ROMERO, MARIELLA B.

MR. CHRISTOPHER FIGUEROA

PHILOSOPHY ETHICS

MWF 3:00-6:00 PM

TITLE : Why be a lawyer?

At some point in your lives a light bulb switched on in your head and I expect you have had the thought:
Yes, I would like to study law. Tonight I would like to explore the questions with you: Why did I study law in the
first place? Why be a lawyer? It was perhaps because doing law instinctively felt right and was seen as a
prestigious profession. Was it something else? Maybe it was because the law would provide you with the
opportunity to learn ideas and things that are not available in any other profession, namely, the opportunity to do
justice according to the rule of law. Now, those statements contain a number of concepts that we might try to
unpack this evening. First of all, if doing law instinctively felt right, why was that? It may have arisen from a
family tradition, a family contact, something you saw on television or a film, such as Hurricane Carter (the story of
the African American boxer who fought wrongful conviction of a serious crime), or maybe it was a reading of a
special book, perhaps, To Kill a Mockingbird. Dame Roma Mitchell, the first woman appointed to a Supreme Court
in Australia, described her experience as a young woman in the early 1930s seeing lines of men waiting to receive
ration cards during the depression. She said: I felt that justice demanded that we shouldnt have another
Depression. It strongly influenced me to study law because I thought that through it people could be helped.
Joan Rosanove, Victorias first woman Queens Counsel, a renowned family lawyer, spoke publicly often against
injustice to women and those from a non-English speaking background. One case in which she was involved
concerned a man called Kitsch, a Jewish-Czech journalist, as to whom the prime minister of the day had said
would not set foot on Australian soil. Rosanove embarked upon obtaining a writ of habeas corpus for Kitsch,
initally in the Practice Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. A long legal battle followed, right through to the
High Court. In the biographical writings concerning Rosanove, it is said that a file was opened on her by some
consular authorities describing Rosanove as a suspected person. An additional entry was said to have been
added to her file, claiming that Rosanove had revolutionary tendencies. Twenty years after the Kitsch case, it
seemed that authorities would deny Rosanove a visa to enter the United States. Rosanove is said to have
retorted: Do I look like a revolutionary? I have defended many criminals, but that doesnt mean I believe in
crime. Some cynics might say that those who study law do so for reasons associated with personal vanity and
self-aggrandisement. The famous American attorney, Clarence Darrow, conducted his practice from a shop front
window for all to see him when he was working away. He conducted high profile trials that often captivated the
media. His career path is interesting. He started out as a corporate lawyer. He worked for a railroad company but
after one year of law school he crossed over to represent the leader of the railway union in a controversial strike.
Darrow resigned his corporate position in order to represent the union leader, thereby making a substantial
financial sacrifice. But Darrow was to move on and often defend what seemed the indefensible and often
extremely unpopular accused. He acted for the McNamara brothers who were charged with blowing up a building
that resulted in the deaths of twenty people. Of course one of his most famous trials was the Scopes trial
sometimes known as the Monkey Trial. This was the case about the Darwinian Theory of evolution where a
teacher was charged with offences for teaching that theory. If one scans the biographies and experiences of those
who have come to fame in the law or been involved in famous cases, there is a strong heroic element. Let me tell
you part of the story of two heroes of the Victorian Bar. The late Judge Cairns Villeneuve-Smith was one. He came
to Victoria from South Australia and practised at the Victorian Bar until his appointment as a judge of the County
Court. He came to Victoria following his involvement in the case of Rupert Max Stuart, now told in celluloid form
in the film Black and White. Stuart was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1959
for the murder of a nine year old girl at the beach at Ceduna. Following his conviction there was an unsuccessful
application for leave to appeal made to the High Court and then the Privy Council. The High Court observed that
some features of the case caused anxiety. Later, on the basis of claimed fresh evidence that pointed to the
innocence of Stuart, the South Australian government convened a Royal Commission. Cairns Villeneuve-Smith was
briefed as junior counsel representing the accused. The case was intensely controversial and extensively covered
by the printed press. At one point in the hearing, after periods of difficult encounters with the Commission, the
Queens Counsel leading Villeneuve-Smith was denied the opportunity to ask an important question. After heated
exchange, the Queens Counsel walked out. His junior, Villeneuve-Smith, followed. Stuart was left unrepresented
and the Commission proceeded in the absence of any representation. Later, Villeneuve-Smith returned before the
Commission and applied for an adjournment to enable other senior counsel to be briefed. The Commission
refused. When Villeneuve-Smith appeared alone to make that application, the Commission raised the matter of
the walk out. Villeneuve-Smith said to the Comission, with steely courage and resolve: I did my duty as a junior
and would do so again. Eventually, the late Sir John Starke QC (later a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria)
was briefed and Villeneuve-Smith returned to appear as junior. Ultimately the death sentence of Stuart was
commuted, although he remained imprisoned. The aftermath was very difficult for Villeneuve-Smith. It was
described this way: The Adelaide establishment did not take kindly to the efforts of Villeneuve-Smith (and the
rest of the Adelaide legal team) to ensure natural justice for Stuart. They were ostracised. Consequently, and
encouraged by Starke, Villeneuve-Smith made the difficult and momentous decision to uproot himself from the
state in which he was the last in line in generations of distinguished lawyers. The Stuart case demonstrates the
courage that one junior counsel had to display. Imagine the way Villeneuve-Smith felt when he returned to the
Commission to seek the adjournment: the anxiety, the nervousness, perhaps the fear, but, that was overcome by
the courage of the junior counsel, Villeneuve-Smith, in fighting for the fundamental rights of his client Stuart.
Another hero of the Victorian Bar, to continue this thread, was the Honourable Barry Beach QC (later a judge of
the Supreme Court of Victoria). Following serious allegations of corruption in the Victorian Police Force, an inquiry
was appointed. Beach QC was appointed as the inquiry. Coincidentally, counsel assisting was Villeneuve-Smith.
The Beach inquiry ran for well over 200 days, covering the period of 15 months. It dealt with issues that went to
the 9 heart of our democratic system and explored the most serious allegations of police corruption in this state.
There were sensational reports in the daily press. The inquiry was described later in these terms: That inquiry had
a profound and cleansing effect on the police force. [His Honours] integrity, courage and independence and
devotion to principles and truth, both in the inquiry and in its aftermath, won the highest respect and admiration
of the Bar. It was said at the time that Beach weathered a storm, which would have destroyed a lesser man. The
Beach inquiry was courageous. It made findings against 55 members of the police force. Not one conviction was
secured. As I move through these stories a common thread appears of individuals who were called upon to
demonstrate not only great intellectual, tactical and strategic skills as advocates but the courage to take on the
unpopular or controversial cause, sometimes in the face of mountainous public opposition and even criticism by
the government of the day. You will recall your studies in constitutional law on the Communist Party Case. The
government of the day introduced the Communist Party dissolution legislation targeting the dissolution of the
Communist Party in this country. Its genesis was a coal strike in 1949, where the Communist Part of Australia
exercised industrial power and used the weapon of the strike to bring industry to a standstill and caused impact
on the community. Proceedings ensued in the High Court seeking a declaration that the legislation was
unconstitutional. At that time, the deputy leader of the opposition, Dr H V Evatt, was an avowed anti communist.
He was also a former justice of the High Court of Australia. Legend has it that no one at the Victorian Bar would
accept the brief to act for the Communist Party in the proceedings for fear of recrimination or, indeed, because of
loathing for what the organisation represented. Dr Evatt took on the brief inthe face of resistance from his
political party, the government of the day and the community. Regardless of his views as to the propriety or
constitutionality of the legislation and the way the hearing played out, Dr Evatt was courageous. Significantly, the
Communist Party case and the conduct of Dr Evatt lies at the heart of the cab-rank rule applied by the Victorian
Bar, namely, to ensure that individuals who require legal representation receive it and that there is an obligation
on counsel to accept the next brief regardless of personal beliefs, the morality of the cause or the individual being
defended. The purpose is to ensure that justice is done. A little later in time from the Communist Party Case, a
different drama was played out. Robert Peter Tait was convicted of a brutal murder and sentenced to death. His
defence of insanity was rejected by the jury. There was widespread opposition to the hanging. After a long appeal
process, the execution of Tait, having been twice postponed, was rescheduled. Proceedings were brought on, first
of all in the Supreme Court, and then in the High Court seeking a stay of execution on legal grounds. There was a
dreadful urgency that surrounded the case, including late night sittings of judges. With less than 24 hours
remaining before Tait was due to hang, three High Court justices flew to Melbourne to join two other colleagues.
Sir John Starke, whom I mentioned earlier in relation to the Stuart case argued for a stay of execution. Counsel for
the government, the prosecution suggested that the executive government would not resile from the decision to
proceed with the execution. Sir Owen Dixon, the Chief Justice, responded: When you say it to this court, you are
saying it to a court which has supreme jurisdiction in Australia, and in effect saying well, even if you want time to
consider the case we will not give it. The Chief Justice announced that the case would be adjourned and that the
execution would be postponed: Entirely so that the authority of this Court may be maintained. The intensity of
the court atmosphere on such an occasion can only be imagined. On each side counsel faced the court urging a
particular cause. The Court was confronted by a state government, seemingly intent on a particular course
reflecting disregard for the authority of the highest court of the land. Each player on that occasion was called
upon to demonstrate commitment, courage and integrity to their role and the law. Ultimately, Taits death
sentence was commuted. If we switch from our continent to the United States of America again, the courage of
and the need for an advocate is demonstrated in the trials of the Scottsboro Boys. Some teenage boys described
as hoboes were riding on a freight train during the depression. They travelled with other young men, black and
white, and two white women down to Alabama. A stone throwing fight erupted and eventually the black men
succeeded in forcing all but one of the white members off the train at a station. The train continued to travel at
high speed but some of those ejected from the train complained of an assault by a gang of blacks. The station
master wired ahead and a posse stopped the train further down the track. Dozens of men with guns rushed at the
train and rounded up every black youth they could find. Nine captured black youths who came to be called the
Scottsboro Boys were tied together, loaded onto a truck and taken to a jail. One of the white girls who had been
on the train told one of the posse members that they had been raped by a gang of 12 blacks with pistols and
knives. The Scottsboro Boys were charged. Newspaper coverage was intense. The boys were inadequately
represented at their trial and found guilty. Ultimately, after appeals, the United States Supreme Court overturned
the convictions in the landmark case of Powell vs Alabama holding that the right of the defendants under the 14th
Amendments due process clause to competent legal counsel had been denied by the State. New trials were
ordered. The story of the Scottsboro Boys is a long one and quite involved. It is a story worth a visit by law
students. Young men were held in jail in controversial circumstances for years whilst the legal process played out.
Their story demonstrates the significance and importance of legal representation for the under privileged and the
disadvantages and the need for lawyers to be able to stand up for an unpopular cause. Such cases are not
confined to the underprivileged and disadvantaged. It applies equally to the manufacturer of an allegedly
dangerous product, major corporations and limitations. Unpopularity is irrelevant. It is the administration of
justice that must prevail through the application of the rule of law. Lawyers throughout their professional lives,
young and old, face intellectual challenges. The law presents opportunities that not only call for courage but also
for intellectual rigour combined with stamina and determination. Another North American example is the work of
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In 1971 Justice Ginsburg
helped to win a landmark victory in a Supreme Court case call Reed v. Reed. The case involved an Idaho statute
that precluded women from being appointed administrators of estates of deceased persons. The United States
Supreme Court struck down the legislation on the ground that it discriminated against women and was
unconstitutional. It was a landmark case in American law by virtue of its constitutional recognition with respect to
the unconstitutionality of gender discrimination. To further emphasise the point with respect to gender
discrimination, Justice Ginsburg often provided representation in cases involving male plaintiffs. One example was
Weinberger vs Weisenfeld which involved a young widower whose wife had died in childbirth. The plaintiff
wanted to work part time so he could care for his infant son. Because he was a man, he was ineligible for social
security benefits. Justice Ginsburg won the case. Across professional practice there has always been a long history,
particularly here in Victoria of using the law to assist those who need help in the protection of their rights. In the
late 1970s and into the 1980s a number of solicitors and barristers travelled north, especially from Victoria, to
the Northern Territory to act in the interests and protect the rights of indigenous Australians with respect to land
rights and also in criminal trials. They included individuals such as Justice Frank Vincent, now of the Court of
Appeal of the Supreme Court, recently retired Justice Geoffrey Eames also of the Court of Appeal, Justice John
Coldrey, a judge of the Trial Division of the Court and others including Jeffrey Sher, QC. Sometimes they were
called, colloquially, the Territorians. Needless to say, their arrival in the Northern Territory was not always well
received. In his book Lawyers in the Alice- Aboriginals and Whitefellas Law, Jon Faine recorded interviews of
some of the experiences those individuals. They acted for individuals who pleaded not guilty to serious offences.
In some instances, it was the first occasion that a plea of not guilty had been entered in local living memory. Let
me read to you what Justice Vincent described one time after he had travelled hundreds of miles along a dirt road
to appear for some accused: I stood up in the courtroom, announced that I appeared on behalf of all of the
accused and today everybody was pleading Not Guilty. Ive never seen a more obvious look of horror on the
face of any individual in my life as I observed on the magistrate that day. In the interviews those lawyers record
the experiences of intimidation by the media and the threats to their safety and well-being. They tell of learning
not to mix as people were always looking for fights and always trying to bait you. They also tell of receiving
threats. Nonetheless, those lawyers, mostly later to become judges, were courageous individuals who were
concerned to ensure the protection of the rights of individuals with respect to court proceedings, land rights and
otherwise. They played a very important part in the administration of justice. Recently, Chester Porter QC has
published a book The Conviction of the Innocent How the Law Can Let Us Down. It is full of stories such as
Captain Dreyfus, OJ Simpson and other famous cases. The author tells the story of what has happened to
individuals without the assistance of a competent lawyer or sometimes without the assistance of a lawyer at all.
The lecture this evening marks the contribution to jurisprudence by the Honourable Sir Anthony Mason, former
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (and now a member of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong). I have
taken you through a journey of different lawyers stories. My effort has been to prompt internal questioning: why
be a lawyer? The former Chief Justice was a leader of the High Court who made important contributions to the
law. The contribution made by the Mason court to the right of political communication, the rights and interests of
indigenous people, the fundamental rights of an accused person in a criminal trial, the application of international
law to domestic law, administrative law and important decisions with respect to fiduciary obligations, promissory
estoppel and unconscionable conduct will be well known to you. I mention these matters because sometimes
courts are criticised where they develop and decide what is regarded as new law. The criticism labels the
development as judicial activism. The labelling or branding of judicial deliberation and determination is
unfortunate. Ultimately, a judge does not determine a conclusion and then set about reasoning to justify that
conclusion. To do so would be disingenuous, dishonest and contrary to the judicial oath. In the context of a
student lawyer conducting a personal inquiry, why be a lawyer, inspiration is gained from viewing moments of
powerful intellectual application by eminent jurists. But let me raise this prospect with you when a lawyer
develops an argument that is novel and forges new legal territory, it requires not only ingenuity, creativity and
intellectual rigour, but also courage. Usually the decision by a judge to adopt the new approach will be
courageous and at times intimidating. Recently, the High Court of Australia in Farah Constructions v Say-dee was
critical of an intermediate appellate court for purporting to bite the bullet in the context of unjust enrichment.
It is sometimes forgotten that when judges write their judgments they do so with great care and consideration
and respect for the judicial traditions that precede them. A judge will decide the case in accordance with careful
reasoning; if it is erroneous reasoning it will be corrected by a higher court. One of the reasons why we have more
than one judge sitting at the intermediate level and higher is that ultimately interpretation of the law and 22
development of the common law is a matter of legal opinion. So, it is very important that lawyers have an opinion
reached within a framework of formal legal principles. There are moments when as a lawyer, even as a judge,
courage is called for in the face of trenchant criticism. Judges face that ordeal constantly with the scrutiny of their
judgments and the criticism that is received from the media and the community generally through modern
communications. However, lawyers, but in particular judges, are adjusting to that and becoming better
communicators than historically had been the case. In this respect Sir Anthony Mason showed much vision and
leadership opening up the courts to the media in order that the community could be better informed about the
important processes and decisions of the courts. The community is far better educated and informed about what
occurs in courts than was the case say 20 years ago. For that reason, it is not unusual to find politicians expressing
views about judicial actions and decisions and, on occasion, expressing dissatisfaction. This calls for courage and
intellectual application by judges, particularly when they are unable to answer misconceived or ill-founded
criticism. Recently at a federal level, there was a suggestion that a court or judicial officer might leak news of the
issuing of a warrant in sensitive circumstances. Such criticism invokes uncertainty and reduces confidence in the
judiciary. However, there is little that judges can do in the face of such comments, because ordinarily the courts
go about their daily business and do not speak publicly. However, it is useful for young lawyers to be properly
informed that judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria deal with applications for surveillance warrants on a very
regular basis. Indeed, I have granted such warrants myself. As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court I have never
received or heard of a complaint, concern, or lack of confidence in that process. The Supreme Court has dealt with
those types of applications for decades and I am not aware of any reason why that practice should discontinue.
Indeed, it is important that young lawyers appreciate the importance of the role of the courts in exercising
independent and careful consideration and scrutiny of conduct that places the rights of the individual citizen in
question. But to return to the point, judges face criticism and must bear it with courage. It is part of the judicial
burden. Reflecting particularly upon the judicial role, a lot has been said recently about judicial appointments. I
would hope that as law students many of you would have an aspiration of judicial appointment. It is instructive to
remember that once upon a time the most eminent jurists were law students just like those here this evening.
Perhaps I might develop my theme, why be a lawyer, a little further and postulate the question, why be a judge?
First of all, it is the obvious extension of the lawyers role in ensuring that the rule of law applies in our society.
This concept, the rule of law, is not some remote constitutional theory recited in texts such as Dicey. One only has
to read the judgments of Sir Anthony Mason and Sir Gerard Brennan in Giannarelli vs Wraith where the
paramount duty owed by the advocate to the court was articulated. Sometimes this principle is difficult for
individual advocates and clients to understand. If a client is paying money then a client invariably expects that the
ultimate duty owed by the advocate is to the client. However, not so. In order that justice prevails and the rule of
law is protected, the paramount duty of the advocate must be to the court. As said in Giannarelli, the principle is
fundamental to our society. If I might articulate in very simple terms, imagine a major sporting event if there was
no umpire or referee who could enforce a decision. Chaos would prevail. Imagine a society where undemocratic
processes prevail and there is no independent judiciary and court system. Sadly around the world, such societies
exist. We are truly privileged to live in the society we enjoy here in Australia and the lawyers play a critical part in
ensuring that privilege is continued. I mentioned the judicial burden. As a lawyer, I believe the highest privilege is
to have the opportunity to sit as a judge and decide cases. It is the greatest contribution that a lawyer can make to
the community. It is critical to our justice system, therefore, that individuals of experience, wisdom and
knowledge be appointed to our courts. I have spoken about this on other occasions, including the important
burden that lies upon an Attorney General to make the best appointments. That position applies equally to all
levels of the judiciary including tribunals. Let me demonstrate the point. In Victoria, we have a very significant
tribunal, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). It hears over 90 000 cases a year and its
jurisdictions are unlimited in important areas. Some of its major jurisdictions include planning, freedom of
information, discrimination, and guardianship. Frequently, the government is a party. From the beginning of 2008
there will be a new area of law and I anticipate that VCAT will be one of the main jurisdictions where the new area
will be agitated, namely, Human Rights. Under the Human Rights Charter and Responsibilities Act the courts and
tribunals of Victoria will have special responsibilities. Victoria will have the opportunity to lead the development
of the national jurisprudence on human rights law. In light of the volume of litigation at the lower end of our
courts and tribunals hierarchy, I expect that human rights issues will be important. They will come to rise in the
context of cases where citizens rights against other citizens and citizens rights against the state will be tested. All
the more important then to have lawyers participate in the process of protecting and enforcing rights and
developing the jurisprudence therein. The Magistrates Court and VCAT, being the lower jurisdictions, provide a
wonderful opportunity for young lawyers to gain experience not just as instructing lawyers in a case but hopefully,
the opportunity to be an advocate. The head of VCAT is appointed from the bench of the Supreme Court. This is
reflective of the importance that attaches to VCAT, its work and its volume of work. In all likelihood for the
individuals here tonight, VCAT is the jurisdiction where young lawyers are more likely to have immediate contact
with our courts and tribunals hierarchy. I expect, therefore, that you may soon have the opportunity to conduct a
case before the tribunal; to have it heard and determined by a judge of the highest court of the state with the
commensurate knowledge, wisdom, experience and judicial skills that are the hallmark of a Supreme Court judge.
When the opportunity arises it will be exciting but frightening at the same time. So it might be said that in
answering the question, why be a lawyer, it is because you wish to be challenged and intellectually taxed. It might
be so but you will enjoy the stimulation and exhilaration of doing law, that is, applying law so as to assist others. I
hope through this excursion I have stimulated reflection on the other things that the law provides for you the
opportunity to learn ideas and things that are not available in any other profession. It is a wonderful profession
and I extend to each of you every encouragement in the journey that lies ahead.
PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING ANALYSIS:

I chose this article because, upon reading it, it gave me a proper view of what is inside the "law world".
People would either be amused or raise an eyebrow whenever I say that I will proceed to law after taking legal
management but that doesnt bother me because I know for them, that is just their opinion, and whether or not I
will proceed to law it would not affect them as much as it will affect me.

This article shows that law is a passion, people perceives that lawyers are liars, bending the law, saviour of
the criminals etc., with that being said, the ethical values of a lawyer is being questioned, I like the part when
Rosanove said that she have defended many criminals but doesnt mean that she believe in crime. Being a lawyer
is a path that requires a capacity of strong emotional stability, because it would test your beliefs and touch your
personal values, especially in rape cases, it would be hard for the lawyer to be defending their client. Being a
lawyer is a privilege, its not about how good their salaries are but it is how many lives they have saved, because
truth be told, it is not how much the client paid for their service but it is whether or not the lawyer won the case.
law has a lot of remedies offered for an offense or crimes but it is on the lawyers on how they will use it. It is their
duty as the article said to assist their clients, it is a tough profession, there are a lot of cases laid out on the article,
these kinds of stories inspires me to pursue law, it is a labyrinth to say the least, finding a way for justice.

It is not my first choice to become a lawyer, I either be a med tech or a psychologist but by entering
college and choosing legal management as my major, I came to love the law. I came to know the depth of each
article; I learned the beauty of it, on how it truly works.