last friday, i went out to an indian restaurant that i had been wanting to try with some friends of mine, and we're going around the table exchanging commentaries on our lives, and i choose to ramble on about one of my classes wherein i read two very old cases about contract law and considerations and whatnot and made a comment in class that was not, shall we say, very well received ("wow, that's a very cynical view of law!" yes sir, it is.). a white man was dining alone somewhat near us, and all of us had at various points noted to each other his various offenses to his waiter, and after he finished his meal, he came over to me and said something along the lines of, i heard what you were talking about and i just want to say that i'm the only surviving attorney of a same-sex sexual harassment law suit, with two women! [it is unclear as to what exactly this case was or what his role was - but sexual harassment! two women! oh my!], and i just want to give you some advice: i go dressed like this [pointing to himself and his pleated khaki pants with partially untucked button up shirt], and i want to say that if you want to win, you won't win wearing your radical attire [the phrase "radical attire" was entirely his, even if the rest is a paraphrase of his monologue].
ahem. first of all, i was wearing a boy scouts jacket - not too radical there, i think. in fact, one of the more conservative groups, no? also, i was wearing an adidas cap, thus displaying my affection for capitalism and advertising for my corporation of choice.
in any case, um, no, i don't think you heard what i was talking about because, say it with me, i am not a lawyer. that's right. which means that i was not complaining about losing a case - rather, i was complaining about losing an ideological battle. different scenarios. and oh, yeah, i don't think i need any suggestions from you, sir, on how to play the game. i've been playing it for as long as i can remember. quite successfully in fact. so thanks for the advice, but even as someone who is not a seasoned professional like yourself, i'd probably wear a suit to court. because if i remember correctly, i have to look better than you do to even get any sort of goddamn respect and excuse me if i'm looking a little lackluster on a friday night out with friends.
thanks for the advice.
p.s. you weren't looking so great either, but what the hell, white maleness seems to do wonders for one's image.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"I only hate people who deserve it. she said. How do you know? I said. Trust me. she said. I know." - storypeople
we were talking about contracts and the requirement of considerations and the difference between good considerations, which are not binding, and valuable considerations, which are legally binding. right. there were 2 cases, one involving a woman and her brother-in-law, and one involving an uncle and his nephew. both cases were absurd, but the court decided that there was not a valuable consideration for the woman, but there was one for the brother-in-law.
i commented that it seems to me that the cases were essentially the same, and the decision really seems to have been predicated on the idea that the liberty of the woman was less valuable than the liberty of the man (since a definition of a valuable consideration is an infringement on one's liberties).
to which the professor responded that that was a very cynical view of law.
I laughed so hard I scared my cat. Ah, catharsis. Thanks, Laura.
Post a Comment