Horth-Neubert, Stacy R.

English

Fordham University School of Law

Fordham Law Review Volume 66 Issue 4 Article 43 1998 Report of Working Group #3 Stacy R. Horth-Neubert Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stacy R. Horth-Neubert, Report of Working Group #3, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 1597 (1998). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol66/iss4/43 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. REPORT OF WORKING GROUP #3Stacy R. Horth-Neubert*This deck was stacked. From the beginning it was clear that thegroup assembled to discuss the issue of law as a calling was entirelymade up of persons of faith. Indeed, the universe of faiths in thisroom was even more narrow than that: everyone seemed comfortableidentifying themselves as generally either Jewish or as some denomi-nation of Christian (although there was some Buddist influence atplay, as well). God-or at least "morality"-was destined to triumphin this crowd.But the conversation that took place among our diverse group ofclergy members, religious leaders, law professors, and practicing mem-bers of the legal community, should be familiar to anyone drawn to alegal career by motives other than money or lack of direction. Wediscussed professionalism, role models, practices and virtues, craftand character. The themes here were broader than religion and faithin God, and they all can be linked back to the secular moral footholdof the legal profession: Justice.As a group we first attempted to discern the meaning of the word"calling" or "call" as used in Professor Floyd's paper. The precisemeaning of the term was debated, and perhaps was never fully agreedupon. The term is not neutral, and some of us expressed the view thatusing this terminology may isolate people who do not feel "called."Nevertheless, there was something close to a consensus among thegroup members that we each felt some sort of compulsion to do God'swork in the world, in whatever our chosen occupations. Thus, to thequestion of whether lawyers are "called" to the profession, we an-swered "yes," at least for some lawyers.The next challenge was to determine what exactly these attorneysare called to do. Many of the lawyers in the room had done legalwork for the poor in an effort to fulfill their "calling." But we werenot satisfied that represention of the poor is the only type of legalwork available to a lawyer who is "called." In order to fulfill her call-ing, the lawyer need not practice a particular sort of law, but we feltshe must not separate her "call" from her "profession," her craft fromher character. And she must never become complacent: attorneys* J.D. Candidate, May 1998, Fordham University School of Law. In this paper Iwill, in general, speak for the working group using personal pronouns. It is not myintent to signal universal agreement among the members of the group on all-orany-of this topics we discussed. This paper is simply my personal impression of theopinions and feelings of the group as a whole. Assertions in this paper should not betaken to represent the views of any particular member of the group-indeed, I myselfdo not subscribe to all of the views I attribute to the group as a unit.1597FORDHAM LAW REVIEWmust continually question whether the work they do every day fulfillstheir moral commitments.How are lawyers to know if they are getting it right, if they areanswering their call? This question lead us to explore the concept ofrole models in the legal professions, and in the world as a whole.Here we had differing ideas regarding where we should look for ourrole models. To history? To fiction? To our profession? To our reli-gions? To our religious communities? Although we found them invastly different places, each of us could point to role models that haveinfluenced where we are in our professions, our faiths, our lives.Closely related to the topic of role models was the question of whatvirtues these figures should model. In order to discern these values,we felt strongly that attorneys, like everyone else, need a communityto struggle with concerning moral questions. The precise contours ofthe community may be unimportant so long as it has certain character-istics that ensure it fosters the moral development of its members: itmust be small to be safe, diverse to be accurate, supportive to be suc-cessful. The accountability that communities foster is the key to theirinfluence.Through every topic of discussion, one theme was recurring: Whatrole do and should law schools play in instilling and nurturing a senseof call in future lawyers? Do students come to law schools with afixed and immutable sense of morality? Are they adequatelyequipped with the academic and spirtual tools they need to assess andto acquire morality? The law professors among us had differing viewson these issues, as did all the members of the group. Perhaps this lackof unanimity simply mirrors the discordant views among law schoolsgenerally; clearly, it highlights an area where more discussion isnecessary.Finally, we spent a good deal of time discussing whether a modelrule should be drafted stating that attorneys are morally accountablefor their actions. We discussed the risk that such a rule could be usedto punish unpopular people or opinions-a risk that ABA history hasproven is real. Many of us expressed skepticism that such a modelrule would have any real impact on lawyers' behavior. We debatedwhether this model rule would conflict with the lawyer's obligation tobe a zealous advocate for her clients. In the end, we concluded thatan aspirational rule would at least put the issue on the table, wouldstimulate discussion, and would set a tone that morality is not absentfrom the legal profession. A model rule would be taught in law schoollegal ethics classes. It might even bring about the creation of the com-munities we had determined were necessary to cultivate faith.This conference was about faith in lawyering; perhaps a more secu-lar name would have been more readily acceptable to the secular pro-fession of the law. But, as this group's discussion illustrates, anothername for "faith" here might be "morality." Morality, whether secular1598 [Vol. 661998] REPORT OF WORKING GROUP #3 1599or parochial, is the source of all laws. And it is the essence of Justice.Whether or not any particular attorney feels she has personally been"called," if the profession is to continue to account for itself by claim-ing to strive for Justice, the moral root of this word must constantly beexplored. As one person in the group stated, doing the right thingdoes not require a calling card.Notes & Observations

Report of Working Group #3

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3461&amp;context=flr

Report of Working Group #3

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Fordham University School of Law