In a casual conversation with lawyer friends of mine, we were
discussing the current situation of displaced people in Haiti. It was
very interesting to hear how educated, well-traveled, sensitive
lawyers’ first reaction to the situation of the displaced in Haiti was
one of concern in regards with the purported landowners’ right to
property.

How about Haiti having 2 million individuals who lost their homes and
livelihood after the earthquake, who live in camps with makeshift
tents, tarpaulins or old sheets held by stones or cinderblocks on open
land, many without water or sanitary conditions, and where there is
widespread violence because of the lack of security? Isn’t this enough
to stop worrying so much about a rich minority’s purported property
rights and think about human suffering? I guessed not.

How about taking responsibility for a change? It is not only the
Haitian government’s responsibility, but it is ours in that we must
stop embracing this culture of property and individualism.

We must be aware, help the disenfranchised, and not value blindly
property rights over human suffering.

In a small effort to share with you the situation in Haiti, I am
including a link to the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti’s
report “We’ve Been Forgotten”: Conditions in Haiti’s Displacement
Camps Eight Months After the Earthquake, that documents the findings
of an investigation regarding the conditions of displacement camps in
Haiti. http://ijdh.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/IDP-Report_Compressed.pdf

I welcome you to read the report, and ask yourself, will you not care
about the millions displaced and instead embrace a culture of
property?

By: Sarah Dávila-Ruhaak

Last night as my friend and I walked from dinner to coffee, ourconversation revealed to me a glimpse into what Professor Rosenbaum means whenhe refers to law students and lawyers as “brain dead.” Prior to attending lawschool, I was a performing artist (dancer), and worked in arts management (mostrecently as a booking agent). I met this friend while working in the industry,and she still works as an agent for theater and dance companies.
This portion of the conversation began when my friend askedme how I maintain a “can-do” attitude in an environment where we are constantlytold “you can’t” or “you’re not good enough,” as apparently 90% of first yearsare told. One of my responses was that I find it’s important to meet practicingattorneys to keep a perspective on the ultimate goal. By talking with practitioners,I can focus on the macro, rather than the micro (what the hell is the ParolEvidence Rule?? Okay, I know what it is now, but you get my point).
Talking about mentors, I thought of one in particular who isan attorney for AIG’s insurance arm (now called Chartis). She basically spendsher time finding ways to get AIG out of paying claims. My friend’s response tothis job description was, “how does she sleep at night?” And, my law studentbrain immediately began generating arguments to justify her job. Well, for ourjustice system to function, all parties need representation. And, a lawyer’sjob is to zealously defend her client. My friend responded, but aren’t therejust some companies that are bad, where representing them adds nothing good tothe world? And I started describing to her our first meeting of Law andLiterature.
I realized that, prior to law school, I would have just saidit’s wrong that insurance companies find every way to screw their clients outof coverage (and I still know that’s wrong). For example, post HurricaneKatrina, many insurance companies would not cover damage they determined to becaused by flood instead of the hurricane, if the homeowner only had hurricaneinsurance. This practice is just wrong. The right thing to do would have beento say, this is a natural disaster that only happens every few decades, and weshould not leave homeowners, who have been paying us for years, withoutcoverage on a technicality. But, of course, that would not be the correctchoice for the bottom line. And lawyers are standing up and arguing theinsurance companies’ side to this injustice.
Anyway, my friend immediately recognized that how insurancecompanies treat most of their clients is just wrong, without qualification. Whatprompted me to think of Professor Rosenbaum’s rant on the “brain dead lawstudent and lawyer” was the fact that I immediately began to think of argumentsto justify wrong behavior that to a non-law student was just wrong, noarguments from the “other side” needed.
By Maya Goree