I have often thought myself ill-suited to my chosen profession. I love to argue, but I am often too quick to say both, "yes, I see your point" and concede something to the "other side," and to say of my own arguments, "yes, but, it's not that simple." In short, I have trouble with polarized argument, debate, and the adversarialism that characterizes much of our work. Where others see black and white, I often see not just the "grey" but the purple and red-in short, the complexity of human issues that appear before the law for resolution.
In the last decade or so, a polarized debate about how disputes should be resolved has demonstrated to me once again the difficulties of simplistic and adversarial arguments.
83 Geo. L.J. 2663
Scholarly Commons Citation
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, "Whose Dispute Is It Anyway? A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (In Some Cases)" (1995). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 1767.