9 Then came “Woe Unto You,. Lawyers!”. Rodell knew that it would make every lawyer bristle or snort. ‘By FRED RODELL, Professor of Law, Yale University. Here’s a book you don’t have to buy; the entire text is here, in glorious HTML. It’s Fred Rodell’s “lusty, gusty attack on ‘The Law’ as a curious. This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for Leo Herzel, Rodell: Woe unto You, Lawyers!, 7 DePaul L. Rev. () You, Lawyers! By FRED RODELL.

Author: Doran Tagore
Country: Indonesia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 14 August 2007
Pages: 101
PDF File Size: 13.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.13 Mb
ISBN: 953-1-61719-626-2
Downloads: 53356
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kem

There is a general principle that businesses affected with a public interest may, by and large, be regulated but that to regulate a business not so affected is a d. And if it did not, incidentally, consume so much space in the law libraries. State Tax Commission U. The state of Ohio, not unnaturally, had assumed that all these cases had very little to do with the problem in Senior v.

Dec 10, Reuvenc added it.

Woe Unto You, Lawyers!

And suppose the church was putting on a subscription drive for funds. For New Hampshire, for instance, would no more try to slap a property tax on a farm in Iowa than the United States would try to tax a ranch in Argentina. All he gets is his share of the profits when they come in. But what Max Senior really owns is land, some of it outside Ohio.

And the man who promised the bracelet paid up but the man who gave the fur coat did not — presumably because he could no longer afford to.

Woe Unto You, Lawyers! by Fred Rodell

One is to the effect that any action, or inaction, which seems presently so desirable that a failure to indulge the desire may affect the disposition over a period of hours will, in such circumstances, be the right action, or inaction, at least if that period of hours is taken as controlling for the future.

The lawyers have made such a complicated mess out of the word-game they call legal reasoning that any effort to dissect even a tiny part of that reasoning and show it up for the fake that it is, inevitably makes tough going. So too do the lawyers who have been canonized as judges. Then, if the boss catches Tony one inch on one side of the line, The Law will intone — no Acceptance, no Contract, no fifty dollars; whereas if Tony is one inch on the other side of the line, The Law will intone — Acceptance, Contract, pay up.


All of the rodfll of the law is such, as Mr. Is this not clear proof that The Law moves with the times? Law is a racket and maybe an unjust technique for controlling the world.

The man kept right on enjoying lawhers interest and his dividends until frrd died. He might keep the right to direct the management of the property, or to say who should get it at his death. Yet why — if you think it over for a minute — should people roddll be privileged to understand completely and precisely any written laws that directly concern them, any business documents they have to sign, any code of rules and restrictions which applies to them and under which they jou live?

The notion persists in spite of the fact that often and often again roedll nine judges themselves cannot agree. But the fireworks start when it comes down to a question of who is going to tell whether laws are unconstitutional — and how.

Accordingly we must ascertain for ourselves upon what it was laid. The difficulty would lie in deciding beforehand what to do and what not to do, in accordance with the inexorable rules of her personal Law. The problem of Brown v.

Fred Rodell, Woe Unto You, Lawyers,

The first principle is that before you can have a Contract that The Law will uphold, you must have an Offer by one party and an Acceptance by another party. And, incidentally, the Supreme Court did almost the same thing with the whole of the Clayton Act by picking on other meaningless legalistic words to prove that most trusts were not trusts and most monopolies were not monopolies — according to The Law.

For Max was allowed to keep every cent of the hundred-odd dollars that Ohio was trying to take from him in taxes.

The point is that the so-called concept of Consideration is both meaningless and useless until you know every one of the countless fact situations about which courts have said: By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. It may, however, be possible to indicate something of the futility and irrelevance of legal processes merely by an imaginary application of the legal way of settling problems to a field in which decisions are customarily made in a more direct and efficient manner.

  6ES7 353-1AH01-0AE0 PDF

There is no written rule to tell whether a man who orders a house built with a bathroom between the kitchen and the pantry has to take the house and pay the builder if everything else is fine but the bathroom is between the living room and the coat-closet. Lawhers problem remains unsettled. Aug 16, Tommy rated it really liked it.

It takes three years to get through law school. And that feed all Brown v. And incidentally, the idea that this might not be any business of ours at all is beneath serious consideration. For, no matter how differently different judges in different places may decide the same human problem, or decide it differently in the same place lawyees different times, the great legend of The Law as steadfast and all-embracing is always adhered to.

Before the Clayton Act was passed, the lawyers had ruled that just about all picketing was against The Law. Nick marked it as to-read Feb 17, Its members are kowtowed to as the cream of the legal profession, steeped not only in the technicalities of legal logic but in the wondrous ways of abstract justice as well. The students know that law eventually deals with extremely practical matters like buying land and selling stock and putting thieves in jail.

Listed alphabetically, they are:. And only the solemn and mystifying mumbo-jumbo of legal language keeps the non-lawyers form catching on. The general idea is that the federal government may not do anything that the Constitution does not specifically say it may do.

And giving each of those silly little rules as much potency and prestige as if it had been adopted by the people as an amendment to the Constitution.