“I’m a lawyer. I solve problems you never knew existed
with words you don’t understand.”
On the internet, you can buy a t-shirt bearing this indictment against lawyers. But is this allegation credible enough to be displayed to the public - or is it cringeworthy? Let’s pull it apart and see where we end up!
This is a true story. In the 1980s and 90s, a local real estate agent (call him Steve), owned a series of family restaurants in the small cities surrounding Grand Rapids, Michigan. Each restaurant had a PA system that re-broadcast local radio stations to Steve’s customers. One day, an ASCAP representative visited one of Steve’s restaurants, heard the radio station on the PA, and asked the manager if the establishment had a license to re-broadcast the music. The manager referred the ASCAP representative to Steve, who promptly told the representative to “pound sand.” Steve used his common sense to conclude that if he could listen to radio stations in his car or at home without charge, the patrons of his restaurants could do the same. So, this whole ASCAP business must be a scam. It was only after a series of ASCAP letters and the threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit (and finally consulting with an intellectual property rights attorney) that Steve settled with ASCAP for substantially more than what he could have paid for a license after ASCAP’s first contact. And ASCAP added a surcharge for Steve’s willful infringement plus interest.
Steve’s need to obtain an ASCAP license is something that he “never knew existed.” His common sense was wrong. He should have contacted an IP lawyer the minute that ASCAP approached him. So, the first part of the T-Shirt Indictment is correct: lawyers solve problems that their clients never knew existed. But instead of being a criticism of what lawyers do, this is a benefit. Good lawyers add value to the business deals that their clients initiate. How? First, by drafting contracts that clearly document the business understanding. Second, if problems develop after a contract is signed, by applying their analytical skills and legal knowledge to promptly resolve the problems to their clients’ benefit.
The second part of the T-Shirt Indictment is a closer call: that lawyers solve problems with words that their clients don’t understand. It’s true that many lawyers don’t see the wisdom in these words from Mark Twain: “I never write ‘metropolis’ for seven cents when I can write ‘city’ and get paid the same.” But many attorneys, including the author, strive to use plain English rather than wordy, unclear, pompous, and dull legal jargon. And the Michigan State Bar Journal (a monthly publication sent to each active Michigan lawyer) has published a plain-language column every month for the last 32 years. If your lawyer drafts a contract containing words that you don’t understand, you should ask him or her to justify the use of those words. Further, tell your lawyer that you expect this explanation at no extra charge, because lawyers have an ethical obligation to not only know the applicable law but also to write well. They shouldn’t charge you a fee to explain how they’ve met their ethical obligations.
So once pulled apart, this T-Shirt Indictment is mere blather. As Gertrude Stein would say, “there is no there there.” It may fit some lawyers, but it shouldn’t fit your lawyer!
This is a true story. In the 1980s and 90s, a local real estate agent (call him Steve), owned a series of family restaurants in the small cities surrounding Grand Rapids, Michigan. Each restaurant had a PA system that re-broadcast local radio stations to Steve’s customers. One day, an ASCAP representative visited one of Steve’s restaurants, heard the radio station on the PA, and asked the manager if the establishment had a license to re-broadcast the music. The manager referred the ASCAP representative to Steve, who promptly told the representative to “pound sand.” Steve used his common sense to conclude that if he could listen to radio stations in his car or at home without charge, the patrons of his restaurants could do the same. So, this whole ASCAP business must be a scam. It was only after a series of ASCAP letters and the threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit (and finally consulting with an intellectual property rights attorney) that Steve settled with ASCAP for substantially more than what he could have paid for a license after ASCAP’s first contact. And ASCAP added a surcharge for Steve’s willful infringement plus interest.
Steve’s need to obtain an ASCAP license is something that he “never knew existed.” His common sense was wrong. He should have contacted an IP lawyer the minute that ASCAP approached him. So, the first part of the T-Shirt Indictment is correct: lawyers solve problems that their clients never knew existed. But instead of being a criticism of what lawyers do, this is a benefit. Good lawyers add value to the business deals that their clients initiate. How? First, by drafting contracts that clearly document the business understanding. Second, if problems develop after a contract is signed, by applying their analytical skills and legal knowledge to promptly resolve the problems to their clients’ benefit.
The second part of the T-Shirt Indictment is a closer call: that lawyers solve problems with words that their clients don’t understand. It’s true that many lawyers don’t see the wisdom in these words from Mark Twain: “I never write ‘metropolis’ for seven cents when I can write ‘city’ and get paid the same.” But many attorneys, including the author, strive to use plain English rather than wordy, unclear, pompous, and dull legal jargon. And the Michigan State Bar Journal (a monthly publication sent to each active Michigan lawyer) has published a plain-language column every month for the last 32 years. If your lawyer drafts a contract containing words that you don’t understand, you should ask him or her to justify the use of those words. Further, tell your lawyer that you expect this explanation at no extra charge, because lawyers have an ethical obligation to not only know the applicable law but also to write well. They shouldn’t charge you a fee to explain how they’ve met their ethical obligations.
So once pulled apart, this T-Shirt Indictment is mere blather. As Gertrude Stein would say, “there is no there there.” It may fit some lawyers, but it shouldn’t fit your lawyer!
Comments