Slate examines President George Bush’s relationship to his Attorney General, passing along some general comments on lawyering along the way.
Dahlia Lithwick writes (excerpt):
One of the most striking legacies of my brief foray into the wonderful world of divorce law was the observation of this difference between wealthy clients and normal ones: The wealthy clients, particularly CEOs and business owners, tended to believe that the role of a divorce lawyer is to deliver precisely the legal outcome they desire, regardless of what the law itself demands. Whether it was an issue of custody, child-support payments, or Christmas visits, these clients would instruct us on precisely what they wanted and wait to have it implemented.
This is the “plumber” model of an attorney; they are expected to arrange the pipes to dump water where the client wants it. Divorce law doesn’t always work that way, though. Counsel is constrained by precise child- and spousal-support formulae, and family law judges have almost limitless discretion to do what they deem to be in the best interest of the children. First comes the child, then comes the statute, and only then come the wishes of the client.
I spent many, many hours trying to explain to rich men that while they may want to pay $200 per month in support and have visitation only on alternating golf days, the law just could not be wrestled into compliance. This is the “judge” model of an attorney. One offers best guesses about what the law will permit, then tries to persuade the client to live with it.
****
Of course the distinction between these two models of lawyering is never that simple. Most attorneys weave back and forth between acting as hired gun and wise counselor 20 times a day. And despite a haze of repression, even I can recall that whole legal-ethics classes were devoted to the question of when an attorney should answer solely to her client and when she is obligated to act according to the greater good. . . .