POTUS, Esq.

In yesterday's New York Times, Adam Liptak had an interesting column looking at the numerous 2008 presidential candidates who were practicing attorneys. They range from federal prosecutors (Giuliani and Thompson) to civil litigators (Clinton and Edwards) to a civil rights specialist (Obama).

Of particular interest to me was Obama's impression of "the system" during his time practicing:

But Mr. Obama sometimes seemed ambivalent about the law. In his 1995 memoir, 'Dreams From My Father,' he wrote that the law could be 'a sort of glorified accounting that serves to regulate the affairs of those who have power — and that all too often seeks to explain, to those who do not, the ultimate wisdom and justness of their condition.'

I can appreciate Obama's perspective. There are times when it seems that everyone involved in my cases - prosecutors, defenders, defendants, cops, judges - are just playing their part in a system that has very little to do with "justice" or punishing grave transgressions against the body politic. Usually I get that vibe in drug cases, particularly when reviewing a presentence report that honestly reports in one section that "there are no identifiable victims in this case."

On another front, the next time the Chamber of Commerce types try and tar John Edwards with the "trial lawyer" epithet as some sort of shiftless ambulance chaser, consider this:

Mr. Edwards, for instance, was known for choosing his cases with care.

'He was very selective,' said James P. Cooney III, who defended a dozen medical malpractice cases brought by Mr. Edwards. 'He only took the best cases, and by that I don’t mean the ones with the highest damages. I mean the ones where somebody had done something really bad.'

That's the "bad guy," admitting that sometimes when people get sued they really deserve it.