Aristotle was not Belgian

One of the true cinematic pinacles of all time was the joint foray of an incredible ensemble cast in A Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). The presence of comic icons John Cleese and Michael Palin (Mony Python) was amazing, but many think Otto (Kevin Kline) stole the show even away from the inimitable Jamie Lee Curtis (Wanda). 

Kline won an academy award for best supporting actor (but was brilliant nonetheless). The same ensemble tried to make a spiritual successor (Fierce Creatures, Universal 1997), but it was flat, uninteresting, and uninspired. Nonetheless, Wanda has had staying power.

Without a doubt, the director (Charles Crichton) and writer (John Cleese) should have been recognized (you heard it here). They were each nominated, an honor in itself, but the writing and directing there were stellar. There are so many classic lines in this film. Reading the film's quotes documented by IMDB may bring a tear. 

I am drawn back to Wanda this morning because of the volume of nonsense that is seen across the country in various litigation filings. We see sentences like that. There are rampant examples of msiipellngs. Some is more esoteric (I never really grasped participles and dangling ones are more difficult still). It is noteworthy that these filings mostly come from lawyers. Certainly, there are pro se litigants, but often their filings are clearer, cleaner, and more professional. 

Beyond the pure spelling, grammar, and completeness, there are challenges with legal knowledge. Thus, I was drawn back to Otto, and his repetitive warning to Wanda, "Don't call me stupid." It becomes clichéd as the movie progresses, but each iteration draws the intended laugh. Pure comedic genius.

Eventually, Wanda responds in spades: 

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

That bit about Buddhism is absolutely classic. I checked in with a Buddhist friend, and sure enough, the central message is not "every man for himself." Who knew?

Is it practical to understand statutes, rules, and cases that we read? I think the answer to this has to be an unequivocal "yes." It is both possible and practical. The rub is that it actually requires reading and thinking. Why do people hire a lawyer? So many among the population can read a statute, rule, or case. But, as Wanda proclaims, it is possible that "They just don't understand it." 

I have serious doubts that this is because they are incapable of comprehension. The more probable driver is the inexorable pull of so many priorities in the practice of law or handling of claims. There is value in both having and taking the time to read, not just skim, but read. The reader must be striving for comprehension, and the analytical mind must consider the words and the context. 

The reader is encouraged to test the knowledge gained. Conversation is an ideal tool for this. Asking someone to share their thoughts or interpretation may yield confirmation or controversy. But the reader should take either as a path to continued study and contemplation. This is analysis; Linocoln may have said "a lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade." 

Some contend more pointedly that "Lincoln got it Wrong." That author says that time is not the point at all. She laments the focus on billable hours. She also labels the American Bar Association as something that "regulates the practice of law in the United States," ignoring that it is a voluntary trade group to which many (most) lawyers owe no allegiance, deference, or even recognition. 

Nonetheless, she contends that change is coming to the law. Her argument is that venture capital will come for big law as it has for so much else. She reminds us critically that the "service the lawyer renders is ... professional knowledge and skill." And that is a fair point. Read the law. Draft coherently. File timely. Argue accurately. Behave professionally. Even apes can read philosophy, but try to have a conversation with one.

If you are selling knowledge and skill, shouldn't your intellect shine through in drafting, articulation, interrogation, and more?

Say what you like about this post, but "Don't call me stupid."