Lawyers in the Wizard world?

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 128980

>>Tamara:
>Are there lawyers in the wizard world?<

Betsy:
Of course this very much depends on how you define the word, "lawyer" 
<g>.  Are you talking about someone who goes to law school, passes a 
series of tests in order to earn the proper credentials, hangs out a 
shingle or joins a pre-existing firm, and works only on matters 
pertaining to the law?  Or are you talking about someone who 
represents another person at a trial?  Because the two are not 
necessarily interchangable.  

If you're refering to the first, I think the answer is no.  JKR has 
already told us that there is no further schooling past Hogwarts, so 
I doubt there's a specific training ground for lawyers (none of the 
career pamphlets seemed to cover attorneys) or special tests to take 
in order to play the part of representative.

However, if you're thinking about the second, then the answer is a 
canonicaly provable, yes.

>>Tamara:
>Harry goes to his "trial" without any representation, no one seems 
to be around to represent Hagrid when he is sent off to Azkaban, or 
Buckbeat at his trial.<

Betsy:
Actually, only Hagrid is without counsel. (Since there was no trial, 
I believe he may have been placed in Azkaban as a sort of holding 
pattern.  The WW is brutal like that.)  Both Harry and Buckbeak have 
representatives.

Here's Buckbeak's trial, as described by Hagrid:
"S'all my fault.  Got all tongue-tied.  They was all sittin' there in 
black robes an' I kep' droppin' me notes and forgettin' all them 
dates yeh looked up fer me, Hermione.  An' then Lucius Malfor stood 
up an' said his bit, and the Committee jus' did exac'ly what he 
told 'em...." (PoA scholastic hardback ed. p.292)

Hagrid was playing the part of Buckbeak's representative (complete 
with examples of legal precedent to argue with) and Malfoy played the 
part of prosecutor.

Next there's Harry's hearing.  While Dumbledore introduces himself as 
a witness for the defense, he behaves very much as Harry's 
representative.  He calls Mrs. Figg as a witness (after citing law to 
ensure she *was* called), and then brings up the very law that gets 
Harry off.

"Clause seven of the Decree states that magic may be used before 
Muggles in exceptional circumstances, and as those exceptional 
circumstances include situations that threaten the life of the wizard 
or witch himself, or witches, wizards, or Muggles present at the time 
of the --" (OotP scholastic p.148)

In both cases the person (or creature) on trial had someone, armed 
with legal knowledge, representing their interests.  Clearly, both 
Dumbledore and Hagrid are amateurs (Hagrid more amateurish than 
Dumbledore).  And I think this is probably the case in most, if not 
all, trials and hearings in the WW.  But just as clearly, there are 
laws that guide the proceedings, and people who try and use those 
laws to best represent their side. 

(I would recommend Expecto Patronus, by Pharnabazus found here: 
http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/7250.html  for a 
really indepth look on the workings of the WW.) 

>>Tamara:
<snip>
>I'm also sorry that the idea of lawyers hasn't been seriously 
breached, as it would be a perfect career for Hermione to go into I 
think. She did all the research for Buckbeat's trial, and her work 
with S.P.E.W. shows she obviously cares a lot for those who don't 
have someone on their side.<
<snip>

Betsy:
I can totally see this type of career for Hermione.  And I can see 
her ushering more formal legal representatives into the WW -- people 
who devote themselves soley or mainly to the law.  I would argue with 
the idea that the idea of lawyers (or more properly, the idea of fair 
and equal laws) have not been breached.  I think there are so many 
examples of *unfair* legal practices within the WW (Sirius, Hagrid, 
Umbridge's reign, etc.) and they have been so prominently raised by 
JKR, I cannot imagine that she'll allow things to remain status quo.

Betsy