Two Types of Lawyers - Those Who Think, and Those Who Follow

I had the most interesting exchange yesterday with an attorney who works for the State of Washington. Our discussion was about the law of adverse possession and whether it need be changed. Without question, she was well-qualified to discuss the law. But, what surprised me was her inability to apply logic and reason to her argument (or even to counter mine). Sadly, all she could do was to regurgitate what she learned in Property (law school) rather than look at the issue at hand, which is should Washington change its adverse possession laws? So, I thought it would be a good idea to send her a note following up on our talk.

Just wanted to express my appreciation in talking with you yesterday about adverse possession. Clearly, we have differences of opinion about the law.

As you know, it was 1881 since the last time Washington's adverse possession law was changed. If you believe that we should keep laws stagnant and unchanged as to what they were in 1881, then I guess then that you subscribe to the view that women should not have the right to vote. For after all, in 1881 it was Constitutionally settled law that women did not have the right to vote.

In fact, it took 133 years for that change to occur. For 200+ years, people could legally justify owning slaves. I'm sure you do not believe that the Dred Scott decision was right. Legal, yes... but was it right? Other laws, that I'm sure you touched upon in law school, like dowry and curtsy no longer exist because society has moved beyond their need. Heck, can you imagine what our jails would be like if we still enforced "debtor's prison" today?

If there is anything that I can convince you of, it is this: the original need for adverse possession has faded. It is a law whose time has come and gone. As a country, we do not face starvation, and we no longer live in the wild west. Times have changed, needs have changed, society has changed. It is time for the law to change, too.

Because of this, both New York and Colorado have recently made substantive changes to their adverse possession laws. I suggest you read up on what they have changed and why. Obviously, this was not a trivial matter for these jurisdictions and their legislators. But, they did it because the people voiced their concern that current adverse possession statutes were outdated and in need of improvement. It is time for Washington to move beyond 1881 and catch up to today's standards.

If you have any other questions about adverse possession or why other people in Washington support House Bill 1026, please let me know.

Sincerely, Chris

What I've learned in talking with attorneys about the law (and yes... I've talked to A LOT of attorneys) is that there are basically two types of lawyers out there. Those who are great at knowing the law and reciting cases, and others who are great at thinking logically and are emotionally unbiased. I prefer the latter. We need logic and reason if society is to move forward. Appeals to history, appeals to authority, false dilemmas simply should not be used as legal justification. The law needs to be thought of as being alive. It changes and needs to change as society grows. I just wish there were more attorneys who applied logic and reason to their work, rather than who can just recite cases.

Letters to the Editor

I received an interesting e-mail today from of all people, a land surveyor, Sean Joyce of Joyce Surveying and Mapping Associates. He copied me on a letter to a reporter, Kathie Durbin of the Columbian Newspaper in Washington.

In particular, Mr. Joyce took offense to Ms. Durbin's article, "Law Sparks Boundary Wars"

Quoting Mr. Joyce he believes the news article should be entitled, "Inept attorneys spark boundary disputes." Sadly, Mr. Joyce is blinded by his own bias of being a land surveyor. As the issue with adverse possession has nothing to do with "inept" attorneys. The fundamental issue is that adverse possession is an unfair, immoral and unnecessary law that need not exist anymore.

In his letter to the editor, Mr. Joyce fell into the same logical trap that so many people fall into. His argument is that because adverse possession has been around for hundreds of years, it must be a good law. This is the logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Tradition."

In essence, it was the same logic that was used to support why slavery should exist. After all, it had been legal to own slaves in the United States for decades. Why change?

Adverse possession is just as repugnant and immoral as slavery. Yet today, the same supporters of adverse possession use the same logic and ill-formed arguments to keep it alive.

I can not change Sean Joyce's viewpoint as his opinion is based on emotion rather than truth. I suspect that other, narrow-minded individuals will cling onto this 800 year old belief that legalized land theft is acceptable.

But, at the end of the day, who I have to praise is Kathie Durbin and other reporters who have the courage to write about this pernicious law. For legalized land theft to end, people need to share their stories -- to editors, lawmakers, heck - even land surveyors. And likewise, we need those letters to the editors to show the human side and detriment of what legalized land theft is all about.