The Downside of Law
July 2004
by Debra Opri - Attorney and Legal Analyst
Recently, I had just finished what one television personality termed a 'dust up' between myself and another guest legal analyst on a show. It was yet another interview concerning yet another celebrity trial. There was nothing striking about the interview, except that, as always, I came away feeling there wasn't enough time to answer the questions and analyze the issues.
Immediately after this interview, I had the distinct displeasure of receiving an email from someone out there in cyberspace. It was in my junk mail box, but, hey, that night I was living dangerously, and, yes, I took a chance and opened the email whose subtitle asked, "Why are you so STUPID?"
No, really, I was intrigued!
There is nothing, really, new about the fact that I do get multiple junk emails and I usually don't open them, but the fact that this one particular individual was so 'un' redeeming in his 'subtitles' that it peeked my interest. His comments covered everything from the 'ridiculousness' of my opinions, my looks, all the way to how I got so STUPID! Well, now I was perplexed. I was actually wondering aloud how this particular Mr. Cyberspace, who, apparently, has all the time in the world to watch, compose, edit, spell check and evaluate comments as he sits there watching a legal discussion on television in his boxer shorts while sipping his sixth Bud [allow me some poetic license here folks], ever came to this conclusion!
This was an interesting question, if you think about it, not so much of how he thinks I ever got that way, but the fact that somehow he'd gotten stuck on such a simple word like stupid [he used it 9 times in one email]. And so I contemplated this question, not too long mind you, but I gave it a whirl. I thought about how a lawyer and media personality could ever get to be stupid? And then, as quickly as I had opened the junk mail box, the answer came to me! It was as clear as the layers of television studio makeup I still had upon my face! And I knew the answer! It must be because I went to law school and now hang around media people!
I immediately sent this short response to Mr. Cyberspace, long winded emails [yes, there was more than one that night]. Seriously! It may have been a quick and funny retort to blatant stupidity as the basis for Mr. Cyberspace, letter, but, in many ways, the raw and profound truth I found in that response has been regurgitating since......literally.........
And, while it is apparent Mr. Cyberspace had, obviously, gotten some buttons of his pushed the wrong way, as the motivation to write me such a profoundly STUPID email [he also took shots at President Reagan and other celebrities, though I just could not make the connection as to why he thought THEY were stupid], he was never more clear in his dubious curiosity.
Notwithstanding the circuitousness of his profundities, he is somewhat correct to assume that us legal media 'pundits' do sometimes think that what we have to say is somewhat real Omasterful, dialogue rather than just superfluous ramblings stuck between background videotape.
And then I thought about that too.........
In many ways, I, and many like me, who have gone to law school, then on to the practice of law, and who have then eventually found themselves sitting in front of a television camera, with 20 minutes, worth of makeup, spewing at the mouth legal opinions of a case or legal issue, do not begin to know the difference of a 'dialogue' versus a rambling 'diatribe' once the cameras roll. Honestly, we may sound very intelligent to our lawyer friends out there, but what sounds right to us probably doesn't make the slightest sense to the regular guy. And that's the problem with us legal analysts. We talk funny.
What is startling is that anyone would truly be interested in our opinions at all. If you really think about it, how many nights can be spent analyzing why or why not the evidence points to Scott Peterson, when, in fact, we're all pretty much interested in when Amber Frey is going to take the stand. Now that's what good television is really made of!
I've learned over the years that part of being a good lawyer, is being able to argue long and oftentimes loudly, until you wear down the other side or until you've convinced them your argument makes more sense. Much the same applies in the world of legal analysts. It seems that if you don't keep talking, the other side will then take over and talk long enough to perhaps leave you with just a curt 10 seconds prior to the commercial break and next guest.
So what does this all mean. Well, other than making it a point to not read emails from the junk mail box, I think all this means is that there must be some real purpose for the existence of legal analysts. We're here, we're entertaining, and we're just, well, good talkers. But for many, folks, we just may be the downside of lawyers. After working both sides of the fence, I still think the time the judge gives you in the courtroom is better than the time you get from the television host. And whereas in the latter there are commercial interruptions, the judge does allow recesses.
All in all, we're not very different, we just talk to a different audience. One that goes home when the court is recessed; and the other who shuts the television off when they're done. Lights out. Stay tuned. Goodnight Mr. Cyberspace, whoever you are.
From the courtroom to your living room, this has been another edition of THE OPRI OPINION.
