It is worth — given the passage of time — recalling the basic architecture of the Crisis: 121 children from many different and largely unrelated families had been taken into the care of Cleveland County Council in the three short months of the summer of 1987. Behind these headline statistics were decades of neglect and/or misunderstanding of the issue of child sexual abuse, a long-running dispute between police and paediatricians over who should have primacy in the investigation of such cases and the presence of two dedicated paediatricians at Middlesbrough General Hospital. Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt had both understanding of, and training in, recognising the physical signs that a child’s body had been abused. One of these signs was — and still is reflex anal dilatation (RAD): a simple clue which is suggestive of anal penetration from outside. It had been recognised as a valuable weapon in the armoury of doctors examining children for many decades and was endorsed by both the British Medical Association and the Association of Police Surgeons. Yet by July 1987, the paediatricians were at the centre of a national storm of outrage — denounced by politicians, press, television and public opinion. The parents of the 121 children taken into care were lionised for their courage or portrayed as the victims of a monstrous witch-hunt. Their voices — sometimes their faces — dominated newsstands and television bulletins. When the courts seemed to be returning all their children to them, the nation seemed to breathe a sigh of relief, while simultaneously demanding the scalps of the paediatricians and social workers. (p18)In every case there was some prima fade evidence to suggest the possibility of abuse. Far from the media fiction of parents taking their children to Middlesbrough General Hospital for a tummy ache or a sore thumb and suddenly being presented with a diagnosis of child sexual abuse, the true story was of families known to social services for months or years, histories of physical and sexual abuse of siblings and of prior discussions with parents about these concerns. In several of the cases the children themselves had made detailed disclosures of abuse; many of the pre-verbal children displayed severe emotional or behavioural symptoms consistent with sexual abuse. There were even some families in which a convicted sex offender had moved in with mother and children. All of this information had been presented to the Butler-Sloss Inquiry. Virtually none of it had emerged from that inquiry into the public arena and certainly not into the vitriolic media coverage of Cleveland. To my colleagues and me this seemed initially impossible to comprehend: how could this have happened? How could truth have been turned on its head so completely? And why, given the apparent strength of the evidence, did the courts come to close their minds to these children's cases? (p20)

When we began researching the film on behalf of Channel 4, which had commissioned and paid for it, the response from individual child protection workers inside and outside Cleveland was universally positive. Everyone we met wanted what they saw as the true (and hidden) story of Cleveland to be told at last: the story of how very young children - many of them pre-verbal - had been abused, first sexually by an adult, then systemically by courts and lawyers who returned them to abusive families. Each of these workers had knowledge of individual children from the crisis. Some were still working in the Middlesbrough area. Yet none had any contact with the families, none had been allowed to retain documentation and none knew of any official child protection agency that had tracked what happened to the children after the three fraught summer months of 1987.The key to resolving the puzzle of Cleveland was the children. What had actually happened to them? Had they been abused - or had the paediatricians and social workers (as public opinion held) been over-zealous and plain wrong? Curiously — particularly given its high profile, year-long sittings and £5 million cost — this was the one central issue never addressed by the Butler-Sloss judicial testimony and sifting of internal evidence, the inquiry's remit did not require it to answer the main question. Ten years after the crisis, my colleagues and I set about reconstructing the records of the 121 children at its heart to determine exactly what had happened to them.(p19)In the film we dealt with several of these cases. One case concerned one of the first families to be ‘reunited’ — the word, the very loaded word, used by all newspapers and television covering the case — with their children. Yet the social services file not apparently considered by the courts — makes very uncomfortable reading. It shows that the family — mother, father and three children — had been known to social services for some time prior to the 1987 crisis. • All three children were said to have behavioural problems - including an incident in which they dug up the floorboards and set fire to the family home. • They were listed as having an alarming number of bruises and scars on their young bodies. • All were seriously underweight. • They had contact with a close family relation who was recorded as having abused other children as an adolescent. • One of the children had drawn a picture for a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) officer working with him — a picture of an adult man apparently buggering a boy. • At least one of the three children had expressed extreme reluctance to return home. This information and the risk to those children it implies was never properly tested in court. Faced with the juggernaut of press reporting and public opinion, the protection of children took a back seat. (p21)

Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for constituitionalism and legality, the belief in 'the law' as something above the state and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible.It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. But no one accepts the implications of this, everyone takes for granted that the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not. Remarks like 'They can't run me in; I haven't done anything wrong', or 'They can't do that; it's against the law', are part of the atmosphere of England. The professed enemies of society have this feeling as strongly as anyone else. One sees it in prison-books like Wilfred Macartney's Walls Have Mouths or Jim Phelan's Jail Journey, in the solemn idiocies that take places at the trials of conscientious objectors, in letters to the papers from eminent Marxist professors, pointing out that this or that is a 'miscarriage of British justice'. Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered. The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root. Even the intelligentsia have only accepted it in theory.An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct,national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the caster oil? The sword is still in the scabbard, and while it stays corruption cannot go beyond a certain point. The English electoral system, for instance, is an all but open fraud. In a dozen obvious ways it is gerrymandered in the interest of the moneyed class. But until some deep change has occurred in the public mind, it cannot become completely corrupt. You do not arrive at the polling booth to find men with revolvers telling you which way to vote, nor are the votes miscounted, nor is there any direct bribery. Even hypocrisy is powerful safeguard. The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig,whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstances take a money bribe,is one of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape.

While many experts insisted that children seldom lie about sexual abuse, others claimed that young children often failed to distinguish between fact and fiction and might be susceptible to suggestion and pressure on the part of investigators. As more of these allegations arose in custody and divorce cases in which one parent was being accused, the issue of deliberate malice and vindictiveness on the part of the accusing parent became a matter for consideration. Were these parents intentionally coaching their children to lie in order to punish a hated ex-spouse or to gain advantage in a divorce settlement? There were many professionals—lawyers, judges, clinicians, psychiatrists—who became convinced that this was the case. Articles in respectable publications like Time and Newsweek cited statistics indicating that fictitious allegations made by divorcing parents were on the rise, and lawyers were quoted describing sex abuse allegations as the ‘atom bomb of custody disputes.’ There were also parents—predominantly mothers—who found evidence suggesting a good possibility that their children had been sexually molested by ex-spouses. Sometimes a child’s disclosures or physical or psychological symptoms led a mother to seek medical or psychological advice. Often the suggestion that abuse had occurred came not from the mother but from a doctor or a psychologist. Initial shock and disbelief on the part of these mothers was followed with the hope and expectation that the proper authorities, to whom suspicion of abuse was reported, would conduct appropriate investigations and take the steps necessary to protect their children. Rapidly they found that the systems response was very different from what they had expected. As protective mothers in cases against fathers, these women were automatically labeled vindictive, malicious, and paranoid, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Suddenly they found themselves in a Kafkaesque labyrinth of courts and state-run systems, among lawyers, judges, social workers, and experts, where the end result was almost always the same—returning or delivering the child to the alleged molester. Could this really be happening in America? Coverage of high-profile cases in the respected print media tends to reflect the attitudes of a handful of very vocal, self-styled ‘experts.” They have fueled the widespread public perception that false allegations of child sexual abuse are appearing with increased frequency in custody cases. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, this belief has been adopted by many in the legal profession and by a sizeable segment of the mental health community. The purpose of this book is to challenge these misconceptions. Sex abuse allegations that occur during custody disputes are frequently presumed to be false because they have arisen during or just before a custody case, regardless of the evidence. Because of this presumption on the part of private professionals and public officials, when children who suffer incest become the subjects of custody disputes, often their outcries are not believed and they are not protected. Custody of such children is likely to be given to the very adults accused of molesting them. (page x)

I also quickly came to appreciate the importance of watching what’s said around clients. When clients make unexpected requests for legal advice – as they often do – I learned that it was better to tell them I’d get back to them with an answer, and go away, research the question, and consult with a supervising attorney, rather than firing back an answer off-the-cuff.A friend of mine at another firm told me a story that illustrates the risks of saying too much. It seems an insurance company had engaged my friend’s California-based firm to help in defending against an environmental claim. This claim entailed reviewing huge volumes of documents in Arizona. So my friend’s firm sent teams of associates to Arizona, all expenses paid, on a weekly basis. Because the insurance company also sent its own lawyers and paralegals, as did other insurance companies who were also defendants in the lawsuit, the document review facility was often staffed with numerous attorneys and paralegals from different firms. Associates were instructed not to discuss the case with anyone unless they knew with whom they were speaking.After several months of document review, one associate from my friend’s firm abandoned his professionalism and discretion when he began describing to a young woman who had recently arrived at the facility what boondoggles the weekly trips were. He talked at length about the free airfare, expensive meals, the easy work, and the evening partying the trips involved. As fate would have it, the young woman was a paralegal working for the insurance company – the client who was paying for all of his “perks” – and she promptly informed her superiors about his comments. Not surprisingly, the associate was fired before the end of the month.My life as an associate would have been a lot easier if I had delegated work more freely. I’ve mentioned the stress associated with delegating work, but the flip side of that was appreciating the importance of asking others for help rather than doing everything myself. I found that by delegating to paralegals and other staff members some of my more tedious assignments, I was free to do more interesting work.I also wish I’d given myself greater latitude to make mistakes. As high achievers, law students often put enormous stress on themselves to be perfect, and I was no different. But as a new lawyer, I, of course, made mistakes; that’s the inevitable result of inexperience. Rather than expect perfection and be inevitably disappointed, I’d have been better off to let myself be tripped up by inexperience – and focus, instead, on reducing mistakes caused by carelessness.Finally, I tried to rely more on other associates within the firm for advice on assignments and office politics. When I learned to do this, I found that these insights gave me either the assurance that I was using the right approach, or guidance as to what the right approach might be. It didn’t take me long to realize that getting the “inside scoop” on firm politics was crucial to my own political survival. Once I figured this out, I made sure I not only exchanged information with other junior associates, but I also went out of my way to gather key insights from mid-level and senior associates, who typically knew more about the latest political maneuverings and happenings. Such information enabled me to better understand the various personal agendas directing work flow and office decisions and, in turn, to better position myself with respect to issues and cases circulating in the office.

I found that while transition into practicing law was difficult, it was eased by following a few simple guidelines. Among them were these:First, I tried to emphasize quality over quantity. My firm, as with any firm, wanted to be sure that the legal advice it provided to clients was of the highest quality. As a result, firms seek associates who can analyze issues correctly and independently, and fully explore all relevant avenues. However, the temptation as a new associate is to rush through the first few assignments, in an attempts to seem efficient. I remember a summer associate who kept racing through assignments, hoping to impress the lawyers he was working for. His first two assignments were intended to last a week or more, yet he completed each of them in a single day! His third project was even larger, and should have taken 3 weeks to complete – yet he submitted his analysis after 3 days. At that point, one of my colleagues had to explain to him that the quality of his work mattered much more than how much he completed. Needless to say, I wasn’t surprised when he wasn’t invited back for a permanent position.Second, I always tried to avoid asking questions when I could figure out the answers with a little research or independent footwork. Like other junior associates, I had to walk a fine line between clarifying assignments and relevant facts on the one hand, and seeming lazy or obtuse on the other. Once, shortly after I joined the firm, a senior partner asked me to research an issue for a meeting later that afternoon. Minutes after leaving his office, I realized that I didn’t have a firm grasp of the issue he wanted researched. As I hastily began walking back to the partner’s office, I mentioned to a mid-level associate working on the same case that I was going to ask the partner to clarify my assignment. The mid-level associate looked at me and said, “Are you sure you want to do that?” I knew immediately the answer was no; the partner was extremely busy with his own work and would only lose confidence in me if he had to explain the issue twice. I decided to review the materials I had again and, as I did many times thereafter, eventually figured out the issue on my own.Third, I always tried to be as thorough as possible. It’s just crucial to look at an assignment from every angle – to make sure that every research resource and case is current, to analyze alternative theories or approaches, and to provide a full answer to the legal issue being examined. Trust me – being thorough is a good preventative for sleepless nights.This point was brought home to me while researching some new accounting standards for a senior partner at the firm. After finding certain accounting guidelines that seemed to apply to the facts at hand, I brought them into the partner’s office and told him that I thought they were the right ones. He looked at them quickly and said that there were other standards that were more directly on point. He sent me back to the library with instructions to bring him a specific book containing the standards he had in mind. I went to the library, found the book, and returned to his office, where he was waiting to review it. He flipped through the table of contents, then the index, and then through a few pages. Finally, he found the page he was seeking, and said, “Ah, here it is. You know, there’s a reason why we pay you young guys $90,000 a year. It’s because we expect you to dig a little deeper.” As it turned out, the provision he found was identical to the one I’d dug up; it just didn’t seem that way to him because it was published in a very different format. But the experience revealed not only the firm’s high expectations of my ability to research issues thoroughly, but also its belief that it was entitled to such thoroughness because it was paying top dollar for associates.

Díjele que entre nosotros existía una sociedad de hombres educados desde su juventud en el arte de probar con palabras multiplicadas al efecto que lo blanco es negro y lo negro es blanco, según para lo que se les paga. El resto de las gentes son esclavas de esta sociedad. Por ejemplo: si mi vecino quiere mi vaca, asalaria un abogado que pruebe que debe quitarme la vaca. Entonces yo tengo que asalariar otro para que defienda mi derecho, pues va contra todas las reglas de la ley que se permita a nadie hablar por si mismo. Ahora bien; en este caso, yo, que soy el propietario legítimo, tengo dos desventajas. La primera es que, como mi abogado se ha ejercitado casi desde su cuna en defender la falsedad, cuando quiere abogar por la justicia -oficio que no le es natural- lo hace siempre con gran torpeza, si no con mala fe. La segunda desventaja es que mi abogado debe proceder con gran precaución, pues de otro modo le reprenderán los jueces y le aborrecerán sus colegas, como a quien degrada el ejercicio de la ley. No tengo, pues, sino dos medios para defender mi vaca. El primero es ganarme al abogado de mi adversario con un estipendio doble, que le haga traicionar a su cliente insinuando que la justicia está de su parte. El segundo procedimiento es que mi abogado dé a mi causa tanta apariencia de injusticia como le sea posible, reconociendo que la vaca pertenece a mi adversario; y esto, si se hace diestramente, conquistará sin duda, el favor del tribunal. Ahora debe saber su señoría que estos jueces son las personas designadas para decidir en todos los litigios sobre propiedad, así como para entender en todas las acusaciones contra criminales, y que se los saca de entre los abogados más hábiles cuando se han hecho viejos o perezosos; y como durante toda su vida se han inclinado en contra de la verdad y de la equidad, es para ellos tan necesario favorecer el fraude, el perjurio y la vejación, que yo he sabido de varios que prefirieron rechazar un pingüe soborno de la parte a que asistía la justicia a injuriar a la Facultad haciendo cosa impropia de la naturaleza de su oficio.Es máxima entre estos abogados que cualquier cosa que se haya hecho ya antes puede volver a hacerse legalmente, y, por lo tanto, tienen cuidado especial en guardar memoria de todas las determinaciones anteriormente tomadas contra la justicia común y contra la razón corriente de la Humanidad. Las exhiben, bajo el nombre de precedentes, como autoridades para justificar las opiniones más inicuas, y los jueces no dejan nunca de fallar de conformidad con ellas.Cuando defienden una causa evitan diligentemente todo lo que sea entrar en los fundamentos de ella; pero se detienen, alborotadores, violentos y fatigosos, sobre todas las circunstancias que no hacen al caso. En el antes mencionado, por ejemplo, no procurarán nunca averiguar qué derechos o títulos tiene mi adversario sobre mi vaca; pero discutirán si dicha vaca es colorada o negra, si tiene los cuernos largos o cortos, si el campo donde la llevo a pastar es redondo o cuadrado, si se la ordeña dentro o fuera de casa, a qué enfermedades está sujeta y otros puntos análogos. Después de lo cual consultarán precedentes, aplazarán la causa una vez y otra, y a los diez, o los veinte, o los treinta años, se llegará a la conclusión.Asimismo debe consignarse que esta sociedad tiene una jerigonza y jerga particular para su uso, que ninguno de los demás mortales puede entender, y en la cual están escritas todas las leyes, que los abogados se cuidan muy especialmente de multiplicar. Con lo que han conseguido confundir totalmente la esencia misma de la verdad y la mentira, la razón y la sinrazón, de tal modo que se tardará treinta años en decidir si el campo que me han dejado mis antecesores de seis generaciones me pertenece a mí o pertenece a un extraño que está a trescientas millas de distancia.

អំពីច្បាប់ ៖ ជាទូទៅមនុស្សភាគច្រើនទទួលស្គាល់តែច្បាប់ដែលមនុស្សកំណត់ ហើយភ្លេចគិតច្បាប់មួយទៀត ធ្វើឲ្យគេទៅជាមនុស្សឃោរឃៅឬមាន អាក្បកិរិយាចម្លែកៗ។ ច្បាប់មួយទៀតនោះគឺច្បាប់ធម្មជាតិ។ ឩទាហរណ៍ មនុស្សម្នាក់ទៅលួចបាយរបស់គេស៊ី បើតាមច្បាប់កំណត់ទង្វើបែបនេះចាត់ទុកថាខុសច្បាប់ តែបើតាមច្បាប់ធម្មជាតិ ពេលមនុស្សអត់ឃ្លានមកប្រព្រឹត្តបែបនេះគឺជារឿងត្រឹមត្រូវព្រោះដើម្បីសេចក្តីរស់រានតាមធម្មជាតិកំណត់ឲ្យ។ សំណាងល្អដែរដែលច្បាប់កំណត់ឲ្យមានទោសធ្ងន់ឬស្រាល។ តែទោះជាយ៉ាងណា មនុស្សដែលទទួលស្គាល់ ឬសំអាងតែលើច្បាប់កំណត់មួយមុខ ដោយមិនព្រមយកច្បាប់ធម្មជាតិឬសីលធម៌គុណធម៌មកគួបផ្សំពិចារណា អនាគតច្រើនតែបញ្ចប់ដោយសោកនាដកម្ម។ ខ្ញុំសង្ឃឹមថាអនុជនខ្មែរជំនាន់ក្រោយនឹងចងចាំច្បាប់ទាំងពីរនេះដើម្បីអភិវឌ្ឍខ្លួនឲ្យដល់ទីខ្ពស់បំផុត កុំឲ្យមានជញ្ជាំងឬពិតានមករារាំង ទើបយើងអាចបង្កើនសក្តានុពលស្តារកិត្តិយសបុព្វបុរសមកវិញ។