Lawyer

Somebody, a 'passer by', happened to look at an engraving on a coffin which read “Here lies an honest man and a lawyer”….. He wondered loudly, “How could two people be fit into this coffin?”!

The very idea, of taking up a dispute to the court of law, floods in, a feeling of fatigue and weariness, in most people. So, the only thing that seems to persuade, instigate or provoke a person to persist on climbing the steps of a court room would be the stubbornness, adamancy, or to appear more polite, a sense of loyalty to the laws of the land seeking a manifest form out of a very great urge!

In an ideal situation, only complex cases, which require an equanimous mind to analyze and decide as to what ought to prevail, should reach the courts of law. For this to happen, the society as a whole has to evolve. Today, it seems a far fetched dream. But, if we only care to turn the pages of ancient history, we have great civilizations that have demonstrated this possibility. For a convincing ‘ready’ reference, even today, if we just look at the kind of laws that a society has, we would know how evolved the people are! There is a country where, just about 7 decades ago, chopping off a woman’s head, was as simple as beheading a chicken for food. Now they have evolved from that point at least, we can definitely say, when they brought women at par with men, in the eyes of the law. We still have places where simple crimes like petty theft, are punished too severely with chopping off of arms at a public place!

In the Hindu way of life, in ancient days, jurisprudence (not just the ‘laws’, as in other religions) was seamlessly incorporated into the texts which formulated suggestions for an ideal way of life, to evolve into the highest possibility of a human birth, quite effortlessly, by adopting the suggested life-routine. Over a period of time, these suggestions evolved into rituals and traditions, enriched by great beings who came along the time, and who prescribed time-related modifications to these suggestions. Obviously, these texts had to address an individual, not the society as a whole. The way a particular group of people understood and adapted these came to evolve as a unique homogenous group, and over a period of time, acquired traditions, rituals and practices unique to that group. We now see an array of such unique life-styles. Nomenclature follows, to aptly describe the ‘way’ of that group. So the laws were also seamlessly inter woven to suit the lifestyle, taking cue from the original texts, and the deeper concepts of jurisprudence, ensuring strict adherence to spirituality. The present day experts are simply baffled by the complexity of the ‘concepts’, theories, and principles of this ‘way of life’, and thus, even great intellectuals are stuck with just naming this way of life as “Hindu Religion” , unable to make any progress towards comprehending the ‘nature’ of this religion.

The sudden transition into industrialized societies, surmounted by the imposed prescriptions of foreign rule, the society could not adapt to the changed situation, nor could they adhere to the traditional life styles! For the first time, the entire society had to bear the brunt of an absence of a prescribed religious leader! By itself, this ‘religion’ did not ever need any ‘leader’ in the modern sense of the term. Today we find the bulk of the people confused about their own religion, while stray fortunate individuals quietly enjoy the fruit of their individual efforts of self-awareness, and personal pursuit towards a spiritual understanding of this ‘way of life’! The brighter side of this ‘way of life’ is that the whole of its teachings is available as a ‘freeware’ (whether we call it hard ware or a soft ware! It is ‘hard’ when someone turns up after seeing ‘everything’ else, as the opening sentences of that great work by that great master says … ‘And now, Yoga…”; … or,…… it is utterly ‘soft’, when somebody decides to start when it is not at all a need-like priority in routine life, and even when things happen utterly smooth for that person!). The text form is terse, mystic, and tiresome to grasp. The ‘web’ form is quite hi-tech, instantaneous, and self-educative, self-tutored, self-supportive, (and with all such ‘goody-goodies’), but subject to a few simple ‘conditions’ which are unfortunately not quite easy! These conditions are more about our own ‘conditioning’ of self. Not worth while to elaborate here.

Coming back to a ‘lawyer’, the question was about its definition. But, true to my own agenda, I assumed a little bit of that ‘cleverness’ to seek the garb of the category under which this was asked, and proceeded to give out the ‘philosophical’ sense of the term.

The foregoing narrative is to persuade the reader to find a way to justify the answer, if otherwise it looks acceptable in a practical sense!

(It is not just about that ‘professional’ lawyer…. That person has to emanate out of our very same society. So, it has to be about our own people, even right within the families, where youngsters feel dissuaded to present their ‘case’ before elders, even when it comes to crucial life-time affecting questions like career, marriage, co-residing with dependents, etc!)
Psn(9th November, 2010)

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101108102614AAKKELZ
What's the definition of a lawyer?

My answer:
Obviously, what we are looking for is a 'philosophical' definition.

A lawyer is a person, learned in the enactments of the land and who represents the case on behalf of the client so as to present the case before the judge with maximum possible 'fitting' into the structure of law that is enacted by the land.

In doing so, if the law provides loop holes for a culprit to escape, then it is the law to be blamed, not the Vakil, or even the Judge. (As a law student, I had the good fortune to be told by an excellent 'Guru' in law, that the courts are there to administer law, basically, and it would be foolish to 'expect' that "somehow" justice would be rendered! In the whole world, it is in Indian courts perhaps, that we find this theory in a very demonstrable way!) We cannot find fault with common man/woman, when they find that justice is not always rendered in a court of law. Unless the concepts of "Jurisprudence" is well understood, the possibility is more of 'misunderstanding' the judicial process. This is true even for law students, other educated people, literate people, and the illiterate ones, in the ascending order of probability!

(This answer, if found even a little bit acceptable, happens to define the lawyer, the judge, the judicial process, and the institution of legal courts in an 'inclusive' manner. A lawyer does not find an exclusive definition apart from the comprehensive overview of the judicial system, when we look for a philosophical definition)