Law: The Philosophy of "The Hunt"

The Law is analogous to "the mighty hunt". In hunting each individual hunter seeks the ultimate prize in the form of the moose head, bear skin, or rack of antlers to display in the living room (or more appropriately the den . . . just seems more fitting a location). The epitome of success is defined by being the one and only to capture the foe so as to be able to display your hunting prowess through some sort of status symbol to the world. Ego seems to be the greater motive as only so many neighbors are willing to eat squirrel flavored meat and even when they do accept it most let it sit in their garage freezers until that day comes when they know you are out of town and are free to chuck it into the garbage and roll it out to the curb for pickup.


In the Law the counsel representing each party (and often the parties themselves) in a dispute are each--through whatever means necessary--attempting to be the one and only to obtain the ultimate prize (multi-million dollar verdict). The process turns more into a battle between two children fighting over a stuffed animal where only one can have or hold the prize and the other ought to be left with nothing. So defines the adversarial model. Once obtained, the victor is less concerned about justice and more concerned with the symbol of success. Something must be broken.


Here is the problem . . . most legal disputes are more like the deer who never stops running (a moving target) so the hunter is unable to take the "kill shot" and instead the parties chase the ultimate prize, often for years, never reaching a satisfactory resolution. What is the ultimate result? Who cares that isn't what matters (have you learned nothing?). . . what matters is obtaining the ultimate prize so why worry about the costs in the form of finances or time that are wasted in chasing the moving target. Because of this model, I will one day be employed and paid money (let's hope enough to pay back Uncle Sam what I will owe him) to develop strategy to obtain the ultimate prize (or at least more than the other guy).


In the words of Paul Harvey . . .  "and now for the rest of the story."


I do not wish to sound disillusioned or turned off by the standard model from which attorneys work. As in fact I respect the system for what value it CAN have and look forward to the practice of law (though be it more likely transactional in nature). I Just wanted to point out that the next time Uncle John is boasting about his latest hunting trip success to think about the primeval motivations that serve as the foundation for how we as a people define "success". Then ask yourself this question . . . Are we right? Should success be based on the underlying objective of the law, business, and athletics. . . WINNING or should it be based on something else?