The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent

"The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency." These words of Henry David Thoreau pierce the heart of the matter with the sharpness of a sword, calling attention to a subtle but profound distinction between what is truth and what is merely the appearance of truth. In this declaration, Thoreau speaks not only of lawyers but of the very nature of justice and how it is often distorted in the courts of the world. For lawyers, the truth is not always the unvarnished reality, but a tool—a tool bent and shaped by the constraints of argument, by the need for consistency, and by the demands of expediency. What the lawyer seeks is not the truth that transcends the self or upholds universal principles, but a truth that serves the needs of the case, of the client, and of the system within which they operate.

In ancient times, justice was viewed as an ideal, something eternal and unchanging, a force that would always shine through, no matter the darkness that sought to hide it. Solon, the great Athenian legislator, crafted laws with the hope that they would uphold not the interests of the powerful, but the dignity of all citizens. His laws were designed to reflect the truth of the human condition, to preserve fairness, and to create a just society. But even Solon, in his wisdom, could not foresee a time when the truth itself would be manipulated for personal or political gain. Thoreau’s insight shines light on this distortion: the truth is often a casualty when the lawyer's aim is not to seek what is just but what is expedient.

Consider the case of Socrates, the philosopher who stood trial in ancient Athens. He was charged with corrupting the youth and impiety, accusations rooted in political and social forces that sought to suppress the search for true knowledge. The court, seeking a conviction, was more interested in consistency and the appearance of maintaining order than in seeking the truth of Socrates’ actions. The truth that Socrates sought was a deep, abiding truth—one that went beyond the boundaries of his trial, beyond the confines of law. Yet, the law was more interested in maintaining its own expedient view of truth. Socrates was convicted, not because the truth of his life was wrong, but because it did not fit the established consistency of the legal system that sought to preserve its own authority. His death was the result of expediency, not justice.

This is the very nature of Thoreau's critique. In the world of law, truth becomes subservient to the needs of the system. A lawyer, in their work, is often less concerned with discovering the truth that is rooted in justice and more focused on finding a version of truth that will serve the client, the case, and the circumstances. The truth becomes shaped, twisted into something that is palatable for the courts, for the judges, for the audience. Justice, in this sense, becomes secondary to consistency—the ability to maintain a coherent narrative that fits neatly within the framework of the case.

The tale of Martin Luther King Jr., who stood against the system of segregation in the United States, offers another example of how truth can be overshadowed by the mechanics of expediency. When King and his fellow civil rights activists were arrested and tried, the truth of their cause—justice, equality, human dignity—was not the central concern of the law. The law, at that time, was more concerned with maintaining the expedient system of racial inequality than with uncovering the universal truth of justice. Yet, it was the truth of their actions that ultimately turned the scale in favor of justice, even though it took years of struggle and sacrifice. King’s words, like Thoreau’s, remind us that the truth is not always found in the courtroom or in the written law, but in the hearts of those who stand unwavering in the face of injustice.

So, Thoreau's words stand as a warning, not only to those who practice law, but to all who seek to understand the world of truth and justice. We must recognize that the truth is not always what is upheld in legal systems or institutions. Instead, it is often distorted by the forces of expediency, by the desire to win, to maintain control, to preserve consistency. Thoreau calls us to question this—how often do we accept the version of truth presented to us by the system without ever challenging it? How often do we fail to see that the truth might be hidden beneath layers of political or social convenience?

The lesson here is twofold. First, we must strive to seek the truth that transcends personal interest, societal convenience, or institutional power. Truth is not something to be twisted to fit our desires or our needs, but something to be uncovered, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. Second, we must recognize the power of expediency—how it can obscure truth and shape our perceptions of justice. In our own lives, let us be vigilant against this distortion, striving to live lives of integrity, not consistency for the sake of appearance, but a consistent commitment to truth, no matter the consequences.

Let this be our guiding principle as we walk the path of life. May we not seek the easy road, the path of least resistance, the expedient solution, but may we instead walk the harder road, the road of truth—ever vigilant, ever questioning, ever seeking justice. And in doing so, we honor the wisdom of Thoreau, whose words remind us that the truth we seek is not always the truth we are given, but it is worth the struggle to uncover it, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable it may be.