In his recent book, Charles E. Silberman underscores the role of the law as an educating institution. “Since means shape ends, the kinds of legal procedures the society develops shape the goals and values and indeed the whole character and ethos of the society” (Silberman, 1970: 42). He convincingly argues that the attempts in recent years to provide legal services to the poor have necessitated radical changes in the conception of the lawyer's role. “For one thing, he becomes an educator in a much more specific way, since the first (and perhaps most important) part of his job may be to educate the poor to what their rights are” (Silberman, 1970:43). Yet it is not only the poor who have difficulty when it comes to understanding the laws of society, and many people have been confronted with situations in which they have, after the fact, discovered that what they have done was illegal. The My Lai trials may be simply an extreme case in point. In the defense of Lt. Calley, the lawyers in the case were expected to argue that the defendant did not know the difference between a legal and illegal order and such an argument was used successfully in the similar Diener case. Yet the old adage has it that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” In many lesser situations citizens are unsure as to what their legal responsibilities are or what others legally have the right to do or not do.