"You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." -- Leviticus 19:15 (ESV)

• It is said throughout law school that law is a practice; it is not art. But why is that?
• Is it because attorneys cannot get it right?
• Is it because attorneys need an excuse for unruly behavior?
• Is it called a practice due to the constant need to hone the craft and skill that is the advocacy of the law?

The truth is the advocacy accounts for only half the job of an attorney. The practice of advocacy is the attorney at law. But being the counselor at law is an art.

There is art behind everything we do in law and the way we perceive what is to come or what has already come. It is clearly important to our history, so we know what to expect in the future. It helps to build a perception of understanding -- and of life -- and of expectation. The art of law is understanding the perception of understanding all around you and interpreting that understanding to benefit those who hire us to represent them. To represent society, you must understand what society demands. Such a task is an art - and potentially the toughest art of all.

An attorney's goal should not be to win. An attorney's job is to balance justice in a society that craves a true understanding of right and wrong. Society's job is to set up a justice system in which attorneys, solicitors, counselors, ad litems, and/or anyone, including judges, deem it to be appropriate so the societal system is one that people find and believe is worth fighting for. When bad triumphs over good, when money flaunts the law, and when those charged with protecting justice disrespect the process, then being an officer of the

court loses its purpose.

We must believe in the art of the law in an adversary system by showing it the respect it deserves and the civility the people need. So, is it possible to understand what should be done when there is only one single person making that decision?

Is it a dictatorship where the judge or jurors act as an emperor(s) to issue the ruling? No, there should always be more than one perspective in the system, and we must respect each other's perspective. Thus, the crucial importance of multiple perspectives within a jury system.