ABSTRACT
To help their public image, Canadian lawyers considered establishing a ‘truth and reconciliation’ panel in 2005 to discover why they do not enjoy greater respect.1 Among possible public misgivings is the alleged propensity of some lawyers to argue something perverse in order to benefit their clients, particularly in protecting civil and criminal defendants. Such criticism, however undeserved, has long roots. The first treatise on adoxography – skilfully praising worthless objects – was published in England in 1593 by Anthony Munday. It contained essays celebrating poverty, drunkenness and stupidity, and its preface claimed it would be especially useful to lawyers.2
