Brush Up Your Shakespeare

To Be or Not To Be...Paul

I'm giving space today to David Giacalone's blog, f/k/a on the Harvard Law School blog space. In lawspeak, "F/K/A" means "formerly known as."

In a recent post, Mr. Giacalone takes this naked scrivener to task for misrepresenting Shakespeare and regurgitating Bar Association propaganda. Herewith, the pertinent portions of the item,"Et Tu Solomon: More Bull About Shakespeare and Lawyers":

Twice this past month, f/k/a has plugged “Kill all the Lawyers,” which is from the Solomon vs. Law series, by author and former lawyer Paul Levine. Last night, we were about to finish reading the book — and planning to tell our readers how much we enjoyed it — when the following dialogue (at 225) gave the entire Gang a giant case of agita/tsuris:

“More lawyer tricks?” [bad-guy, talk-show psychologist Dr. William] Kreeger said. “Technicalities and obfuscations. No wonder Shakespeare said, “‘Let’s kill all the lawyers.’”

“Shakespeare had a villain say that,” Steve replied, miraculously remembering a long-ago English Lit class at the U. “Dick the Butcher said it in a play, one of the Henrys. His pals were planning to overthrow the government, so the first thing they planned was to kill the lawyers to make the job easier. You’re misconstruing the line, just like you’re mischaracterizing my sister.”

“More legalese?” Kreeger taunted him. “More fine print and sleight of hand. Yes, indeed. Let’s kill all the lawyers before they kill all of us.”

I hate to side with the evil, pedophile-murderer, but Dr. Kreeger is absolutely correct: lawyer Solomon is obfuscating, and — actually — using some rather clumsy sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, Solomon didn’t get his mis-information from an English Literature course.

He got it straight from the propaganda playbook of bar associations across the United States. The Bar has been telling everyone who will listen (and especially themselves) that the sentence “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” [King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii] demonstrates Shakespeare’s unshakable recognition of the important role lawyers play in maintaining the rule of law and the fruits of civilization. They argue that unruly rebels want to kill lawyers first, because it is the most effective step toward bringing down the Government and uprooting society.

There’s one problem, neither the play itself nor English history supports the legal profession’s interpretation of Shakespeare. First, the conversation between Jack Cade and Dick the Butcher is not a discussion on how to plot to win a rebellion against lawful government. Quite the opposite, Cade is proclaiming what he will do “when I am king, — as king I will be.” When Butcher yells out that the first thing he wants done is to kill all the lawyers, Cade responds, “Nay, that I mean to do,” and laments “I was never mine own man” since signing a contract [”scribbled” on parchment by a lawyer and sealed with bee’s wax].

Clearly, author, and former lawyer, Paul Levine should know better. His novels and other writings are well-researched and realistic. Either Levine never bothered to take a look at what Shakespeare actually said, or he so badly wanted to take lawyers off the hook that he was willing to swallow the specious argument of his colleagues at the Bar and to recklessly pass along their claim despite its frivolous nature.

It’s one thing for our protagonist Steve Solomon to manipulate facts to persuade judges, opposing counsel or juries. Among “Solomon’s Laws,” you will find, for example:

“Lying to judges is preferable to lying to the woman you love.”

“Thous shalt not screw your own client . . . unless thou hast a damn good reason.”

“A creative lawyer considers a judge’s order a mere suggestion.” and,

“I won’t lie to a lawyer’s face or stab him in the back, but if I have the chance, I’ll look him in the eye and kick him in the cojones.

But, it is totally unacceptable to make a statement that is clearly meant to manipulate and mislead his readers.
********************************************

Yikes! Okay, let me confess. I don't know diddly about Henry VI. But I sure don't want "to take lawyers off the hook." I like to put lawyers on the hook and skewer them!

But maybe I swallowed the Bar Association propaganda. Dozens of times over the years, I have read the Dick the Butcher explanation that Steve Solomon gives in the book. Then again, Solomon is not that well-versed in Shakespeare, either.

What's your reading experience? Can you think of any authors -- other than this whipped dog of a naked scribbler -- who get their facts (or interpretations) arguably wrong? Have you ever made a mistake in your own writing?

Paul