Why Lawyers?

[Sphere]

This is a topic I have been thinking about for a while, and the NYT just printed an article on it.

Is law the best backround for government leaders? In the US the prevailing backround for politicians is in law, or at best finance/economics. It is something that is just taken for granted.

However, this is not the case everywhere. In Pacific Asia especially, the common backround for government officials is in math, science or engineering. In Singapore government leaders are almost exclusively educated in technical fields, and it is perhaps the poster-child for this system. Despite being a relatively small Republic, it has focused it's energies on high technology, infrastructure, and an intense effort on creating a world class education system in the science and engineering. The result has been a prosperous and advanced society with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Granted, there are a multitude of factors involved, but at least one can say having lawyer politicians isn't necessary for success.

This begs the question; Why lawyers?

[SLN445]

Id presume because those with background in Law and finance/economics are great at bull and spin, a key part of Politics in the US and similar nations.

[visser300]

This is a topic I have been thinking about for a while, and the NYT just printed an article on it.

Is law the best backround for government leaders? In the US the prevailing backround for politicians is in law, or at best finance/economics. It is something that is just taken for granted.

However, this is not the case everywhere. In Pacific Asia especially, the common backround for government officials is in math, science or engineering. In Singapore government leaders are almost exclusively educated in technical fields, and it is perhaps the poster-child for this system. Despite being a relatively small Republic, it has focused it's energies on high technology, infrastructure, and an intense effort on creating a world class education system in the science and engineering. The result has been a prosperous and advanced society with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Granted, there are a multitude of factors involved, but at least one can say having lawyer politicians isn't necessary for success.

This begs the question; Why lawyers?

You pretend to know-it-all but all of your words are uttlely wrong. I'm living in Singapore and no Singaporeans want to work in hi-tech/research area except some idiots and geek. The FTs (foreign talents) dominates thia field for decade. The dominant industry in Singapore is Finance because of huge bonus and net income. Most of current governors of Singapore are former lawyers/doctors/bankers just like fat Americans.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Economics, Political Science and Sociology is the best background for public servants or politicians. They are serving society after all... I'm not a fat of Lawyers because many of them tend to spout a lot of non-consecuential BS mixing up facts, morals and ideology.

A good politician has to know about it's country's history, cultural system, social structure, economic structure and of course the ideologies in conflict. Engineers are not specifically bad at being politicians but maybe they might lack in rhetoric?

Now in regards to ''why are lawyers the current trending topic of politics?'' well that's an easy one, in modern Liberal Democracies policies are put forward or destroyed on the basis of legal precedents that are derived from rulings, laws or the Constitution, a Lawyer has to know all of these... which includes a lot of legal bureaucratic paperwork as well. And the ability to be a nice rhetorician, which all lawyers are more or less bound to be.

In some cases tradition, countries such as France, the UK or the US have a very long and very ingrained political history... many of the very first modern political speakers, during the XIX century, were Lawyers and other Liberal Arts practitioners. Many ''politically oriented'' families have transmited said tradition from father to son for many generations.

[Adar]

I consider it a highly Anglo-Saxon problem with a society dominated by lawyers. My guess is that it got something to do with the fact that your legal systems are so complex that you pretty much have to be a lawyer to defend yourself from other lawyers.

In Sweden we have a different problem and that is that our politicians lack work experience. In the 1970s the politicians increased party grants which made it possible to join a youth organization and work all your way up to party leader without ever holding a real job.

Personally I think that a mixture of competences is the best way to go. We need engineers and researchers to both shape the future and kill of projects that are unlikely to succede (ethanol subsidies are a good example of a dead end project that most competent chemical/biotech engineers could have show you were a bad idea). Legal experts to avoid politicians meddling with the legal system in an appropriate manner, economists to optimize the national cash flow etc.

[Sphere]

You pretend to know-it-all but all of your words are uttlely wrong. I'm living in Singapore and no Singaporeans want to work in hi-tech/research area except some idiots and geek. The FTs (foreign talents) dominates thia field for decade. The dominant industry in Singapore is Finance because of huge bonus and net income. Most of current governors of Singapore are former lawyers/doctors/bankers just like fat Americans.

Maybe my perspective is scewed because all my Singapore contacts have been engineering professor's and students (shout out to Prof. Tan Kiang Hwee, keep it real player). But wiki at least is on my side here ....

The Singaporean economy depends heavily on exports and refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing,[74] which constituted 27.2% of GDP in 2010[6] and includes significant electronics, petroleum refining, chemicals, mechanical engineering and biomedical sciences sectors

Maybe we just have different definitions of high-tech. Though I would accept it is a major hub for international finance, but that is a knowledge based industry as well in my opinion. And ...

Singaporean students consistently rank top five in the world in the two major international assessments of mathematics and science knowledge

And I have to defend the honor of Nanyang Tech and the National University of Singapore. They are world class centers for higher learning and research in engineering, science, and medicine.

Though I will admit to being completely ignorant of local government in Singapore. From my posted article...

I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.

So maybe I overstated things in the OP, but I don't think the thrust I was conveying was false.

[Adar]

That's a myth though. Common law systems today look more and more like civil law countries with big and detailed statue books. Civil law countries also have precedent-based courts, along with the stereotypical big statue books. So laws are just as complex anywhere.

Actually one of the major issues for small Swedish companies expanding to the Anglo-Saxon sphere is that the potential legal costs are terrifyingly high and the system far more complicated than in Sweden. A good example is Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse (US court) and Betheseda vs Mojang (Swedish court).

The Swedish case was solved in a time shorter than it took to establish what Chapterhouse could actually be sued for in the US court.

Edit (I just realized that I mixed you up with Exarch who is a Warhammer nerd): Games Workshop is the worlds largest producer of wargaming miniatures and Chapterhouse produce parts that can replace sections of the GW miniature to make it look more interesting and unique. Betheseda is the maker of Oblivion and Mojan the maker of Minecraft.

[bushbush]

Actually one of the major issues for small Swedish companies expanding to the Anglo-Saxon sphere is that the potential legal costs are terrifyingly high and the system far more complicated than in Sweden. A good example is Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse (US court) and Betheseda vs Mojang (Swedish court).

The Swedish case was solved in a time shorter than it took to establish what Chapterhouse could actually be sued for in the US court.

The same is true for US companies trying to do businesses in Europe. One particular concern is the rise of EU law and EU regulatory body (remember the big anti-trust fine on Microsoft?). EU laws are still in the developing age so there are a lot of confusions among even EU scholars. EU regulatory bodies are increasingly aggressive in going after US firms. These all add to the costs of doing businesses. The companies end up having to hire lawyers from these countries to deal with the litigation and transactional problems.

I definitely agree with you that this level of complexity is one of the reasons why lawyers are so prominent in rule of law societies. I think this is not unique to Anglo-Saxon system. I took comparative law last year and civil law countries confused the hell out of me.

Lawyers generally have to know the basics of law and how the law works, so it makes sense that politicians, most of which are law makers, will largely be drawn from those trained in the law.

Another thing I will argue though, is that (accomplished) lawyers tend to be very good writers, communicators and negotiators. These skills are transferable to government and politics in general. Even if they specialized in something that is not related to regulatory or government in their practices, they can nonetheless use their skills to excel in getting votes or negotiating bills. It might have just been a coincidence that the skills required to be a good lawyer are those needed to be a capable government official as well.

The issue people have isn't with "lawyers", though many will say so, but rather with the American political system itself. It is outmoded and undemocractic, but politicians working within the system have to work with what they have.

The current political system gives a lot of bad incentives to politicians and also allows for legalized briberty (thanks conservative judges). It also insures that the politicians that are elected will not be representative of the population.

I actually will argue that it might have something to do with all the lawyers. Lawyers tend to be risk-averse. They study precedents and carefully research all the issues to avoid future troubles. There is a certain tendency among lawyers to keep the status quo, rather than challenge the system and take fundamental reforms.

[Adar]

The same is true for US companies trying to do businesses in Europe. One particular concern is the rise of EU law and EU regulatory body (remember the big anti-trust fine on Microsoft?). EU laws are still in the developing age so there are a lot of confusions among even EU scholars. EU regulatory bodies are increasingly aggressive in going after US firms. These all add to the costs of doing businesses. The companies end up having to hire lawyers from these countries to deal with the litigation and transactional problems.

I definitely agree with you that this level of complexity is one of the reasons why lawyers are so prominent in rule of law societies. I think this is not unique to Anglo-Saxon system. I took comparative law last year and civil law countries confused the hell out of me.

The EU is a whole different cup of tea than civil law of north european countries and I agree that it sucks. Especially as a Swede who is spoilt by the excellent pre law work published for Swedish laws. Our professor on the commercial law course I did actually mentioned that Swedish legal specialists complained about us being dragged into a more case based law system due to it.

@rolling Thunder Too true...:-)

[Matthias]

Another thing I will argue though, is that (accomplished) lawyers tend to be very good writers, communicators and negotiators. These skills are transferable to government and politics in general. Even if they specialized in something that is not related to regulatory or government in their practices, they can nonetheless use their skills to excel in getting votes or negotiating bills. It might have just been a coincidence that the skills required to be a good lawyer are those needed to be a capable government official as well.

A lot of it is because of the way our political system is structured. It is not a collegial system, and neither is our law. The skills you listed are had by a lot of people in all sorts of professions, so it really doesn't explain the prevalance of lawyers in government. Being a good writer, communicator and negotiator helps in a whole slew of industries.

I actually will argue that it might have something to do with all the lawyers. Lawyers tend to be risk-averse. They study precedents and carefully research all the issues to avoid future troubles. There is a certain tendency among lawyers to keep the status quo, rather than challenge the system and take fundamental reforms.

I think these are pretty useless generalizations about a profession. I think many of them are for reform because they understand well the bad results of bad law. And being a politician is not like being a lawyer in quite a few ways, so the risk aversion isn't the same.

If you want to know why the status quo stays around in Washington, it has nothing to do with assumptions about a profession and everything to do with our broken political system.

If these policy makers are making decisions about transportation infrastructure, digital infrastructure, education, industry, R&D funding, military projects, energy policy and a whole range of technical area's that are reflective of our technical age, wouldn't a technical backround be more advantageous?

No. The technical background is necessary at the bureaucratic level. When it comes to policy-making, it does nothing to inform a person how to compromise and pass a certain bill. Most people are smart enough that they can learn about issues that effect policy, even if they aren't specialists in those areas, and there are quite a few resources, including advise from specialists themselves, when it comes to technical knowledge. But all of that is useless if you can't pass a bill.

Politicians need to be able to learn about and understand any complex issue. No profession has a monopoly on that. But in terms of understanding the system you have to work in as a politician, many lawyers already have a leg up.

[Phier]

The Singaporean economy depends heavily on exports and refining imported goods, especially in manufacturing,[74] which constituted 27.2% of GDP in 2010[6] and includes significant electronics, petroleum refining, chemicals, mechanical engineering and biomedical sciences sectors

Well its not like you can export what lawyers "produce".

[Sphere]

Well its not like you can export what lawyers "produce".

?

Last time I checked bovine fertilizer can be exported.

[Phier]

?

Last time I checked bovine fertilizer can be exported.

Yes, even that has more value.

[Ulyaoth]

Because no one will take the reinterpretations of laws seriously if it's not being done by someone from a prestigious law school.

[Jack04]

The language of science is (deliberately) restrained, whilst the legal/economical language always seems far more definite. Restraint doesn't translate well politically. You must either vehemently uphold a stance, or vehemently oppose it. "Well it might be correct, I'll just go and check..." isn't good enough to win elections. Of course, the other trouble is that a scientist doesn't care whether their conclusion is populist, it's fitting the evidence is all that matters. So it'd be rather hard to nail them down to one political ideology/party, which in the modern political climate makes election near enough impossible.

That's assuming that the scientist continues acting in the scientific manner, o' course.

[bushbush]

what can i say, the best and brightest go to law school (like me ).

On a more serious note, political science, history, government, and other arts majors make up most of the law students. These people are more likely to be interested in government and politics anyways. It might have something to do with the fact that law is an integral part of governance in any rule of law country and lawyers are simply the most capable people in understanding and shaping laws.

I consider it a highly Anglo-Saxon problem with a society dominated by lawyers. My guess is that it got something to do with the fact that your legal systems are so complex that you pretty much have to be a lawyer to defend yourself from other lawyers.

That's a myth though. Common law systems today look more and more like civil law countries with big and detailed statue books. Civil law countries also have precedent-based courts, along with the stereotypical big statue books. So laws are just as complex anywhere.

Well its not like you can export what lawyers "produce".

Legal advice on American law is a pretty big export, not the same kind like manufacturing. But you don't see young people get paid 6 digit salaries going overseas to solely give advice on US securities regulations in other industries.

[Vítor Gaspar]

That's a myth though. Common law systems today look more and more like civil law countries with big and detailed statue books. Civil law countries also have precedent-based courts, along with the stereotypical big statue books. So laws are just as complex anywhere.

That's not the case in a number of European states (in theory there are no precedent-based courts in my country and I believe that's the case in at least a couple of other EU nations but I'm not willing to do guesswork in here, I'm just sure about my particular case) but as to the rest I agree with everything you wrote.

I'll come here tomorrow and leave my opinion. It is actually curious because I wrote a small article on "why do we need lawyers?" just the other day. That said I'm the first one to admit society could benefit from a bit of more practical knowledge in politics...

Still I can't see how having a lawyer as, say, the Prime Minister of X or the President of Y would be a problem. The problem goes beyond that. The problem with politics these days don't have to do with the fact we have legal professionals ruling our nations:

It has to do with populism. That and "animal politicians", people who were raised to "do politics" and don't know how to do pretty much anything else.

That is especially problematic in Europe where "youth party" organizations proliferate. I like to call them politician factories but I could just call them brainwashing organizations.

[bushbush]

That's not the case in a number of European states (in theory there are no precedent-based courts in my country and I believe that's the case in at least a couple of other EU nations but I'm not willing to do guesswork in here, I'm just sure about my particular case) but as to the rest I agree with everything you wrote.

My bad on saying every European country has it. I know for two examples in Europe that judges follow precedents:

1. French administrative court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_State_(France)

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...f_Human_Rights

[DimeBagHo]

Moved from the Athenaeum to the Academy.

[YuriVII]

USA has lawyers, Russia has security men, and China has engineers.

One can understand from this why these countries behave the way they do.