Two Ways to Fight

Lawyers in our system of law generally have to assume the "other side" may do everything possible to win. So, depending on how far things have gone down the path of a particular legal matter, lawyers often adopt the role of protector, and, potentially, combatant.

Of course, other parts of our society rely on a similarly adversarial system. For example, here in Canada, political parties go at it with their opponents, seeking to win at all costs.

The beauty of the system, it's believed, is that by "fighting it out", two parties reach a workable conclusion, presumably honouring both sides.

But it bugs me.

When people seek to win at all costs, we can find posturing, exaggeration, red herrings, pettiness, secrecy, artificial threats, unfair time delays, the deliberate obfuscation of the facts, and chest thumping activities intended to frighten.

If I had my druthers, rather than relying on a system of "win at all costs", I would prefer a system of "seek what's right".

Seeking what's right, when it's done in the context of two parties disagreeing, occurs when both sides: seek to hear and understand each others strong views; concede when valid counterpoints are argued; share a commitment to go the distance in the fight; fully disclose their agenda; and, expose their vulnerabilities--all in a quest to get to that synthesis of the two opposing starting positions.

Sometimes I ask myself, What makes one person go one way, and another person the other?

I'm pretty sure that when I fall into the more devilish mode, it's because I am stuck on at least one of blame, fear, or mistrust.

And sometimes, there are legitimate reasons to mistrust.

A good lawyer can save the day.