Episode 05: The Leviticus Standard - overcoming favoritism and partiality when pressing the client’s case
Anyone who finds themself in the labyrinth of our modern legal system should take a moment to consider the purpose of the ‘law’ — where it comes from and who it protects.
Twentieth century discoveries identify the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu as the oldest known law codes, dating back to around 2,000 BC. Both existed primarily to protect the monarchy and the upper classes. In this respect, these laws of the ancient near-east had little in common with our modern concept of equal justice.
By contrast, the first law code that deals extensively with the idea of equal justice, or a moral law, is the Law of Moses, dated to around the time of 1,300 BC. Moses’ law did not concern itself with the interests of the monarchy, or the upper social classes, but with the interests of all people, regardless of their place or rank in society. In fact, Moses law was very particular in demanding that rights should be judged without regard to a person’s position in society. The Torah (later known by its Greek name, The Pentateuch) addressed the issue directly: “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15 (NIV)
More than a century later, during the period of the Roman conquest, the application of Moses’ law was discussed at length, and on many occasions by Jesus of Nazareth. One of those discussions, referred to as the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) concerned itself with God’s justice toward persons who rejected one of the cornerstones of the moral law: caring for one’s neighbor. Interestingly, there is no mention in the parable of any overt wrong that was done by the rich man to his neighbor. We are merely told that he ends up in agony after a lifetime of apparent indifference to the plight of the starving poor man who sat each day at his doorstep.
One of the problems we face when asked to judge the case or claim of another person is the tendency to show preference or indifference. Both tendencies undermine justice. While there is no sleight of hand or verbal skill that can overcome these tendencies, it is the lawyer’s job to enliven an empathetic concern for one’s neighbor in the heart of the decision maker. How effectively this is done plays a critical role in the outcome of the case.
This episode of Misjudged discusses the impressive story of an attorney who overcame gross indifference and partiality. Along the way, we discuss ‘how’ and ‘why’ a lawyer must overcome the problem of preference and indifference, favoritism and partiality, when seeking to answer the underlying question of who deserves what.
