Adam, Thanks for clarifying; regardless, my main points stand -- I'd hate to see the "little guy" lose his job, health insurance, store discount, and affordable resource for necessities because the "big box" he worked at (or another family member worked at) went under.

-- BarbPitman - 22 Jan 2008

Barb, to be clear, I certainly wasn't trying to infer that you (Barb) thought big box store were inherently destructive. The sentance should be read "But, if one ..."

Sorry for the confusion (will edit)

-- AdamCarlis - 22 Jan 2008

I do not think that "big box" stores are (on the whole) inherently destructive to our communities -- the only reason I referred to big boxes is because you referred to them, in a way that suggests that you think they are inherently destructive. If you really think they are destructive (on the whole), then you shouldn't patronize them. (Maybe you don't patronize them -- I'm making an assumption here.) And where your degree is needed "most" is purely a matter of opinion. If everyone felt the way you do, then when people who represent neither big business nor the little guy (which may include your own family) need legal help, where would they turn? Just a thought.

-- BarbPitman - 22 Jan 2008

But, if you think that "big box" stores are inherently destructive to our communities (and to communities around the globe), then you wouldn't be troubled by their bankruptcy, but would see it - perhaps - as a good thing. That isn't to say that you should see it that way, but only that if one does see it that way then it matters a great deal who you help with your new found legal skills. My point about the vast grey area between John Smith the laid off millworker and K-Mart is not that it doesn't exist, but rather one's time is finite and the time you spend working in the vast grey area is time you are not spending working where you are needed the most. It is also not that I fail to recognize the externalities involved when a big company goes under, it is just that (1) I don’t think it is worth my time to do anything about it and (2) I wonder if it isn’t – often – better in the long run for it to happen. So far, my professors have stressed the objective nature of "the law" as if it was some thing that is applied to various situations based one prescribed norms. But, there is human agency in it - our agency. We are the ones who are going to have the privilege to shape it, say where it goes, and lead it there. The big trap, in my mind, is to think you are safe in the grey as if doing no harm is enough. To me, at least, the grey is just as dangerous as selling your soul to the highest bidder (unless of course you agree with their worldview) since in neither case are you using your degree where it is needed most or where you most want to use it.

-- AdamCarlis - 21 Jan 2008

Adam, The black-and-white perspective you espouse doesn't take into account the fact that anything that you do as a lawyer (or in life, for that matter) that affects the "big box" stores to which you refer also affects many other people and companies in many different ways, including the "little guy." Since you focused on bankruptcy, I would respond that helping a large company (like a bus company or discount department store) avoid bankruptcy or implement a financial reorganization plan allows people (no matter their economic status) who depend on those companies' services or buy their goods to continue to do so. Additionally, many lawyers I know don't just limit their work to either helping only lower-income families with bankruptcies or only big business with bankruptcies. The need for bankruptcy services comes from a variety of people, places, and situations. To stereotype the nature and scope of bankruptcy services as falling into only two distinct camps (those of the "big box" or of a working class family) is not to see the other situations and people out there who need legal help and also not to see that helping a certain segment of society affects us all, in varying degrees of directness.

-- BarbPitman - 21 Jan 2008