Hey, 120mm - "Don't apologize, Mr. Cahill; it's a sign of weakness."

Seriously, if I were wounded by comments unfavorable to lawyers, my "Purple Hearts" would fill up my house and office. And, truth in lending, I'm a very harsh critic of lawyers (myself included) when they screw-up.

One of my clients gave me a "lawyer joke cartoon" when he moved away (it still is up on my office "cartoon board"), he saying: "You're the only lawyer I've met who has a sense of humor, particularly with respect to lawyer jokes."

Now, briefly, as to your substantive comments:

1. I've encountered two basic kinds of commanders at BCT and higher levels. The first type is of the majority, and they are the ones who pass legal opinion straight down to their subordinates without even adding flavor to it. They tend to be "yes-men" or "there's nothing I can do about it-men". They basically elevate the JAG section to command of their unit.

2. The second type, which appear to be in the minority, develop a fundamental command philosophy which, while they DO consult with, and listen to the advice of legal council, they have the wherewithal to balance legal opinion with command responsibilities. And that includes having the backbone to disregard legal council when it stands in the way of moral issues and mission accomplishment.
I leave it to the players to sort out which is majority or minority.

1. I suspect, that in many cases, this is a cop-out, with the JAG being used as a convenient excuse. That kind of guy is simply a "yes man" prone to make excuses. But, there are types who do slavishly follow legal advice (which is only a "from better to worse" WAG). An example from my world is a client who lets his lawyer negotiate a contract. My clients negotiate their own contracts - unless they are completely untrainable and unteachable. My process is to go over the contract with the client line by line - and drill every legal pitfall into his or her head. Then, my client, having been briefed on all the pitfalls I can see and tricks I know, goes forth to do battle - usually successfully. After all, it is the client's money (not mine); and the client's line of business (about which I usually know little).

2. This guy is basically my kind of client (see preceding paragraph). In fact, the first guy probably will not survive the first interview. Another type who will not survive that interview is a client who (1) knows more law than I do; or (2) is going to go ahead with what he wants, regardless of what I say; or (3) treats me like a mercenary (you will do this), even if I totally agree with what he wants to do. Fortunately, I've been in a position over the course of my somewhat specialized practice to reject clients of those types. Not all lawyers are that fortunate.

Now, a serious question to you. You covered your degrees of freedom re: orders coming from on high. Let's say you are a company commander. Does that same freedom of action apply to your platoon, squad and fire team leaders - and to the guy who is ordered to be the tip of the spear on point - as to your orders ?

Another truth in lending: Besides ranting about lawyers (usually for incompetence, sometimes for ethics), I also can easily turn to ranting about "micro-management" in military matters. As a kid, I read of it in Korea (especially as the lines stabilized); as an adult, the same as to Vietnam - except more so. On that point, you are preaching to this choir.

-----------------------------------
Now, to Ken

Reasoned discussion is good but emotional reaction to extreme provocation is hard to suppress.
Another truth in lending: My personality is such that I don't get emotional about most generalized aspects of a situation. Individual aspects, yes - e.g., people I knew killed or chopped up in Vietnam, etc. - which extends into more generalized areas related to that. I am now to the point where I can recognize that others have those generalized emotions, but they are usually foreign to how my mind ticks.

Part of that is suppression of "emotional reaction to extreme provocation" - cuz, yours truly has a horrible temper; and gets very bad thoughts about what to do with the provoker. Had that "anger management" issue since I was a kid. So, I'll often come across as cold - and "legalistic" is a good term for it.