The Play's the Thing: Lessons About the Practice of Law from the Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare

I. Preparing for Law School

The field of law is generally considered to be a lucrative one. Not surprisingly, there is also money to be made in the field of "preparing for law". Students spend hundreds to thousands of dollars buying preparatory materials on the LSAT, law school rankings, the admissions process, and what to expect when they get there. Publishing industries in particular have turned profits by selling books and materials leading to success in law school, or at least guaranteeing survival. Many law students admit to picking up at least one of the many available titles on the subject, which run from personal accounts to step-by-step instructions.

Of course, books aren't the only source of information for potential law students. Reality television, Hollywood thrillers, and legal sitcoms all provide unique perspectives into the world of the law. Law and Order, a primetime drama focusing on the capture and conviction of criminals, has been running since September 13, 1990, making it the longest running primetime drama currently on the air and the second longest running primetime drama ever. People all over the world construct their understanding of the legal world from what they've seen on television and the big screen. It's not surprising that potential law students may be drawn in by what they've seen played out in courtrooms dramas.

Fiction also captures the imagination and interest of the American public in the form of legal novels. John Grisham, a popular lawyer-turned-author, has published one legal novel a year since his first book in 1988 and each has turned into an international bestseller. Legal novels even make their way on the lists of school-recommended summer reading for entering first-year law students. Although many practicing lawyers would argue that the fictionalized and sensationalized accounts of legal practice found in novels and movie scripts do not paint an accurate picture of what being a lawyer entails, students are given the benefit of expanding their vocabulary to include legal terms, at the very least, and one could argue that these stories are forming a crucial foundation on which to build a legal education.

The question of what fiction in any form can teach about the law is not a new one. In 1988, Richard Posner wrote a book on law and literature, making the connection of subject matter and substance between the two fields but arguing that they can learn very little from each other in actuality. This view was refuted by Richard Weisberg, a professor at Cardozo Law School and a founder of the legal journal, Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, who argues that literature serves as an accessible source of legal philosophy with the potential to make great contributions to and gain much from the field of law. He argues that literature opens the potential for attorney professional development in ethical and moral reasoning, while also providing an outlet for practicing the use of language. What the dry and literal language of the law may sometimes stifle can be explored freely through fiction.

Of all fictitious works, none have captured the attention of the legal profession so completely as the dramatic works of William Shakespeare. No other playwright, author, or poet has been quoted as often in judicial opinions as Shakespeare and the breadth of contexts in which his words find contemporary purpose is staggering in light of the fact that many of his works were written over four hundred years ago. Not surprisingly, the popular play Hamlet makes up 21% of the quotations included in judicial opinions, despite the fact that the play does not actually include a trial scene, as more than half of Shakespearean plays do. Rather, it is the love of the play's beautiful language and the reverence of lawyers and judges have for Shakespeare himself that brings his words into the courtroom so many years later.

If William Shakespeare is a favorite of those currently in the legal profession, it would seem that those students preparing to enter the profession could learn a few things from the Bard. Yet Shakespeare was a playwright and not a lawyer, at least according to most historians. So what can the works of an English playwright at the turn of the seventeenth century possibly teach contemporary American law students about practicing in the field?

This paper will argue that law students can learn invaluable lessons about the practice of law by enjoying the works of William Shakespeare. Due to the wide variety of Shakespearean works which have been integrated into American legal culture, this paper will focus on two plays in particular: The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure. In the first section, this paper will examine Shakespeare's skilled use of language and the connection between his mastery of words and the lingual demands of the contemporary legal profession. The second part of this paper examines the occasional tension between justice, morality, and the literal legal answer, noting that Shakespeare's explorations of the inner struggle faced when the terms conflict may prepare students for the practice of law.

The paper will then move on to the legal profession's general acceptance of Shakespeare's works as an important contribution to the fields to the field, not only as an example in the mastery of words but also as a window to the soul and a commentary on morality and the human experience, showing that familiarity with Shakespeare is as much a requirement of the practice of law as knowing the language or understanding the process. Finally, the author will clarify common misperceptions regarding William Shakespeare's attitudes toward the law and how his treatment of lawyers and the legal field in his dramatic works reflects not a cynical view of the profession, but rather respectful appreciation of those working in the field.

II. The Worth of Words

Of all grueling academic endeavors, the completion of law school is widely accepted as one of the most taxing. Yet, unlike graduates from other professional or trade schools, students finish law school without the ability to diagnose an illness, fly a plane, or construct a major freeway. The skill of lawyers falls in their mastery of words, as evidenced by their day to day activities. Lawyers make arguments, write contracts, formalize complaints, and translate the complicated mechanics of law into useful and understandable phrases. Without the right words, lawyers become useless instruments, if not liabilities to their clients.

It is true that the wittiest lawyer with the largest vocabulary will have a hard time winning any cases without the proper training in the statutes, case law, and other solid matter that makes up the legal field. However, if the law is the raw material around which the profession is centered, the tool of the profession is language, and much like the difference between the work of an average carpenter and a skilled one, success in the legal profession depends greatly on how able a lawyer is at mastering language to shape the law at hand to fit his client's needs.

Perhaps it is for this reason that the works of Shakespeare continue to influence the world of law. As masters of language go, Shakespeare has become synonymous with those who are skilled in words. The characters brought to life in Shakespeare's plays mirror the skill of the author, expressing their emotions and reflections as clearly as they describe the weather, costume, and scenery that could only be imagined in the limited theaters of Shakespeare's. As skillfully as they craft a picture of the world around them, without the assistance of elaborate sets, Shakespeare's characters challenge each other and duel with only the weapon of their dialogue, trading the barbs that would later fill volumes dedicated exclusively to the Bard's classic insults.

A common occurrence in the plays of Shakespeare is for the words of a character to be used against him or herself through the skillful crafting of another. Often, this provides a moment of comic relief or perhaps serves to escalate a heated conversation. However, at times the very outcome of the play falls on the reshaping of one character's words by another, as in the comedy The Merchant of Venice. Widely quoted in the field of law due to its famous climactic trial scene, The Merchant of Venice serves as lesson to those who would dare to enter a courtroom without brushing up on their language skills.

The main storyline of The Merchant of Venice revolves around a simple contract made between a merchant and a moneylender. The merchant contracts to borrow a sum of money and, as security against default on the loan, the moneylender requests and obtains a promise that he may take a pound of the merchant's flesh nearest his heart if the debt is not paid when due. Events unfold in the story which make it impossible for the merchant to repay the loan on time and the climax of the play occurs when the moneylender calls for the pound of flesh to satisfy the contract.

Initially, to any lawyer or law student, this contract would appear invalid on its face as basic contract law maintains that a person cannot contract for his own death. Left unaddressed by Shakespeare, we cannot be sure about his opinion on whether a person may willingly contract to make such a sacrifice, but historians have speculated that Shakespeare is actually bring attention to the problem of consent as a legal construct and the reasonable limitations on what a man may consent to do. Shakespeare chooses to sidestep the issue of whether or not the contract is valid in construction by avoiding the question of whether a person may contractually offer his life to another to satisfy a commercial contract. Instead, the courtroom battle becomes a battle of words.

Portia, a third character with an interest in protecting the merchant, enters the scene disguised as a young lawyer and constructs a different interpretation of the contract. Although the language plainly states that a pound of flesh is to serve as security in case of default, Portia argues that the contract says nothing about taking even a single drop of blood, using the hyper-literal interpretation of the contract as a shield against its enforcement. Therefore, any blood of drop spilled would be in violation of the contract, making the moneylender liable for damages against the merchant. This argument becomes the basis for a judgment against the moneylender, despite the fact that it is the merchant who has defaulted.

Shakespeare skims over the fact that Portia is an imposter and would certainly be convicted of practicing law without a license in today's legal system as does his audience. In fact, Portia's hand in saving the day has led to her obtaining something similar hero status in the annals of female power and Justice O'Connor has made references to her as a symbol of the abilities of women. The character has even become a contemporary symbol on the differences in how men and women approach law, with Shylock representing the adversarial pursuit of black letter law and Portia advocating for a hybrid jurisprudence constructed of justice and mercy.

However, Portia is not generally celebrated simply because she is a merciful person. The canon of Shakespeare is full of delicate, merciful, and kind ladies. In actuality, the quality of Portia as a person has come into question, due to her merciless treatment of the moneylender just moments after she implores him to be merciful towards the merchant. Following dismissal of the contract claim, Portia seizes all of the moneylender's property and demands that he changes his religion from Judaism to Christianity, punishing him for seeking the death of the merchant. The very fact that her hypocrisy in differential treatment between parties has not damaged her popularity indicates that it is not her gentle spirit which continues to captivate the attention of the audience.

Portia is set apart from her fellow leading ladies as she is a woman celebrated for her literary prowess. She is well-read and navigates the English language expertly, dominating the climactic scene of the play. As noted by one scholar, "Portia does not teach Shylock mercy. She teaches him the importance of having a broad knowledge of law and the ability to manipulate courtroom theatrics." Here, Shakespeare teaches a crucial lesson: when you're involved in a courtroom battle, words are your greatest and sometimes your only weapon.

The twists and turns of Shakespeare's dialogue illustrate the Bard's use of the English language as pliable matter. By working off of variations in definition, carefully constructed puns, and the clearest of metaphors, one playwright was able to advance the English language. Enjoying the works of William Shakespeare is an adventure in rhetorical gymnastics and allows young lawyers to exercise their command of advanced language and practiced argument without falling to the crutch and protection of complex and inaccessible legal terms. To study Shakespeare is to study the art of expression

This is not to say that The Merchant of Venice teaches nothing about morality, conscience, and being human. One of the reasons the works of Shakespeare have endured so long is that William Shakespeare had an uncanny ability to capture the human experience and reconstruct it on the theatrical stage. Through the conflicts and trials experienced by Shakespeare's characters, lawyers and law students can gain insight into the types of conflict that make up the foundations for claims, contracts, and litigation, while also considering the moral and ethical issues that are sure to arise.

III. Fairness, Justice, and the Legal Answer

In theory, lawyers exist to provide justice to those who have been wronged. However, public criticisms of lawyers often include complaints that lawyers bend the law to fit their client's needs, or their own needs, without regards to what is "right" or "fair". In theory, the code of professional ethics that lawyers adhere to in practice is designed to defend against abuses of the law in order to ensure the success of the judicial system, which would appear to hinder a lawyer's ability to seek an outcome that "just feels wrong" even if it is legal. In reality, however, this same code of ethics requires that lawyers acting on behalf of their clients zealously pursue their client's interests, to the extent of the law. At times, the client's wishes may be in direct moral opposition of the attorney's but, barring illegal acts, refusing to pursue the interest your client has expressed is an ethical violation in itself.

In the dark comedy Measure for Measure, Shakespeare explored the conflict that occurs when following the law leads to an outcome which appears unfair in light of circumstances, probing the connection between punishment and crime. The play is centered on the problems created by an archaic law that has gone a number of years without being enforced. The law prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage, but due to a lack of enforcement non-marital sexual relationships have become commonplace. When a young civilian is arrested and convicted of having a sexual relationship with his pregnant fiancé, he is sentenced to death. Although the young man did break the law, the play casts the criminal in a sympathetic light while the man who would enforce the law is made the villain. As the play unfolds, the civilian is eventually freed of his death sentence and the enforcer is punished.

Measure for Measure can be viewed as a statement against excessive punishments. Despite the fact that the law has been broken according to the strict interpretation of the legal text, the real crime appears to be happen when the civilian is sentenced to death for what seems to be a slight infringement on the law. The violation is arguably a crime without a victim, as the civilian's fiancé consented to the sexual relationship and the pair has made plans to legalize their situation. Without demonstration of real harm done, the anti-fornication law seems unnecessary, if not absurd.

The law would argue that it is society at large that was harmed by the act, but, especially in light of the commonplace occurrence of this type of violation, the death sentence appears to be especially and unreasonably severe. Litigated in contemporary American courts, the sentence would certainly be questioned under the Eight Amendment of the Constitution. Of course, contemporary courts have their own interpretations of what is and is not an appropriate sentence and the question of whether death is a fitting punishment to any crime continues to be a hotly debated topic in legal fields today, creating questions of morality, equality, and the natural rights of man.

Measure for Measure also raises questions about the state's ability to pass laws that enforce morality. In Shakespeare's time, laws governing sexual behavior were common and infringement on those laws could carry severe punishment. Shakespeare's presentation of the crime softens the offense, however, leading scholars to speculate that Shakespeare intended to comment on the circumstances in which imposing morality to compensate for a victimless crime may in fact be the greater sin.

The call for mercy echoes throughout the play, as the fact that the young civilian has committed a crime is never called into question. As the law goes, he is a criminal and therefore deserves the punishment prescribed - death. However, the play makes clear that the tension stems not from the crime but from the fact that Angelo, the man charged with enforcing the laws of the city, refuses to be merciful. It is the moral crime of Angelo, therefore, that is the central conflict of the play, rather than the legal crime of the young civilian. This is true despite an apparent difference of intent: the civilian knowingly breaks the law believing that he won't be punished, while Angelo's steadfastly believes that he is only acting as an agent of the law when he sentences the civilian to death.

It is important to note that Angelo's defends himself against any responsibility for the civilian's fate, claiming the law as a shield. Whether or not he personally feels that the execution would be unjust, he believes that his position requires him to enforce the law regardless. To show mercy would be to make a mockery of the legal system. In the first year of law school, students are told that above all things they must remain true to the judicial process. Violations of the rules of justice, even to ensure that a "just" result be reached, undermine the entire system and unravel the principles the country stands upon.

Angelo's perspective may be similar to those of practicing attorneys or judges who are faced with a situation that pits their own moral judgment against the legal rights of a party. For young lawyers, fulfilling their role as zealous advocates by employing technicalities to defend criminals against sentences they may justly deserve, Angelo's detached view of himself as a blameless instrument of a rigid law may be all too familiar. Of course, this play fails to hold Angelo up as a shining example of loyalty to the system and instead frames him as a hypocrite, rigid while holding others to a set of moral standards while lax in applying those standards to himself.

Measure for Measure's happy ending is not found in the letter of the law, however, but in the temperance of law with the virtues of humanity. Shakespeare shows true justice in victory over legal justice when the civilian is released, and Angelo himself receives a merciful sentence despite being himself convicted of crimes punishable by death. Scholars have interpreted this ending to indicate that Shakespeare believed that for the legal system to work it is necessary that judges must be both "humane and just".

The idea that law must be tempered by humanity in order to obtain justice is explored further in The Merchant of Venice. Portia prefaces her legal argument against the moneylender with a commentary on mercy, imploring the moneylender to have pity on the merchant despite the contracted agreement. Refusing to be merciful despite knowing that mercy would ensure financial gain, the moneylender ultimately loses everything, including his religion, in his zealous crusade to obtain the victory promised by law.

Overlooking the questions scholars have raised on whether the moneylender himself should have been shown more mercy, Portia's appeal to the moneylender offers lawyers insight about "the interplay between mercy and justice." Although The Merchant of Venice was written sometime around the year 1597, the conflict continues to captivate the minds of people in the legal field and Portia's comments on mercy have often been quoted in judicial opinions by those who struggle in the conflict between what is merciful and what is the correct legal answer. The play serves as an instrument of confrontation, forcing the audience, lawyers included, to consider the delicate balance between the personal need for revenge or victory and the societal need for mercy and resolution.

Scholars of Shakespeare note that his plays consistently reinforce the idea that all men have a responsibility to follow the moral right and ethical responsibilities should prevail over power, position, and personal gain. Even leaders and men of great power cannot escape their responsibilities to their own conscience, as evidenced by Shakespeare's dramatization of the lives, characters, and actions of England's historical nobility.

The persuasiveness of Shakespeare's views on morality stems from his brilliant portrayal of the human experience and the inner-workings of the human condition. As Shakespeare's characters verbalize their internal struggle, the audience is given a chance to see into the soul of another person and connect with their own moral conflicts. For this reason, Shakespeare's fictionalized conversations, constructed over four hundred years ago, continue to shape the face of American law, and the words of Shakespeare have come to represent legal theory and attitudes towards justice. The phrase "pound of flesh" has contemporaneously become synonymous with careful, literal, and correct application of the law which leads to a result that is unjust. The phrase also occasionally alludes to an unreasonable or improper demand, unenforceable regardless of the literal interpretation of the contract or law in question.

Through use of his language, metaphors, and argument, Shakespeare has become a part of the legal language of America. For this reason, knowing Shakespeare has become a requirement of successfully navigating the judicial system. Just as commanding a mastery of American laws and legal theories is included as a part of the practice of law, a familiarity with the works of William Shakespeare is included as the mark of an educated person.

IV. The Mark of an Educated Person

The vast majority of people in America could quote a line from Shakespeare, if pressed. They may not know what play or poem the line is from, but they will be have a general idea that the sentence is the work of Shakespeare. As Shakespeare's popularity has continued in the four hundred years since his works were first performed, the words of Shakespeare have made their way into media, marketing, and popular culture. Not surprisingly, Shakespeare's work has been infused into the writings of the legal community since the birth of this country, resulting in a staggering number of references to the Bard in American legal history.

A 1993 study found that Shakespeare had been quoted almost 800 times in judicial opinions from state and federal courts, based on the inclusion of 257 different quotations. As that study is fourteen years old at the time of this writing, that number has surely increased. To put the numbers in context, the second most commonly cited author is John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost, who has been quoted 57 times in judicial opinions, referring to 16 different passages. Simply by looking at the numbers, it is apparent that William Shakespeare has been accepted as a source of guidance, support, and eloquence.

Legal scholars have noted that "Shakespeare has become something of an all-purpose authority for judges." His works have been referenced in discussions of morality, justice, and the human experience itself. The Supreme Court of the United States has even turned to Shakespeare for assistance in defining the words themselves. Of course, historians note that not all of the references to Shakespeare are based on the idea that the Bard knew all. Shakespeare's writings cover a wide variety of topics and it is quite possible that the very breadth of material that allows for support of any argument to be found somewhere in his works. Shakespeare himself wrote, as Antonio in The Merchant of Venice, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

As the words of Shakespeare have been absorbed into the very text of American law, so has the work of Shakespeare become a part of an American legal education. A young associate, well-learned in the subject matter at hand, may still find himself lost if the justice or opposing counsel begins referencing the words of Othello, Hamlet, or Macbeth. As an example, the phrase "gives more heat than light" is one that has been included in many judicial opinions. Although a young attorney may have a general understanding of what the judge is saying if he's told that his arguments give more heat than light, a clearer understanding would come to him if the attorney was familiar with Hamlet, the play from which the line is taken.

Polonius gives the line while speaking to his daughter, warning her that Hamlet's affections towards her may actually be empty, despite his verbal and written declarations to the contrary. The line, adapted in contemporary judicial opinions, has morphed into giving more heat than light, a phrase which means that the argument is pretty in language, but is lacking the legal substance to support the attorney's position. A modified adaptation of Shakespeare's text, the words nevertheless carry the same general sentiment coming from a court judge as they did coming from Shakespeare's Polonius, and an associate unfamiliar with the reference may unexpectedly find himself lost, regardless of how familiar the associate is with the law.

At times the words of Shakespeare have also been used to illustrate an idea without regard to the words in the context of the play. In a 1990 case, Chief Justice Rehnquist used Shakespeare's words to comment on defamation, quoting a passage from Othello which essentially outlines that a man who steals a purse steals nothing while a man who steals another's good name actually causes harm. The quotation is an eloquent, poetic piece of writing that fits well in the court's discussion of modern day defamation law. However, the court is wise to skim over the context in which the phrase appears in Othello, as it is a quote from Iago, often noted as Shakespeare's most villainous villain as Iago acts without motive or conscience. In this particular case, Shakespeare's words served the purpose of the court, while the true meaning of the lines is reserved for those familiar with the story.

Integration of Shakespeare's works into the field of law does not stop at the random inclusion of a few poetic lines. As discussed earlier, Shakespeare stirs up moral and philosophical questions on the issues of mercy, justice, and moral responsibility. The Court has even included the Bard among major sources of morality and guidance of character, grouping the writings of Shakespeare together with the writings of "Christian, Judean, or Buddhist philosophies." As such, a person's education regarding the Shakespearean canon cannot be limited to Shakespeare's most famous lines, but must include a familiarity with the plotlines, dramatic themes, and character constructions, obtainable exclusively by familiarizing one's self with the dramatic works as a whole, rather than as vessels for prose, quips, and one-liners.

An excellent example of the folly in using Shakespeare one line at a time is the recurring quotation of a single sentence which has led to the popular belief that Shakespeare didn't think much of the legal field. Although the line has been defended against misinterpretation by both Shakespearean scholars and the men and women of the legal field, the line has continued to remain at the forefront of lawyer jokes, making its way onto coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and t-shirts. Here, the lesson comes not in the line itself, but in a close review of the role the line has taken in popular culture.

V. Killing the Lawyers

"First thing we do let's kill all the lawyers."

This line has often been credited to William Shakespeare and has been the source of lawyer jokes for the last four hundred years. However, it was not Shakespeare who said the line, but rather a man named Dick the Butcher, a character in Shakespeare's historical play, Henry VI, Part 2. Of course, it was William Shakespeare who penned the sentence and sent it out into the world, so he cannot be found completely blameless in matter of the phrase's existence. Still, as the phrase has been used to show that even Shakespeare hated lawyers, defenders of both the Bard and the legal profession have been quick to point out that this line in fact proves the opposite to be true.

In order to understand the sentiment behind Shakespeare's authorship of this line, one has to understand the context in which it is set. The scene in which this line is spoken is one of rebellion, chaos, and comic relief. Henry VI, Part 2, is a play about a king who has not yet shown himself to be a powerful leader. In the absence of strong leadership, a duke plots a rebellion and enlists the help of a common man named Jack Cade, who leads a mob of people as they storm through London, killing people, wrecking property, and causing general havoc. It is during this riot that the line is spoken. Jack gives a humorous speech in which he lists all of the great things he would do if he were king. This list is made up of ridiculous and impossible tasks and the purpose of the scene is to provide comic relief. At the end of this list, a member of the mob, Dick the Butcher, shouts out the most famous lawyer joke in English history: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

The line is spoken by an obviously uneducated man during a comic scene in which men of low intelligence are plotting massive anarchy and voicing their wish to overthrow the government of England. In that context, it is clear that this line was included because Shakespeare's true feelings on the matter are in complete opposition with the literal interpretation of the sentence. If the lawyers were killed, the government would be vulnerable to rebellion and anarchy. Therefore, lawyers are the defenders of order, government, and peace. It is the riotous mob and not the barristers that Shakespeare is actually attacking here.

For further proof that Shakespeare actually held an affinity for lawyers, one need only look at Shakespeare's use of legal language and imagery throughout his canon. Repeatedly Shakespeare includes jokes based on legal matters that are so complex, one would need to be familiar with the practice of law in order to find them funny. In fact, Shakespeare uses the law so often and so well that his legal knowledge has been used as evidence that William Shakespeare is not the author of what we know as Shakespeare's plays. Skeptics of his authorship argue that only a man trained as a lawyer himself could possibly command so thorough and inexhaustible a knowledge of legal terms, rules, and processes.

Although the question of Shakespeare's authorship may never be settled, it is clear that Shakespeare enjoyed a good lawyer joke, which is precisely what this line from Henry VI, Part 2, is. Surely in Shakespeare's time, the public would have had the same love/hate relationship with lawyers as they do today. Law is fascinating because it is exclusive, complex, and powerful. People are both interested and uneasy when it comes to law, and although it is recognized that lawyers are necessary, they also have the potential to bring harm in the forms of suits, contract terms, and legal documents to confuse an unwitting civilian. It has been suggested that lawyer jokes persist in popularity because people naturally use humor as a defense or attack against something that makes them uneasy. As the law was surely no clearer in Shakespeare's time, lawyer jokes would have been just as funny in the turn of the 17th century as they are today.

That being said, the lawyer joke is included without malice, as shown by the context and the status of the man giving the line. The Supreme Court has even clarified the line in defense of Shakespeare. Justice Stevens noted that the line was "spoken by a rebel, not a friend of liberty" and pointed out that the idea of killing all the lawyers, and thus eradicating the legal system, is that these actions represent "a step in the direction of totalitarian form of government." The joke may be on the lawyers, but any damage is soothed immediately as the line simultaneously proclaims them to be defenders of justice and peace.

Ironically, the misuse of this line is not limited to those outside of the legal profession. Judges utilize the line in two ways. The first explores the line in context and uses it to criticize excluding or limiting lawyers from proceedings. The second utilization discusses the line out of context when discussing the social opinion of lawyers. Here again, one sees the need for familiarity with Shakespeare's dramatic works. A lawyer who is only marginally familiar with the line could be caught between judicial interpretations, depending on the judge, the subject matter, or the time of day, and may error by interpreting the line literally even as the judge takes in the whole picture.

VI. The Play is the Thing

Despite the fact that Shakespeare life ended nearly four hundred years ago, the lessons gained from experiencing his dramatic works are timeless and speak to the issues at the core of today's conflicts and it is this consistent relevance and applicability to the life that has led Shakespeare's canon to survive the test of time. Shakespeare's work serves as a connection among souls, reflecting the lining of every human life.
Shakespeare's plays are not limited to insights into the human soul, as the external conflicts presented in the plays are mirrored in the external conflicts that exist in the world today. The conflict over a financial contract in The Merchant of Venice is paralleled in the predatory lending suits of contemporary America as lawyers fight against the legal, literal answer of contract in order to prevent harms against bankrupt consumers by debt corporations and credit card companies. In the last hundred years the question of enforcing a law which prohibits consensual sex between adults which arises in Measure for Measure has been litigated in the context of interracial and same-sex relations.

Law is a demanding profession and the agents of law must come to the courtroom armed to the teeth with knowledge about the world entire. Statutes, casebooks, television dramas, the latest Grisham novel...all may trigger thought on a creative approach, a legal loophole, or a possible defense, but it is the poetry of life that wins a courtroom over, making the connections between clients, jurors, judges, and attorneys that meaning to the laws defended. As Shakespeare is the master of the poetic, young attorneys are fortunate to have access to the genius of his canon, and should take every opportunity to saturate their thoughts with the words of the Bard. With Shakespeare, as with everything else in the courtroom, the only harm that may come will come in knowing too little.

"The common curse of mankind - folly and ignorance."
- William Shakespeare