It is rare for at­tor­neys at law to be viewed in a flat­ter­ing man­ner. Of­ten times, at­tor­neys are viewed as ma­nip­u­la­tive, over­ly ex­pen­sive, dis­hon­est and ruth­less. In fact, I may even wa­ger a bet that in the court of pub­lic opin­ion at­tor­neys are viewed as the per­sons who pro­long le­gal mat­ters un­nec­es­sar­i­ly, with the sole pur­pose of en­sur­ing an ex­or­bi­tant fee. Now, if that was true or even re­al­is­tic, all at­tor­neys at law would be among the wealth­i­er mem­bers of so­ci­ety. I as­sure you there are a great many of us who are not.

Agree­ably, in every pro­fes­sion, trade or po­si­tion there are those whose ac­tions may bring dis­re­pute, but we can­not paint every­one with the same brush.

Last week, in con­sid­er­ing the cost of ac­cess to jus­tice, I in­ad­ver­tent­ly start­ed a de­bate re­gard­ing the cost of re­tain­ing an at­tor­ney at law, and the fail­ure of at­tor­neys to per­form work on a pro bono ba­sis. If we are to prop­er­ly de­bate le­gal fees, pro bono work and the mis­con­ceived greed of cer­tain pro­fes­sions, then we should do so us­ing fur­ther in­for­ma­tion and not two or three pass­ing lines ref­er­enc­ing costs.