Mark Levison, The Levison Group
It’s just fun to be a lawyer. That’s not only today, it’s almost any day and any time. Of course, like any other profession, law has its peaks and valleys, its periods of rising income followed by less jubilant times, and then the cycle starts again. History provides us with unlimited role models with paths as diverse as Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, Mahatma Ghandi, Johnny Cochran or Gloria Allred. The thing is, it’s always interesting and a day never goes by without a new legal topic popping up in America for lawyers to opine upon.
When I contemplate the legal issues these days — because I’ve now been around a while — it’s with a mix of legal training, learned through trial and error, and some life experiences to boot. The “trial” is the good part; the “error” happens. Since most news stories have some legal ramifications, lawyers are frequently asked by friends, relatives and even casual acquaintances to offer their expert opinions: some do; some don’t; some pontificate. It’s just that today law is so diverse, complicated and specialized that the value of any particular lawyer’s opinion on a specific subject is questionable. Nevertheless, some of my lawyer friends are absolutely unabashed in their willingness to offer opinions on almost anything. Some might argue they became lawyers just for that privilege.
Although I can comment on the legal aspects of most current events, there are times when I would rather not. The most upsetting recent story was the Orlando nightclub shooting by what appears to be a wife-beating, ambiguously gay (and/or gay hating) Muslim, laughing as he repeatedly shot helpless men and women, hiding in bathroom stalls, in the name of ISIS. How anybody such as Omar Mateen or Adam Lanza – the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter who decided to kill little children – arrives at a state of mind to justify such conduct is beyond my ability to sensibly comment upon since I can’t understand it. I prefer to comment on legal issues about which I have first-hand knowledge – like dealing with gorillas and alligators.
In fact, as fate would have it, just as Orlando was staggering from the Pulse Club shooting, an alligator dragged and drowned a two-year-old who had been wading on the water’s edge at a Disney Resort. The gut reaction for many in our overly litigious country, after first contemplating the horrific event, was to think, “Well, that’s a heck of a lawsuit against a very solvent defendant.” They may be right, but subsequently it came to light that the toddler was in a no-swim area. That at least raises questions. After all, this is Florida. Gainesville, just north of Orlando, is not the home of the University of Florida Gerbils, it’s the home of the University of Florida Gators!
Alligators used to be endangered. Laws were passed to protect them, and most of us are happy about that, but typically benefits come with detriments. Florida now “boasts” one million alligators and it just so happens they live in the fresh water streams, ponds and sometimes swimming pools, throughout the Sunshine State. It seems to me one of the most important characteristics of a good lawyer is common sense. Sometimes, in life or in the law, that’s what we need to rely upon. This may just be another case illustrative of the time honored legal maxim, “Let the bather beware!”
Just prior to the alligator incident, the news was filled with the shooting of Harambe, a massive male Mountain gorilla, after a four-year-old boy announced to his mother he intended to visit the gorilla inside his enclosure, and proceeded to do exactly what he said he was going to do. The end results of these recent animal/ human encounters was the death of Harambe and so far the killing of five alligators, even though the actual outlaw gator had not been found. Some animal rights advocates are outraged that animals have been killed due to what they believe is parental negligence. When asked, I suggested that parents ought not let their children enter into restricted areas, particularly those housing wild animals! Still, we all make mistakes daily, and sometimes we lose concentration. That may have been what happened.
My wife Cheryl constantly reminds me that tragedies come in threes, so I know she’s anticipating the next shoe to drop. She’s probably waiting for a donkey to be shot at some child’s birthday party because a millennial tried to pin its tail, causing it to go berserk, and run straight through the snow cone machine.
Speaking of my wife, she once talked me into walking unarmed through the jungle of Zimbabwe with two almost fully grown lions. It was part of a Save the Lions conservation project. I kept telling her, “They wouldn’t allow this in America.” Before the walk we had to sign a document disclaiming the lion project’s liability and attesting to the fact that we were nuts (which I already knew about Cheryl). There was never a single moment during that walk when I thought we would have a good cause of action if something went wrong – which it did! Despite instructions to only walk behind the lions, one lady in our group decided to walk ahead.
Next week the news broadcasts will undoubtedly shift from animal rights and personal responsibility to some other niche in the legal lexicon of right, wrong and questionable. That’s the nature of the law. It impacts every aspect of society, and nearly every part of daily life has its legal repercussions. The questions of “Should he sue?” or “Will she win?” are always just below the surface of any story. Whatever the subtopics, lawyers will be asked their opinions about them, and their answers will generally be interesting – whether they know anything about the topics or not.
—————
Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Mark Levison is a member of the law firm of Lashly & Baer. Contact Under Analysis by e-mail at comments@levisongroup.com.
© 2016 Under Analysis LLC
