As one gets older, there's generally an increasing tendency to want to impart wisdom to others. Maybe it's in part a slight recognition of mortality. Maybe it's an understanding that age and experience often bring knowledge to the table that's easily overlooked in one's younger days. Or maybe that's just the nature of being an elder statesperson.
Whatever the cause, it happens. You want to leave something behind. You want to share your insights with others.
Of course, this isn't necessarily limited to those with experience. Plenty of excited youth are more than interested in spreading their wisdom as well.
I say all this after reading this opinion by Justice Bedsworth. It's doctrinally a case about damages, and affirms the trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit because plaintiff can't prove that he was harmed in a way in which the law allows compensation. But more generally, Justice Bedsworth wants to use the opinion to remind lawyers to do a good job. That it matters. A lot.
You get a sense of the tenor of the piece from its first two paragraphs:
"The practice of law has become complex and difficult. If practiced as it should be – as a profession – it has never been easy. But the demands on counsel’s time and talent have multiplied exponentially of late, and the 21st Century practitioner’s responsibilities far outstrip those we bore 25 years ago.
But recognition of this fact should be an inspiration to excellence rather than an explanation for failure. No matter how stressed and challenged they may be, lawyers must treat clients – all clients – with basic professional courtesy. That seems rudimentary, but it’s often overlooked or neglected. It shouldn’t be."
The client here gets treated relatively poorly, with his criminal defense lawyer not responding at all to several letters. The Court of Appeal holds that this isn't actionable, but nonetheless, wants to remind everyone to do better next time. To try their best.
Seems like a reasonable message to me.
On another note, at the end of the opinion, after explaining why the plaintiff can't recover compensation notwithstanding the bad things that happened to him, Justice Bedsworth says: "So we are left with the proverbial wrong for which there is no remedy." Which struck me as particularly funny; not ha-ha funny or anything, but ironic. Since there's an express maxim of statutory jurisprudence -- enacted by the Legislature, no less -- that says the exact opposite. Civil Code 3523: "For every wrong there is a remedy."
I get what the Court of Appeal is saying. "More precisely, we are left with a wrong from which there were no damages – at least no legally cognizable damages." It's just funny to use words that are the precise antithesis of something written down in the law books.
