Maintaining ethical standard

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . .until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

These intriguing lines, are from the famous legal thriller To Kill a Mockingbird, by the celebrated author, Harper Lee.  This single piece of advice given by Atticus guided Scout throughout her journey in the novel. Uncannily enough, we as law students are expected of something similar, to embody the persona of fully fledged lawyer.

One of the first steps of this expedition requires a law student to often interpret and elucidate the words of judges, be it in order to understand a legal principle or just to form an argument. Predicament regarding such a scenario comes into play when the judgment in question is a preeminent one and has already been re-interpreted by several judicial minds. More arduous it is in deciphering those judgments, which are from such an era which had completely different sets of moral and ethical values. From the point of view of a law student, for whom the sheer idea of becoming a lawyer is daunting, such a task if not impossible is inherently onerous.

Other than excelling in the compulsory modules every year, law students around the world are also required to have a good grip on public speaking which in turn requires them to debate and moot. Mooting is the closest a law student can get in regards to embodying the idiosyncrasies of a lawyer. Not only do they have to dress and address everyone in an appropriate manner, but it is also mandatory to use very formal language, unlike. Therefore, for a law student, mooting in other words is putting on the shoes of a lawyer and walking a mile in it.

Most law students are somewhat obliged into the legal profession which often results in a lack of passion and perseverance.  Personalities like Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have pursued legal profession in order to construct the bony structure of an anachronistic legal system with the flesh of justice. On the other hand, some people chose to be in this profession to help miscreants with their misdeeds.

Emphasising on the aspect of miscreants and misdeeds, a question comes into light: does stepping into the skin of a lawyer necessarily require one to be a 'liar'? First of all, it is quite amusing how such a trait is unceremoniously stamped on the forehead of a lawyer. It is perplexing how lying, being one of the greatest sins, is associated with a profession that is instrumental in dispensing justice to the nation at large. What is more doltish is how the mere similarity in the pronunciation of a term has actually lead people into thinking and, at times even believing such misleading conclusions. If we take a moment and think about it, we are not only disrespecting a profession indiscriminately, but also clearly subjecting it to mockery at a global scale. The fact that is often overlooked while making such preposterous assumption is that lying, at the end of the day, is a flaw inherent to mankind and not exclusive to any particular profession. To point at the legal profession and expecting it to be 'lie free' is not only bemusing but at the same time quite impossible and very hypothetical indeed.

At the end of the day, lawyers are complex beings, a blend of so an assortment of components: one would not be entirely wrong in suggesting that they do not possess a single layer of skin.

The writer is a student of law, University of London International Programmes.