I am a lawyer and wanted to experiment with journalism, so here I am, writing for Governance Now (GN), a magazine which deals with governance issues. During my stint here, I had an opportunity to compare the modalities of both professions – ‘aide to the third’ and ‘the fourth’ pillar of democracy.

The similarities
The People: Focus of reportage of GN is on ‘governance’ which in a way means study on the social impact of legal actions. So, I was never far away from laws of the land. All the rights enjoyed by a society are, unfortunately or fortunately, derived from some act of the state. ‘Unfortunately’ because the statutes and the lawmakers dictate what rights are right for the people. ‘Fortunately’ because all rights granted by the state become enforceable in some forum or the other.

Rights and duties are known to be two sides of the same coin or let’s say the two scales of the balance held by Lady Justice. Against every right granted to the society, a corresponding duty is created in the state. If lawyers fight for effective exercise of a right by the people, then journalists ensure that the state performs its duties towards the people. ‘The people’ remain common in both the professions – one of the two however asks them to pay.

The Arguments: Both work for the welfare of people but still there is no scope for emotions or subjectivity in either. The arguments have to be founded on facts and strong reasons. “Take things to its logical conclusion” is what a partner at a law firm and an editor at a media house would be heard saying. Lawyers cite authorities in the form of precedents or legal dictionaries and journalists take quotes from experts to validate their opinion.

The presentation of arguments should be good enough to convince a judge or a reader and win the lawyer a case or the journalist a nod. Despite all this, the mental image of the way a lawyer screechingly argues in a court is a tad bit different from that of how a journalist thoughtfully argues on a paper.

The Ethics: Ones who have the ability to sway the decision may also do so in the wrong direction. Law enforcement agencies and the press both need to be independent of the other two pillars of democracy to function fearlessly. Lawyers are thus regulated on disciplinary grounds by the Bar Council, a Self-Regulatory Organization and talks are on to bring media under a similar scanner.  

Personal interests may again entice these two professionals to indulge in distortion of facts or lay emphasis on one aspect of an issue while suppressing the other. To work instead for the larger public interest will enable both lawyers and journalists to attain the primary objective of their respective professions. Accordingly, the arguments, though indicative of a lawyer/journalist’s opinion, should facilitate free thinking and fair decision making by the judge/reader.

The differences
The Documents: For a lawyer, documents are of immense importance. If you happen to view a lawyer’s chamber from the outside, you may even see few piles of files lying next to the A/C compressors in the grilled window extensions. They will create records, maintain records, photocopy records and stock records for years. I know of a senior lawyer who was made to sweep the floor to look for a missing piece of documentary evidence.

A lawyer is born reading the commentaries on law and dies trying to interpret it correctly. He would draft voluminous contracts and pleadings to state, affirm, confirm, declare, submit, admit, deny and verify a fact and yet request for liberty to file an additional affidavit. A journalist on the contrary has to tell his entire story in not more than 1200 words. Hallelujah! At last what is written would actually be read and not get lost in registries of the courts.

The Language: A lawyer couldn't tell a simile from a metaphor but would be able to interpret two seemingly similar clauses differently. The efforts that go into being legally correct, to account for an exception and an exception to an exception, tend to corrupt a legal mind into disclaiming before claiming a clear message.

Only if simple things were simple, I would have been very simply able to write simple sentences and tell a simple story of a simple man. But when I tried hard, it looked more poetic than a news item.

Albeit similarities pointed above are more in number and substance than the differences between being a lawyer and a journalist, I confess that the transformation is not easy.

I may be trying to get rid of my complicated expression and write a story without attempting to peruse all the related documents to cross-check the course of events. But the bottom line is - as aphoristically put by my editor - what a lawyer writes does not become part of literature.