Mentoring - reprise

I am taking a short detour from my exploration of the contours of the professionalism definition to a topic that we looked at earlier. (please don't fret, I will return to the definition shortly)

I would like to give my thoughts on a few questions that I received from an earlier mentoring post.

Question:
"I'd appreciate thoughts on how bar associations like NYCLA might help on the mentoring front. Would senior lawyers, including retired and semi-retired lawyers, be willing to participate? Is there a way that at least some CLE credit could be offered to both mentors and mentees for a well-structured program?"

Having retired/semi-retired lawyers in a formal mentoring program would be an amazing resource for young lawyers, for obvious reasons. I think it would be more difficult to get older lawyers on board. The benefits for older lawyers that I can think of: interest enriching the profession with their wisdom, and keeping up with the profession through a young blood, may not be enough to interest retiring lawyers, who might rather be playing golf or learning how to play the piano.

I would love to hear from older lawyers in particular who can think of reason why mentoring young attorneys is attractive to them.

CLE credits might be a way to attract more interest (though I am not sure how CLE credit programs are structured) and there definitely is professional development value in a mentoring program not only for the young attorneys, but also for older lawyers -- to keep them on their toes.

It is worth looking into. If anyone has any information in this regard, please pass it along to me.

Critique of the Definition -- Part I

My first impression of the first paragraph is that it sounds elitist and is likely to put people off.

And disingenuous . . . If I were to ask a random group of people which profession consists of "a group pursuing a learned art as a higher calling in a spirit that it is performing a public service, a service that is indispensable in a democratic nation . . . ." I can assure you not one will say lawyer. sad, but oh so true.

The public servant concept can be looked at more broadly though; in that way the definition is more palatable to me. It is true that as lawyers we are performing a public service whether we assist an indigent inmate in litigating against the city for improvements during his incarceration, and equally a public service when we assist a billionaire find a loop hole in the contract in which she would rather not continue complying with -- in both examples we are assisting members of society with their everyday goals in a way they couldn't do by themselves, without our assistance and specialization.

(However, thinking of that last example I recall the documentary "Corporation" in which the film places the entire blame of overblown, over powerful corporations on lawyers who set out to use those organizations to enrich themselves and their practices. I thought the historical representation was simplistic, naive, narrow, overstated yes, but we shouldn't err on own by overstating our profession as a "learned art").

I wasn't around for the meeting when the definition was finalized and the snippets were taken from various sources. Was lawyering once upon a time referred to as a "learned art"? Who said that?

Finally, I can't really find fault with the last line: as attorneys we owe "an obligation of dignity, integrity, self-respect and respect for others" but in my view we owe those to each other as human beings, not just as attorneys.

Second paragraph next time . . .

I'm Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is (so to speak) -- Intro

I asked that you take a look at the definition of professionalism and let me know what you think. But, that really wasn't fair and 2 questions come to mind: (1) for a discussion on professionalism why should you be analyzing a definition; and (2) why don't I do it myself.

In regards to question 1, the Task Force likes to use the definition as a starting point for discussion. Not so sexy true, but it is packed with assumptions and value judgments that not everyone agrees with. On the other side of the coin, even though the definition is pretty long, many people bring up important aspects of the profession that the definition has failed to cover. Those opinions often make for a lively start-off to discussions among attorneys.

As for question 2, for the next three posts I will be looking, paragraph by paragraph, at the definition and will let you know what I think. As a teaser, I will let you know right off the bat that I think the definition is too long. With that said, below if the first paragraph of the definition; it is what I will be thinking about for the next couple of days:

By professionalism we mean a group pursuing a learned art as a higher calling in a spirit that it is performing a public service, a service that is indispensable in a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. This calling is no less a public service because it may also be a means of livelihood. Pursuit of a learned art in the spirit of a public service is the essence of being a lawyer. It implies an obligation of dignity, integrity, self-respect and respect for others.
. . .

to be continued . . .

Take a Look at the Definition of Professionalism

The Task Force on Professionalism has come up with a working definition of "Professionalism" that I have included on to this blog, at the very bottom on the page. We have asked around for some input on the definition and have received some comments so far, such as: 'pro bono has no place as a requirement in the definition' and 'doesn't address interaction among lawyers.'

Granted as a definition it is long (complete with disclaimers), but if you would take the time to read the definition and give us any comments that you may have, for instance, what you would change or add, we would love to hear from you.

Thanks and regards,