Why the issue of free speech and the SoP is important: Part 3: As a Professional

 * My standard disclaimer: While this opinion piece is written specifically for paralegals for the 2019 LSO Bencher Election for which I am a candidate, I also write for other licensees, other professional, laymen and anyone interested. Please have patience if it seems a bit pedantic or discusses what you might already understand. Reducing complex issues to clear and exacting ideas requires it.

Why the issue of free speech and the SoP is important: Part 3: As a Professional

The word itself has more than one meaning depending on the context. In one sense it equates to doing a good job and in another it distinguishes between those that earn an income in the performance of the ‘job’ as opposed to those that don’t.

For my purposes here the meaning I propose has to do with the level of complexity involved in the performance of the job and the commensurate level of prestige the society place on that position as a result. Doctors and lawyer typically are classed as professions for this reason. In organizational theory terms it’s called task uncertainty. Typically, professionals are highly educated and are given a wide degree of discretion in both goals and the strategy employed.

In that sense we are professionals. As professionals, we are supposed to have a solid grasp of the substance of the matter and be able to make nuanced distinctions when applying relevant rules and principles so as to be able to parse good arguments from bad. That means not just incorporating not just the facts of the case and both sides of the argument but also to be able to foresee and forge a workable strategy based on cogent theory of the case and how that strategy will advance the client’s goals. We work not just with rules but with the principles behind the rules and put that to practical application. We take charge of the matter, make decisions on the ground in the heat of ‘battle’, and often while prognosticating on future events without all the information. This is truly fuzzy logic.

As professionals, we have to be able to pat our heads and rub our stomachs at the same time, and sometimes we can even do backflips on a unicycle while we do it. We can do all that, but somehow, we still need training wheels for our principles, just to make sure we don’t tip too far one way or another. So, I don’t have a problem with the LSO regulating my actions, like stopping me and my unicycle from performing in the court room.

But the LSO is meant to govern the ‘practice’ of law, not the ‘thinking’ of law or really the ‘thinking of the practice’ of law. We all have our own values and principles that we incorporate on a daily basis as part of who we are as a professional on how we handle cases. As a professional, I don’t need or want to be second guessed on how I think. Regulate my actions and if I actually do something wrong then deal with that when it happens.

Postscript: While I think this perspective has validity the other reasons why this is an important issue hold more weight for me. With that in mind my next post will be why this is the issue of free speech and the SoP is important to me as a member of our professional organization.