Most lawyers don’t fit ugly portrait painted by national news magazine
When the Aug. 6 issue of Maclean’s magazine hit the newsstands, it caused a stir in the legal community. That’s not surprising, given that splashed across the cover, in large yellow letters, was the headline “Lawyers are rats.”
It was accompanied by photographs of grim-faced individuals evocative of soap opera villains, with captions such as “I’m dishonest,” “I sleep with my clients” and “Justice? Ha!” Many people were surprised at seeing such a generalized and inflammatory statement on the cover of a respected magazine.
My first reaction to the headline was wonder at how such a statement would be considered acceptable. Perhaps it’s because lawyers are such an easy target. Everyone knows the lawyer jokes and the stereotype of the greedy, shady barrister who can’t be trusted and is only looking out for number one. But do people genuinely believe it to the point where they think everyone associated with the profession deserves to be insulted on the cover of a national magazine?
The headline invites further examination which, of course, was the point. To make such an incendiary claim, one would think the magazine would feature an in-depth investigation uncovering shocking facts that back it up. However, as it turns out, the article is just a Q&A with “ex-Bay Street lawyer” Philip Slayton, who wrote a juicy, tell-all book about some of his colleagues and their unethical behaviour. He uses this as the basis for arguing the entire legal profession is corrupt. Apparently, this one man’s opinion is worthy of slagging an entire profession (and promoting his book in the process).
In the interview, Slayton indicates he’s using the stories to “extract general ideas: the amoral nature of legal practice, the sense of misery that pervades the legal profession.” So these stories of lawyers who are rats are meant to prove lawyers are rats.
All the examples Slayton uses as the basis for his argument refer to his experiences working in large Toronto firms, which, even if they are representative of what happens there, don’t represent the circumstances of the entire legal profession across Canada. He also admits to his own dishonesty in doing some of the same things. In other words, he’s one of the rats.
He goes on to say “a lot of people don’t like lawyers and would be horrified if their child came home and said, ‘I want to be a lawyer,’” yet offers no hard evidence — not exactly a well-researched fact from a reliable source.
Slayton also says he never tells people he’s a lawyer, but rather he’s “in auto parts.” Interesting, since, if we’re working with stereotypes here, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are as many people — if not more — with stories about greedy, crooked mechanics. Perhaps Maclean’s next cover story will be: “Mechanics are weasels.”
In answering its critics in a subsequent editorial, the magazine said the headline “was a reasonable reflection of Slayton’s views” and his views were newsworthy. The magazine points to the comments of a couple of justices and a legal ethicist who are concerned about a tendency in the legal profession to focus on the bottom line over the pursuit of justice.
Perhaps if the magazine had featured a story using sources like this in the first place, there would be a little more behind its bold headline. Still, it’s a stretch to go from those comments to saying lawyers in general are unprofessional, sex-crazed liars who don’t care about justice.
The magazine also noted “these are complicated and important issues,” which makes it a little confusing as to why Maclean’s chose to introduce the issues in a simplistic manner offensive to many. The legal profession, like many other professions, has problems that should be addressed, but insulting the very group in need of change is not a very effective method.
I have worked with many lawyers, from those in large Toronto firms to smaller, local practices across the country, for articles published in Canadian HR Reporter and Canadian Employment Law Today. While my experiences can’t compare to Slayton’s decades in the profession, I know of lawyers who are not the nicest individuals and I could probably believe the worst about them, but I also know many who are hard-working, honest professionals who take their responsibilities very seriously.
Some organize and participate in charity events and perform legal assistance. Many employment lawyers in particular, with whom I come into contact the most, feel strongly about trying to help people. The fact is, it takes dedication to go through the years of school to become a lawyer and even more dedication to handle the pressure of being a lawyer. I could write a book about many of the lawyers I know and call it Lawyers are dedicated and good people. Unfortunately, that might not be juicy enough for Maclean’s.
There’s no disputing there are crooked lawyers out there, just as there’s no disputing there are honest lawyers, too. The same goes for every profession or group.
We’ve all heard the stories in the news about teachers fooling around with underage students and priests abusing children. There’s no denying these things unfortunately happen. But if a teacher or a priest writes a book with sordid details about these events and says they’re all guilty, is it acceptable for a national news source to trumpet “Teachers are creeps” or “Priests are pedophiles?” Do we then believe all teachers or priests can’t be trusted? Is it okay to splash it across the front cover and denigrate those groups because somebody believes it to be true?
According to Slayton and Maclean’s, the answer is yes. Maclean’s admits “there are many hard-working and honest lawyers in Canada” but because the legal profession is self-governing, “every Canadian lawyer is implicated in the failures” of the lawyers Slayton discusses in his book. Should we assume then if bar associations were regulated by the government, lawyers would not be rats?
There’s no doubt the legal profession, like many others, is composed of corrupt individuals who abuse the system as well as honest people who believe in what they do and can be trusted. The problems caused by the bad eggs need to be addressed and it’s important to bring them to people’s attention. The magazine was obviously looking for a controversial headline that would draw people in, but does “Lawyers are rats” inspire discussion or instead promote ill will? As Maclean’s said in response to the uproar, sometimes “you have to shout to get their attention.” Unfortunately, what it shouted was more damaging than helpful.
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today, a sister publication to Canadian HR Reporter. He can be reached at [email protected]. For more information visit www.employmentlawtoday.com.
It was accompanied by photographs of grim-faced individuals evocative of soap opera villains, with captions such as “I’m dishonest,” “I sleep with my clients” and “Justice? Ha!” Many people were surprised at seeing such a generalized and inflammatory statement on the cover of a respected magazine.
My first reaction to the headline was wonder at how such a statement would be considered acceptable. Perhaps it’s because lawyers are such an easy target. Everyone knows the lawyer jokes and the stereotype of the greedy, shady barrister who can’t be trusted and is only looking out for number one. But do people genuinely believe it to the point where they think everyone associated with the profession deserves to be insulted on the cover of a national magazine?
The headline invites further examination which, of course, was the point. To make such an incendiary claim, one would think the magazine would feature an in-depth investigation uncovering shocking facts that back it up. However, as it turns out, the article is just a Q&A with “ex-Bay Street lawyer” Philip Slayton, who wrote a juicy, tell-all book about some of his colleagues and their unethical behaviour. He uses this as the basis for arguing the entire legal profession is corrupt. Apparently, this one man’s opinion is worthy of slagging an entire profession (and promoting his book in the process).
In the interview, Slayton indicates he’s using the stories to “extract general ideas: the amoral nature of legal practice, the sense of misery that pervades the legal profession.” So these stories of lawyers who are rats are meant to prove lawyers are rats.
All the examples Slayton uses as the basis for his argument refer to his experiences working in large Toronto firms, which, even if they are representative of what happens there, don’t represent the circumstances of the entire legal profession across Canada. He also admits to his own dishonesty in doing some of the same things. In other words, he’s one of the rats.
He goes on to say “a lot of people don’t like lawyers and would be horrified if their child came home and said, ‘I want to be a lawyer,’” yet offers no hard evidence — not exactly a well-researched fact from a reliable source.
Slayton also says he never tells people he’s a lawyer, but rather he’s “in auto parts.” Interesting, since, if we’re working with stereotypes here, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are as many people — if not more — with stories about greedy, crooked mechanics. Perhaps Maclean’s next cover story will be: “Mechanics are weasels.”
In answering its critics in a subsequent editorial, the magazine said the headline “was a reasonable reflection of Slayton’s views” and his views were newsworthy. The magazine points to the comments of a couple of justices and a legal ethicist who are concerned about a tendency in the legal profession to focus on the bottom line over the pursuit of justice.
Perhaps if the magazine had featured a story using sources like this in the first place, there would be a little more behind its bold headline. Still, it’s a stretch to go from those comments to saying lawyers in general are unprofessional, sex-crazed liars who don’t care about justice.
The magazine also noted “these are complicated and important issues,” which makes it a little confusing as to why Maclean’s chose to introduce the issues in a simplistic manner offensive to many. The legal profession, like many other professions, has problems that should be addressed, but insulting the very group in need of change is not a very effective method.
I have worked with many lawyers, from those in large Toronto firms to smaller, local practices across the country, for articles published in Canadian HR Reporter and Canadian Employment Law Today. While my experiences can’t compare to Slayton’s decades in the profession, I know of lawyers who are not the nicest individuals and I could probably believe the worst about them, but I also know many who are hard-working, honest professionals who take their responsibilities very seriously.
Some organize and participate in charity events and perform legal assistance. Many employment lawyers in particular, with whom I come into contact the most, feel strongly about trying to help people. The fact is, it takes dedication to go through the years of school to become a lawyer and even more dedication to handle the pressure of being a lawyer. I could write a book about many of the lawyers I know and call it Lawyers are dedicated and good people. Unfortunately, that might not be juicy enough for Maclean’s.
There’s no disputing there are crooked lawyers out there, just as there’s no disputing there are honest lawyers, too. The same goes for every profession or group.
We’ve all heard the stories in the news about teachers fooling around with underage students and priests abusing children. There’s no denying these things unfortunately happen. But if a teacher or a priest writes a book with sordid details about these events and says they’re all guilty, is it acceptable for a national news source to trumpet “Teachers are creeps” or “Priests are pedophiles?” Do we then believe all teachers or priests can’t be trusted? Is it okay to splash it across the front cover and denigrate those groups because somebody believes it to be true?
According to Slayton and Maclean’s, the answer is yes. Maclean’s admits “there are many hard-working and honest lawyers in Canada” but because the legal profession is self-governing, “every Canadian lawyer is implicated in the failures” of the lawyers Slayton discusses in his book. Should we assume then if bar associations were regulated by the government, lawyers would not be rats?
There’s no doubt the legal profession, like many others, is composed of corrupt individuals who abuse the system as well as honest people who believe in what they do and can be trusted. The problems caused by the bad eggs need to be addressed and it’s important to bring them to people’s attention. The magazine was obviously looking for a controversial headline that would draw people in, but does “Lawyers are rats” inspire discussion or instead promote ill will? As Maclean’s said in response to the uproar, sometimes “you have to shout to get their attention.” Unfortunately, what it shouted was more damaging than helpful.
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today, a sister publication to Canadian HR Reporter. He can be reached at [email protected]. For more information visit www.employmentlawtoday.com.
