I Won't Feel Helpless

Adam, I do not believe my last point was off-topic. I believe you are missing my point that most social (and legal) subsets affect other social and legal subsets (however you want to define the subsets), such that it is inaccurate to say (as you say) that time spent "helping a company through bankruptcy, . . . means (assuming we find deep satisfaction in bankruptcy law), we are not using that time to help a working-class family escape from crushing debt through bankruptcy." Anything you do in law will affect more than just the person/organization you are representing, and your actions will affect other interests both negatively and positively, and in some ways over which you will have little to no control. For example, above, you contrast "John Smith the laid off millworker and K-Mart," but the fact is that today, John Smith is the laid off K-Mart worker once K-Mart goes belly-up. Contrary to what you say, there is oftentimes no vast gray area between John Smith and K-Mart -- and in this case, John and K-Mart's interests overlap, and cumulatively end up, in my opinion, somewhere in that area where there are many shades of gray.

You also refer to the Wal-Mart article. I have no doubt that Wal-Mart wages have lowered individual salaries. The tradeoff is that it provides jobs to people who might otherwise go salaryless, and it presumably passes on at least some of the savings to those same workers in the form of lower prices for their necessities. I'm not saying that Wal-Mart does not create problems, but it also solves or at least mitigates other problems. Consequently, I dont' think it's fair or accurate to pass judgment on Wal-Mart as being the bad "big box" by just focusing on the comparative negatives of Wal-Mart's wages and benefits relative to other companies without also looking at and weighing other factors. Despite what you say above, representing that big box in reorganization proceedings may in all likelihood help that working-class family escape from the crushing debt and bankruptcy to which you refer, because keeping the big box in business allows the breadwinner(s) of that family to keep their jobs and avoid bankruptcy (assuming they work at the big box or a subsidiary, or a supplier of the big box or subsidiary, or an agent of the big box or subsidiary -- I could go on in the interrelated extensions here). In other words, more aspects of life (and the law) interrelate than I think you are acknowledging. I hope my point here is clear.

-- BarbPitman - 22 Jan 2008