid the idea that lawyers are no longer exclusive.
Machines, paralegals, technicians, accountants, consultants even are all engaged in the "practice" of law these days. They may not call themselves lawyers but they do law. The new legal services markets now emerging are signs that the distinctiveness of the lawyer is being eroded.
It might mean that lawyers' skills are redundant. I think this unlikely. Or it could mean that lawyers' skills are inadequate to the demands of today's business and legal markets. If they are inadequate then others invade your turf and take your work. So it's up to the profession(s) and the academy to (re)produce lawyers/professionals fit for the modern age. And don't worry about definitions. Hardly anyone cares.
|(Thanks to Dilbert.com)|
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
(For anyone who has trouble playing the above, just click on this link)
A good friend of mine, Jon Harman, made this video a year ago. I love it. I was reminded of it after reading about President Obama's new BRAIN Initiative.
Friday, September 26, 2014
This is my new academic home. But this isn't a post about it but rather what we do in universities. It is the concatenation of several events over the past few weeks. They are my immersion into a new law school, a conversation with a director of a public affairs think tank, and reading some articles about the role of university disciplines. And finally, visiting an art exhibition held in the science department at UCD.
I have always been a hybrid. I'm trained in both law and sociology and and I am happy to straddle the boundary between them. This doesn't always fit in with the ways universities like to organise themselves. That is done according to disciplines or subjects so we can have schools and departments. And, when, as in the UK, one has reviews like the Research Excellence Framework (REF), disciplinary boundaries become sharp indeed. Funds, PhD students, research fellowships are jealously guarded and ring fenced.
But is this the best way for us to educate and to do research? Administrative convenience is no reason for continuing this state of affairs. It is by breaking boundaries we discover new ideas and ways of formulating them. Law is a good example of this. For years law has followed a settled path of teaching "core" subjects. It has become habituated to it. It exists in its own bubble. Yet from all around are voices talking about commodification of law, the globalisation of law, and law as an offshoot of behavioural economics, for example. None of the core courses take account of these.
Just recently there has been a mini-revolution in the teaching of university economics. Students have clamoured for a more realistic type of economics, one that recognises its failure in the recession. Oxford and many other institutions are now putting forward a new curriculum. It isn't exactly May 1968 all over again, but there has been change. Unfortunately, law has not been so visited. Even the Legal Education and Training Review in the UK seemed empty of student contributions.
Terry Eagleton wrote that he was worried that with the commercialisation of higher education the humanities could suffer, even be eradicated from the university, which would result in their death. He's right. If we take the commercial route--let's have all our law graduates "practice ready"--we will impoverish our students' education. However, I'm not sure that we do much better right now. In Europe, as opposed to the US, law is posed as a liberal education. Yet much of what students learn is technocratic and rule-based. I have difficulty in characterising this as liberal education.
But with our disciplinary boundaries, it's difficult to achieve a more cohesive and blended education for students. Jonathan Wolff argues for scholarship that is more confusing and more exciting, which can be done by blurring boundaries. Taking law as my case (and forgetting Eagleton's comment "real men study law"), we can see all sorts of interesting things happening. One that appeals very much to me is the input of design into law. Margaret Hagan's work in the use of design to improve accessibility to law by users but why not students too? (See this wonderful page on beauty and law.) I will go further. I'm involved in Law Without Walls and one of our best student projects was one that Margaret was involved in called Traffick Junction. Go look. It's inspiring.
If we want to give our students a truly liberal law education then we must incorporate other subjects and approaches. We will enrich our cognitive capacities, expand our thought processes, and make learning (and research) more enjoyable and potentially more useful for society. It is by embracing this interdisciplinarity that we become imaginative and creative. Which leads me to the conversation with the think tank director. He talked of how he had to deal with disciplines by stealth because empires were at stake. It would take time, but one way of getting there was by what he called the "co-production of knowledge". By crossing boundaries, by working with students, by using social media, we take knowledge out of the silo and place it in the community where it belongs.
I hope we will achieve some of this here.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
From September 2014 I'm taking up a new position at the UCD Sutherland School of Law as the McCann FitzGerald Professor of International Law and Business. I've been an external examiner at UCD for the past three years and have got to know and like the people there.
The position is everything I could imagine focussing on globalization, lawyers, law firms, international business, all with a sociological twist. I will be running a joint MSc in international law and business with the UCD School of Business. UCD will be joining Law Without Walls as well this year.
And, of course, Ireland is about to introduce its new legal services regulatory structure which I can't miss. (For more on this see Maeve Hosier's new book, The Regulation of the Legal Profession in Ireland, Quid Pro Books).
UCD has opened a new law building this year which is beautiful and is one of the best I've seen.
It reminds me of my home in London with its open spaces and great use of glass. It's a convivial space.
I won't be severing all my ties with London (pace Dr Johnson). University College London has made me an Honorary Professor of Law. And I shall be a Visiting Professor of Law and Sociology at the University of Westminster. I will also continue to be a member of the Research Strategy Group at the Legal Services Board.
In a way, it's a return to my roots.
PS. The gym at UCD has kettlebells!
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
I gave my paper on "Are Machines Ethical?" which was based on this slide. It's a work in development which will ultimately result in a paper.
Paul Maharg of Australian National University blogged on the session that included my paper. He's taken the topic in an interesting direction, even to the extent of quoting from his friend's, Peter McCarey, poem. I'll let you read it at his post here.