josh blogged from my home computer this afternoon, which means he logged out of my default setting from blogger. so it took an extra couple of minutes (okay, seconds) just to get to this screen to write these sweet words. damn you josh!!!!
i'm suddenly in a crunch. my pennsylvania law license requires a certain amount of CLE (continuing legal education) every year--a certain number of credits on "substantive law" and a couple more on "legal ethics." the substantive law credits get taken care of just by the labor law conferences i attend. the ethics credits require more effort and thus they completely slipped my mind. so now i'm home, with 27 hours left in 2004 in need of a one-hour lecture on legal ethics.
the stupid thing is this happened last year too. last year i watched an online video with only a few hours to go on december 31st. by comparison, i'm doing much better this year. it's only december 30th. but why do i keep doing this to myself?
so as i flipped through the titles of online ethics lectures they are all deadly dull, even for a philosophy major who once viewed ethics as one of his specialties. but legal ethics is its own animal. a really really dull animal. (like maybe a cow) there's no action at all--nothing exciting like a debate about deontology vs. consequentialism. just a bunch of boring rules. the one i saw last year was called "hard to say goodbye." it was a one-hour long video about how to dump a client (in an ethical way, that is). yes, they stretched it out to a whole hour.
but this year one ethics lecture in the list stood out from all the rest-- "honor in the profession: sex with clients." now don't get me wrong, i have no intention of having sex with any clients. but at least this one hinted at an actual plot. and so that's the one i chose. but guess what? it's just as dull as last year's video. except this one features a bunch of really bad jokes and even less ethics than "saying goodbye" did.
is it too much to ask for a little discussion of kant, just like in the days of yore?
