November 2002 Archives

I found myself in an instant-messaging conversation about Plato's The Republic the other night. On the other end were a senior, a junior, and at least one freshman from my alma mater, who were inquiring about the Republic because it has long been part of the college's Freshman Studies program. The topics of pedagogical agony for the night were the metaphors for knowledge and thinking, the "divided line" and the famous allegory of the Cave. (Stephanus pages 509d-521b).

I always enjoy talking about this work with people who haven't encountered Plato or the Republic before, especially this particular segment of the book, because it offers an opportunity to introduce and question themes that repeat themselves in Western philosophy and that also turn up in Eastern philosophy. Just those eighteen or so pages of the text raise the question of what one considers to be "knowledge" and the extent to which people can possess it. That's only the fundamental question of epistemology. Plato's discussion of knowledge can be used to illustrate a kind of correspondence theory of truth and to discuss what that might entail as opposed to other theories. Even if going that far sets some students' heads spinning, it's still fun to play with those ideas to the extent that people are ready.

Well, at least I think so.

What lessons have people learned in law practice that surprised them, lessons for which they weren't ready? I wonder about this a lot. I had one lesson that caught me a bit by surprise last year while I was in the clinical program at my law school. I had expected some of the other things I ran into -- clients reluctant to be fully honest (I found the ideas in the Binder and Price client counseling book helpful in that regard), clients who don't get back to you, don't provide the documentation you need, and little things along those lines. But this one snuck up on me just a bit: you can do your best legal work, even the best legal work possible in a situation, but you cannot save a client from him- or herself. In the end, you can only represent and advise.

It seems like common sense when I put it like that. But I was a new student lawyer who really wanted to help my client, and actually feeling what it was like to reach the limits of my ability to help was different from just knowing that those limits existed.

So, what have you learned about law during a case when you didn't expect to?

I decided to do some reading in the telecom regulation area. A lot more of this rides on the FCC than I'd made it appear below, because the 1996 Telecommunications Act allows the FCC simply to forbear from regulating in most (but not all) areas.

There would still be statutory and administrative law burdens applying to any FCC decision not to regulate. Also, it can't forbear from applying sections 251(c) (interconnection obligations specific to ILECs) and 271 (requiring the BOCs to open competition in their own territories before they can provide interLATA long distance service) of the Act.

I get the impression that much of the push from the new technology sector and its theorists would involve the FCC choosing to forbear from regulating or choosing much more relaxed regulations.

I'll be doing more detailed reading in this area, but I don't think I'll talk about it here. It's not really what I came here to talk about.