LINKS:

Witness for the  Prosectuon article

"Witness"  letters, continued

Other letters covering Autumn 1999 stories

Contrary to Prof. Schiltz's simplistic suggestion, neither dishonesty nor family breakup in our society is the monopoly of hard-working wealthy individuals. Nor are these undesirable traits limited to the converse. Rather, unfortunately, ethics and honesty are step-children of our hedonistic culture that romanticizes sex, violence and the quick buck and rejects old-time religious and family values.

Prof. Schiltz's total indictment of the legal profession is insulting to the large number of hard-working lawyers who have not lost their moral compass. I, for example, have enjoyed almost 45 years in practice -- most in a large firm where I continue to have more than 2000 billable hours annually -- but have found time to give several years to Government service, served as Chairman and still serve as Trustee of a substantial charitable health-related facility, and on the Board of Directors ( or equivalent governing body) of two other not-for-profit organizations. To fill out the picture, I have been very happily married for almost 43 years with three wonderful children. While there were many months during which I would have preferred to have spent more time with my family -- just as soldiers in a war would prefer -- responsibilities to clients which I had assumed did not give me that choice without ignoring those responsibilities. And my wife, three children and I remain a very loving and close-knit family.

In the end, indictment of any group -- whether racial, religious, or professional -- ignores that we are all individuals who should be judged as individuals. That an individual chooses to work hard and seeks to earn more money does not preclude acting ethically, honestly and responsibly.

Gerald Walpin
New York, NY 10022

Patrick Schiltz'sconfessional article excoriating what the legal profession has become is notable for several reasons. First, his inside view of a large law firm rings all too true; I've been there as both an associate and a partner. Ridiculous starting salaries for new law graduates are an embarrassment to the profession, and greed permeates much of large law firm life these days.

But Schiltz goes too far and at least some of his "facts" are not reliable. Stating that fully one-third of lawyers are either clinically depressed, alcoholic, or abuse drugs that has no basis in competent medical research but is, in fact, mere speculation based on a 1990 Washington state study in which self-reporting was the method utilized. I'll grant it shock value, but not global application. Schiltz finds us a group unethical, unhealthy and unhappy, a rather sweeping generalization. He's entitled to his opinion but the majority of practicing lawyers I know, myself included, find a great deal of satisfaction in what we do best -- counseling, advising, and resolving all sorts of problems for often grateful clients. Lots of lawyers I know like what they do and want to keep doing it. We must work harder, however, to improve both the image and the reality of lawyers in American society.

I can't help but think that Schiltz's view of law practice has been twisted by his traumatic law firm experience. But it should take more than one bad employment trip to sour someone on law -- particularly one who purports to tell Notre Dame law students "what it's all about" in the real world. As in anything else, a little balance goes a long way.

Patricia T. Bergeson JD '76
Chicago

It's hard to tell upon reading Patrick Schiltz's article, "Witness for the Prosectuion,' which of his outlandish assertions about practicing law is the most ridiculous or the most offensive. Is it that young lawyers at big law firms are unknowingly "lying and cheating and stealing every day that [they] practice law"? Or that senior partners routinely host lavish catered dinner parties in "gigantic houses" fronted by perfectly manicured laws and "a long line of Mercedeses and BMWs"? Or that every "big firm" partner invariably has two failed marriages a terrible relationship with his kids and no time to watch television, "[take] a walk," "[go] to church" or do "anything that was not in some way related to work"? Regardless of which assertion wins the award, Mr. Schiltz somehow believes that his miserable failure to lead a balanced life (his words, not ours) while at a large law firm entitles him to label all lawyers in private practice as money-grubbing, self-possessed and immoral.

Having worked for more than 10 years at a "giant law firm," we feel the need to reassure your readers that Mr. Schiltz's bad experience in private practice bears practically no resemblance to our own. We do not lie, cheat and steal while filing out our time sheets. We do not live in enormous houses with immaculate lawns. We do not own Mercedeses or BMWs, just the same cars we purchased shortly after leaving law school in 1987. We also watch television, take walks, go to church, have fun with our (first and only) wives and children, and lead normal, responsible lives. In other words, we have not encountered the fraudulent and unethical conduct that Mr. Schiltz contends is so prevalent in the dreaded "big-firm" law practice.

Maybe the problem is that Mr. Schiltz is not a graduate of Notre Dame Law School or the University and has not had the benefit of its ethical training. Though he has only been at the University since 1995, we would have hoped that this was sufficient time to recognize that Notre Dame focuses on the development and education of lawyers of strong moral character and ethical principles. Perhaps Mr. Schiltz should keep the Law School's mission in mind the next time he considers disparaging every Notre Dame lawyer who works at a big law firm.

Michael P. Gurdak '84, '87 J.D.
Gregory M. Shumaker '87 J.D.
Washington, D.C.

Patrick J. Schiltz's article demands a response. I was shocked to read a lengthy bashing of my profession in a Notre Dame publication.

If Mr. Schiltz found it impossible to practice law ethically, then it certainly is a relief to know that he is no lawyer practicing law. Now that Mr. Schiltz has seen the light, he has apparently been transformed from troubled lawyer to self-righteous judge.

In addition to insulting me and many other Notre Dame lawyers by implying that all lawyers who practice in large law firms are unethical, Mr. Schiltz's article is dangerous in that it perpetuates the myth that everyone who attends law school will get a high paying job at a large law firm upon graduation, as well as the perception that everyone who does get a job at a large law firm will be rolling in money.

In reality, only a small percentage of law school graduates are offered jobs at large law firms. The rest do something altogether different. In many cases, they are severely underpaid for the something different they do. Mr. Schiltz's many references to the financial rewards of practicing law are misleading as those rewards are only reality for a very few. Further, articles like his, which suggest that those rewards are there for the taking, do nothing but attract more people to the profession who are motivated mostly by money.

Mr. Schiltz's article missed something else about the process that may lead some in the profession, to dwell too much upon money.

Let's take one giant step backward from the large law firm Mr. Schiltz. Many law schools, including the one that employs you, send most of its graduates out the door with so much debt (sometimes exceeding $100,000) that they have no choice but to go to work for a large law firm, and that they will not be living high on the hog as they do. Redo the math in the portion of your article which appeared on page 23. This time subtract out the huge monthly loan payments most law school graduates have to make ( in some cases as high as $1,500), and you might see the nexus your articles does not discuss. In short Mr. Schiltz, even if you did leave behind "lots and lots of money" to join the Notre Dame faculty, you may well still be part of a system which continues to turn out unhappy and unhealthy lawyers.

Mr. Schiltz's article insults the happy, healthy and ethical graduates of Notre Dame Law School and adds insult to the injury to the graduates of Notre Dame Law School who, while unhappy or unhealthy, are still ethical. We are all waiting for an apology.

Maureen R. Smith '93
Chicago

Patrick Schiltz's recent article, "Witness for the Prosecution," has given me an ulcer. Let me explain. . . . I am a first year law student. For the past three months, I have buried myself in a pile of contracts, civil procedure and criminal law. I have done my daily reading, talked theory with my roommates, worried about student loans and thought about looking for a summer job. And I have listened to both sides of the big-firm, big-money debate.

I still don't know what I want to do with the education I hope to receive in the next few years. I know that Schiltz's article and the opinion that he expresses scare me. I fear that the community of which Schiltz writes is one in which even the best of intentions are always corrupted, and I don't want to get sucked.

And how does this relate to you?

While I appreciated the opportunity that you, as editor of Notre Dame Magazine, provided for myself, other law students and lawyers to read Schiltz's criticism, I sincerely regret that the Autumn 1999 issue could find no space to balance Schiltz's opinion with another -- any other -- perspective. I am certain that, if the members of any law school's Public Interest Foundation were contacted, a different opinion and an entirely different lifestyle would emerge. There are many members of the legal community- both within and outside of big firms -- who pursue different goals and live their lives by different standards.

Notre Dame Magazine stands in a unique position because it reaches both young and old readers. The content of your magazine affects people at all stages of their lives. As a recent graduate and a first year law student at Duke University, I would have loved to see ND Magazine dig a little deeper and show the other side. Is it really fair to identify "The Troubled Conscience of the Legal Profession" and give no mention to the people trying to fix that? I don't think so.

Sarah Dylag '99
Durham, NC 27707

P.S. Your writing class is still one of my favorite classes at ND!

 I read the article, "Wittness for the Prosecution" in the autumn issue with a great deal of interest. As the father of two attorney sons who are both honest and ethical (as well as having four daughters in profession who are also honest and ethical), I took particular notice of the point which Patrick Schiltz made.

He states that it is women who are having the greatest problems -- ethically speaking. Many people agree with him that women in the profession frequently succumb to the negative pressure in the practice of law and in other areas. I admire his moral courage in making his assertions.

Charles A. La Gratta '47
Richmond, VA

P.S. Does this mean that Hilary Clinton leads the group?

Patrick Schiltz's "Wittess for the Prosecution" makes clear how difficult it is today for ethical people to practice law. It also makes clear that a "good" attorney need not be an ethical attorney.

That the practice of law often works to preclude ethical conduct among practitioners is indeed alarming. More alarming is the fact that the lack of ethics in the practice of law often reflects the lack of ethics in the clients served, i.e., society itself. Most alarming however, is the fact that today=s practitioners will become tomorrow's judges.

William L. Kallal '66
Cheyenne, WY 

Notre Dame magazine home page