# anti-lawyer idiots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 15, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230 "2009-04-15T22:34:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/221 "2009-04-21T22:10:28Z")
> [@EJsGirl](#): > > So then, you’re looking for a new career, right? Because it seems odd that someone who despises lawyers and the legal profession as much as you do would work as an attorney. Seriously- why do you even practice law? > > Or is it a weird self-loathing thing, like closeted Gay Republicans? 😉 No, I’m not looking for a new career. Neither are the other lawyers I know who share my opinion. Like the Elves in Middle Earth, we are fighting a very long losing battle, without hope for the destruction of the one ring. People must be fought for in a system that is opaque to non-members. As for the self-loathing, I separate my own personal dislike of myself from that of the profession. I have my own reasons for disliking myself that have nothing to do with my being a lawyer. My reasons for disliking lawyers, which I’ve detailed somewhat in this thread are not personally applicable to me: I won’t take a client without a case, I will make a client settle if they have no defense. I follow the rules and the law and expect others to do so. When the Cal Supreme Court hands down Elkins v. Superior Court stating that trials must have live witnesses if a party asks for it, I am pretty disgusted when within 2 years it is only cited three times, all in unpublished decisions refusing to require live testimony. I am disgusted that Benjamin Field is still practicing law and that his supervisors are not even investigated and nobody is criminally charged. And the crack about being a closeted gay Republican is just totally below the belt. I am not a Republican. And neither gays nor closet cases needed to be insulted that way. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I know I asked for short sentences, and you’ve obliged. Thank you. But can you be a little more specific without adding too many words? > > By “many” do you mean, roughly, 1/1000, 1/100, 1/10, 1/2, 3/4? Also, what rules of ethics are you talking about–the ABA rules? When you speak of courts ignoring rules, can you be a bit more specific? > > Also, please try to state your premises so that each one can be supported by evidence. I assume, for example, that you don’t have a piece of evidence which states that some percentage of lawyers violate the ethical rules. So, please state the premises that get you to that conclusion. Mr. Parker, I think the number is about half. I’ve been specific enough for a Pit thread, please re-read it. All of these points have been addressed. There are no scientific studies, I haven’t the resources to conduct them, nobody does. That does not invalidate the opinions of people who decry the corruption in the system. There is no evidence admitting body. If you think that the legal system and lawyers are fantastic, well bully for you. You don’t have “evidence” either, nor do you have scientific studies. Neither is my point that in a just system nobody would feel that they had “lost”. That is inevitable. Ours is a reason giving system based on precedent. Precedent is not followed and the reasons given often bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/222 "2009-04-21T22:10:52Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You have a reading problem. Go read the whole thread. No no no, I wasn’t talking to you. I can only handle one idiot at a time, bless you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/223 "2009-04-21T22:23:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > While true on the face of it I have an issue with it when it comes to handing out justice. It is not that some get steaks and others hamburger. I believe it is intrinsic to our notion of society. “Justice for All” and “Justice is Blind” and all that jazz. You’re missing the point. You cannot have equal legal resources for all regardless of expense in a Capitalist society. You have to choose one or the other. As Americans, we’ve decided that the benefits of Capitalism outweigh it’s nastier effects. So we endeavor to fix the problems as best we can at the edges, but the fundamental issues will always remain. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed and kudos for getting it in the Constitution! Do you know in what year criminal defendant’s were first given free lawyers? Hint: It wasn’t 1789. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > However it is here I depart with you on this. It is a seeming sense of, “I can sleep well tonight…I done good with this” of attorneys in general that grates. This is the very crux of your argument. You point to a bunch of flaws in the system, which you can substantiate with evidence. And no one disagrees about those flaws. But then you make the leap that lawyers are all perfectly OK with those flaws. Your “seeming sense” is another way to say your unsubstantiated prejudice. Virtually no lawyer thinks the legal system is just hunky-dory. Just because there are recognized problems does not mean that there are easy solutions, nor does it mean that lawyers necessarily condone those problems. You go on to describe a bunch of other problems with the administration of justice that are not the fault of lawyers and, in fact, are actively being challenged by many lawyers. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yet why aren’t attorneys even effectively policing their own to allow sleeping lawyers (and there is more of that than the one guy I cited)? Surely the Bar is responsible for its own rules yes? They are. Lawyers get sued and disbarred all the time for malpractice. I reject your contention that one case of miscarried justice means that the whole system is rotten in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/224 "2009-04-21T22:25:34Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I will make a client settle if they have no defense. That’s an ethical violation, since it’s actually up to the client and not you, and you can’t just withdraw if they don’t want to follow your plan for great justice. So are you including yourself in the “half” of lawyers who are unethical? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/225 "2009-04-21T22:31:09Z")
**The Second Stone** , you admit you have nothing but anecdotal evidence of your opinion that half of all lawyers are unethical. Your reasoning is indistinguishable from the reasoning of all bigots. Some X are Y, therefore most X are Y because they are X’s. Your argument is doubly irrational in that, not only do you extrapolate from limited anecdotes, you expressly ignore anecdotes that run in the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/226 "2009-04-21T23:04:07Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > That’s an ethical violation, since it’s actually up to the client and not you, and you can’t just withdraw if they don’t want to follow your plan for great justice. > > So are you including yourself in the “half” of lawyers who are unethical? It’s an ethical violation if I don’t tell them that at the start and let them get another lawyer. Very few do. All who have done so have told me that they regretted it later. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/227 "2009-04-21T23:22:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > **The Second Stone** , you admit you have nothing but anecdotal evidence of your opinion that half of all lawyers are unethical. Your reasoning is indistinguishable from the reasoning of all bigots. Some X are Y, therefore most X are Y because they are X’s. > > Your argument is doubly irrational in that, not only do you extrapolate from limited anecdotes, you expressly ignore anecdotes that run in the other direction. I do not think that the word “bigot” means what you think that it means. It means prejudice in favor of one’s own group. I think that the word you are reaching for is bias. I freely admit I am biased against the legal system and the legal profession. Now, you next go on to word the use anecdote as though it meant fictional story made up by Ronald Reagan. Just because one can crack wise that “the plural of anecdote is not data” does not make it so. A persons personal experiences are what they are. Written legal opinions are what they are. You make a very good point that not every legal case is FUBAR and not every lawyer is scum. Points that I would agree with. But from there you jump to the conclusion that the system is “on balance” acceptable and that lawyers “on balance” are acceptable. Have I stated your position fairly? Because I think I have. And I don’t have a problem with your conclusions, except that I disagree with them. They are your conclusions. You are undoubtedly a much happier human being than I am. I am gratified that you like lawyers. To quote Justice Harlan: “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” I find that humankind’s application of law to be an obscenity, you find it a lyric. Good and swell. I don’t accept your view as mine. If judges and lawyers followed the law I would have less of a problem with the system. We have a system of laws, not men. And while the law itself my be a tyranny, my problem with the law is that people do not enforce the law in good faith and do not follow precedents. And that tyranny is not even condemned by lawyers. The public actually seems to be wise to it, and I find that encouraging. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/228 "2009-04-21T23:40:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Need a lawyer? Just hope one takes pity on you and helps. Sounds lousy to me and is another reason why people are not fond of lawyers. Yeah, I hate those bastards who won’t work for me for free. Wankers. Although hey, I thought we’d decided that slavery was bad. My mistake, I guess. So, seriously; how come it’s just up to lawyers to fix this problem? Isn’t it rather a matter of us, as a society, deciding to pay for universal provision, if we’re so sure it’s necessary? How do you justify sitting on your fat arse and demanding that others be more charitable? Why aren’t you out there yourself, fighting for the masses for free? The fact is that lawyers have set up huge organisations precisely to cater for people who can’t afford representation, or defend points of principle, all of which you write off with a wave of your patrician hand. You’re perfectly happy to hold forth on how lawyers aren’t being charitable enough to service the social rights you deem valuable (even while they put in vastly more work than you), and yet with the same breath you condemn them for not capriciously ignoring the laws you find distasteful. And you see nothing wrong with this. It’s quite breathtaking, it truly is. Your views are despicably self-serving, comprising in essence a demand that other people fund your wishes with a blank cheque, while absolving yourself of any responsibility. You are the very worst type of communitarian; the sort that demands the moon on a stick, as long as it’s never him that is called upon to provide it. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/229 "2009-04-21T23:45:51Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Yeah, I hate those bastards who won’t work for me for free. Wankers. Although hey, I thought we’d decided that slavery was bad. My mistake, I guess. > > So, seriously; how come it’s just up to lawyers to fix this problem? Isn’t it rather a matter of us, as a society, deciding to pay for universal provision, if we’re so sure it’s necessary? How do you justify sitting on your fat arse and demanding that others be more charitable? Why aren’t you out there yourself, fighting for the masses for free? > > The fact is that lawyers have set up huge organisations precisely to cater for people who can’t afford representation, or defend points of principle, all of which you write off with a wave of your patrician hand. You’re perfectly happy to hold forth on how lawyers aren’t being charitable enough to service the social rights you deem valuable (even while they put in vastly more work than you), and yet with the same breath you condemn them for not capriciously ignoring the laws you find distasteful. And you see nothing wrong with this. It’s quite breathtaking, it truly is. > > Your views are despicably self-serving, comprising in essence a demand that other people fund your wishes with a blank cheque, while absolving yourself of any responsibility. You are the very worst type of communitarian; the sort that demands the moon on a stick, as long as it’s never him that is called upon to provide it. :: applause :: Very well said. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/230 "2009-04-22T01:11:30Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Yeah, I hate those bastards who won’t work for me for free. Wankers. Although hey, I thought we’d decided that slavery was bad. My mistake, I guess. > > So, seriously; how come it’s just up to lawyers to fix this problem? Isn’t it rather a matter of us, as a society, deciding to pay for universal provision, if we’re so sure it’s necessary? How do you justify sitting on your fat arse and demanding that others be more charitable? Why aren’t you out there yourself, fighting for the masses for free? > > The fact is that lawyers have set up huge organisations precisely to cater for people who can’t afford representation, or defend points of principle, all of which you write off with a wave of your patrician hand. You’re perfectly happy to hold forth on how lawyers aren’t being charitable enough to service the social rights you deem valuable (even while they put in vastly more work than you), and yet with the same breath you condemn them for not capriciously ignoring the laws you find distasteful. And you see nothing wrong with this. It’s quite breathtaking, it truly is. > > Your views are despicably self-serving, comprising in essence a demand that other people fund your wishes with a blank cheque, while absolving yourself of any responsibility. You are the very worst type of communitarian; the sort that demands the moon on a stick, as long as it’s never him that is called upon to provide it. Again with the mischaracterizations. Where did I say attorneys should work for free? I seem to recall making the case that PDs should have parity with their prosecutor counterparts and that includes, among other things, equal pay. You know who else said that? The American Bar Association. And fulfill “my” wishes? How about fulfill the Constitution, as written. If you want to make an argument that “due process” is served while your attorney sleeps before they cart you off to prison then fine. Have at it (assuming you could possibly form anything approaching an argument instead of a rant). Every job I’ve had you get fired for sleeping on the job and none of them had at stake someone’s freedom. As for society paying for it I did not realize that the Constitution was only enforced if we felt like paying for it or worse, enforced only for those with the means to pay for it themselves. I am dying to hear your justification on this. Consider though that the average cost per prisoner in 2001 was $22,650/year ([cite](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/spe01.txt)). Presumably it is even more now but going with that for now. There are 2,310,984 prisoners in the United States as of June, 2008 ([cite](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm)). Assume (for the sake of argument) that better PDs with access to more resources lowered that number by just 2%. That is 46,220 fewer inmates in prison. That is a savings of $1,046,883,000/year. Hey look! $1 billion dollars! I think that could go a fair distance to improving PD salaries and resources. Perhaps I am way off on 2% fewer convictions but sure seems reasonable to me (or add up fewer convictions with shorter sentences to combine for that effect). But hey, why tackle the tough arguments (which you have assiduously avoided) when you can take cheap shots? It is the standard fall back of every loser like you here that has nothing of merit to say. Hell, I pointed this out to you before and all you come back with is more drivel and even less substance (didn’t think that was possible but you managed). It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/231 "2009-04-22T02:08:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’re missing the point. You cannot have equal legal resources for all regardless of expense in a Capitalist society. You have to choose one or the other. As Americans, we’ve decided that the benefits of Capitalism outweigh it’s nastier effects. So we endeavor to fix the problems as best we can at the edges, but the fundamental issues will always remain. Summed up it is fair to characterize that as justice only for those who can afford it? You are ok with that notion? > [@](#): > > Do you know in what year criminal defendant’s were first given free lawyers? Hint: It wasn’t 1789. No, I don’t know. Is it relevant whether it was 200 years ago or two years ago? It is there, as it should be, today. > [@](#): > > This is the very crux of your argument. You point to a bunch of flaws in the system, which you can substantiate with evidence. And no one disagrees about those flaws. But then you make the leap that lawyers are all perfectly OK with those flaws. Your “seeming sense” is another way to say your unsubstantiated prejudice. Virtually no lawyer thinks the legal system is just hunky-dory. Just because there are recognized problems does not mean that there are easy solutions, nor does it mean that lawyers necessarily condone those problems. > > You go on to describe a bunch of other problems with the administration of justice that are not the fault of lawyers and, in fact, are actively being challenged by many lawyers. I think the issues are profound. Not mere little niggles. Certainly the United States has found legal justifications for a number of awful things but thankfully many of those injustices have been corrected. This issue remains however. The United States has more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world ([cite from the Master](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2494/does-the-united-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population)). 1-in-100 adults in the US are in prison ([cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html)). Forgive me but I think this is a Big Deal[sup]tm[/sup]. I put it on par with some of the worst societal ills this country has ever faced (not the worst but up there). For all that I have been going on in here we have not even addressed a distinct racial bias still present in the judicial system or delved into the issue of plea bargains. The answers are not necessarily easy. What answers can be found however are almost certainly going to have to come from the legal profession in one way or another. They are best positioned to assess remedies and champion changes. They are the lawyers, judges and legislators. Certainly there is some work on this yet largely many of these most egregious of issues remain, barely changed over the last few decades. Perhaps my issue is a perceived “banality of evil” in the legal profession (don’t jump on me…not calling lawyers evil…it is a turn of phrase). Essentially, _“It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.”_ ([link to quote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil)). It is this I tend to see among the legal profession. Each one is just a guy or gal doing their job. Many are not even in criminal law and just review contracts or other mundane legal tasks. What part could they have in all of this? Personally I think lawyers play a huge part in all this. The oft misquoted bit from Shakespeare, “'The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” notes lawyers’ actual importance and critical role in society. That character wanted lawyers out of the way to gain power which the lawyers would stop. I agree, they are critical and as such cannot abdicate their responsibilities as just a cog in the machine, the machine is what it is. > [@](#): > > They are. Lawyers get sued and disbarred all the time for malpractice. I reject your contention that one case of miscarried justice means that the whole system is rotten in that respect. Certainly lawyers are disbarred. Unfortunately I cannot find the article I came across that showed disbarments are rather low as a percentage. I noted the likes of Jack Thompson who managed to get up to all sorts of shenanigans before being disbarred. I noted that sleeping attorneys (has happened more than once) do not get disbarred or at least censured in some fashion. I can only wonder why the likes of Jay Bybee are not hauled before the bar (instead he gets to be a Federal Judge). I’ll stay on the fence on this one but call me dubious about how well attorneys really police themselves in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/232 "2009-04-22T02:35:17Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Do you _really_ want DAs, whose job is to prosecute the law as written, to unilaterally decide which laws they will and won’t worry about? What if they decide to ignore a law you care about? Where’s the accountability there? Is this really what you want our representative democracy to be: individuals deciding which laws get enforced, rather than our exhaustively elected legislatures? > > Christ, if this is how you think problems are solved, maybe you really do need my civics classes. Interesting…just saw a topic on this in Great Debates. Seems the DA can be a lot more choosy than you suspect. Even I am surprised. Maybe we both need a civics refresher course. > [@](#): > > Misdemeanor crimes such as assaults, thefts and burglaries will no longer be prosecuted in Contra Costa County because of budget cuts, the county’s top prosecutor said Tuesday. > > District Attorney Robert Kochly also said that beginning May 4, his office will no longer prosecute felony drug cases involving smaller amounts of narcotics. That means anyone caught with less than a gram of methamphetamine or cocaine, less than 0.5 grams of heroin and fewer than five pills of ecstasy, OxyContin or Vicodin won’t be charged. > > People who are suspected of misdemeanor drug crimes, break minor traffic laws, shoplift, trespass or commit misdemeanor vandalism will also be in the clear. Those crimes won’t be prosecuted, either. > > \ > > Don’t even bother submitting the cases, Kochly said Monday in a memo to the Contra Costa County Police Chiefs Association, representing local police chiefs. “If they are submitted, they will be screened out by category by support staff and returned to your department without review by a deputy district attorney,” he wrote. > > SOURCE: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F04%2F21%2FBAK9176EGO.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F04%2F21%2FBAK9176EGO.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea) ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/233 "2009-04-22T02:36:48Z")
[ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/) [NAACP Legal Defense Fund](http://www.naacpldf.org/) [Guantanemo Bay Attorneys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_attorneys) [Center for Constitutional Rights](http://ccrjustice.org) [Vera Institute](http://www.vera.org/) [National Immigration Law Center](http://www.nilc.org/) [Southern Poverty Law Center](http://www.splcenter.org/) [Legal Aid Organizations state-by-state](http://www.ptla.org/links/services.htm) +Every law school in America which offers free representation through their many clinical programs. +All major law firms do very significant pro bono work. Even Cravath Swain Fucking Moore - the elitest, whitest and douchiest of the elite white shoe douchebag law firms – received the [Pro Bono award](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/probonoawards2008.aspx) from the Legal Aid Society in 2008 for a [homeless shelter class-action case](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/homelessfamiliescase.aspx) that lasted **25 years**. Buncha jerks. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/234 "2009-04-22T03:17:25Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > [ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/) > [NAACP Legal Defense Fund](http://www.naacpldf.org/) > [Guantanemo Bay Attorneys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_attorneys) > [Center for Constitutional Rights](http://ccrjustice.org) > [Vera Institute](http://www.vera.org/) > [National Immigration Law Center](http://www.nilc.org/) > [Southern Poverty Law Center](http://www.splcenter.org/) > [Legal Aid Organizations state-by-state](http://www.ptla.org/links/services.htm) > +Every law school in America which offers free representation through their many clinical programs. > +All major law firms do very significant pro bono work. Even Cravath Swain Fucking Moore - the elitest, whitest and douchiest of the elite white shoe douchebag law firms – received the [Pro Bono award](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/probonoawards2008.aspx) from the Legal Aid Society in 2008 for a [homeless shelter class-action case](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/homelessfamiliescase.aspx) that lasted **25 years**. > > Buncha jerks. Guessing you have not read the thread. Great all those organizations are out there helping. Still comes nowhere near addressing the scope of the problem which is reaching critical levels (bolding below is mine). > [@](#): > > Public defenders are being hit so hard by budget cuts and growing caseloads that offices in several states are refusing to take on more cases because they say defendants’ rights are being hurt. Other jurisdictions say they may follow suit. > > The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that poor people charged with a crime have a right to a lawyer. In most states, taxpayers fund a public defenders’ office that handles cases of people who cannot afford a private attorney. **The American Bar Association cites studies saying a public defender can competently handle 150 to 200 cases a year.** > > \ > > Miami-Dade County Public Defender Bennett Brummer sued Florida in June after the Legislature cut his budget 9%. He said his lawyers, who each **handle an average of 436 cases a year** , could not take any new clients charged with felonies without being in danger of committing malpractice. > > \ > > • Kentucky’s former public advocate Ernie Lewis, who retired last month, has asked a judge to declare his office underfunded so it can refuse misdemeanor cases. > > Lewis says **his attorneys’ caseloads could top 500 each this year** because budget cuts forced him to keep nearly 100 positions open. “It’s very clear to me that our caseload would be unethical,” he says. > > SOURCE: [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-10-public-defenders\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-10-public-defenders_N.htm) > [@](#): > > Last year, public defenders saw a 12 percent cut to their budgets and laid off 53 attorneys statewide. Gov. Tim Pawlenty now proposes a 5 percent cut, which could lead to layoffs of 14 percent of the attorneys, said John Stuart, Minnesota’s chief public defender. > > Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom said the state’s public defenders are “woefully” underfunded after the cutbacks of the past two years. > > SOURCE: [http://www.startribune.com/local/south/42060622.html](http://www.startribune.com/local/south/42060622.html) > [@](#): > > In Missouri, the system has not added staff members in eight years, while the annual number of cases has grown by 12,000, said J. Marty Robinson, the director of the state’s public defenders. “We’re on the verge of collapse,” he said. > > Mr. Robinson appealed to an oversight commission, and beginning last month, defenders in more and more counties are declining misdemeanor cases and others that are unlikely to result in incarceration. > > \ > > In New York City, financing from the city and state for criminal defense declined by $2.7 million this year, from a budget of just over $90 million. Meanwhile, the annual number of cases has climbed to 226,000, from 210,000 in 2006. > > \ > > Her colleague, Mr. Jones, left his $44,000-a-year job on Monday for private practice, saying he could not support his children and pay off school loans on that salary. A few weeks earlier, he had to tell a 53-year-old man who was charged with grand theft, for stealing a few locks from a Home Depot, that the state was offering five years because earlier convictions made him a “habitual offender.” In a discussion in a holding pen, his client asked, “Won’t they take one year?” Mr. Jones went back to the prosecutors, who calculated that the minimum sentence, under a scoring system here, would be 2.6 years. But Mr. Jones had no time to check their math. > > The man was already resigned to taking that sentence when the prosecutors discovered their calculations were mistaken: the correct minimum was 366 days. > > “You see how easily accidents can happen?” Mr. Jones said. “He easily could have gotten three years instead of one.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?\_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin) Seriously…just Google this stuff. There is LOTS out there. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/235 "2009-04-22T03:37:35Z")
Jesus H. Christ, Whack-a-mole. Give your keyboard a fucking rest. (Now we know where your username comes from.) Your entire last post was “Dude, I’m so right, like all you have to do is google”. And you are still such a fucking moron that you haven’t yet made any sort of connection between “Budgets need to be adjusted” and “Lawyers are all scumbags who should be reviled and likely shot”. You’ve posted about **HALF** the posts on this page alone. Maybe if you post the same drivel 10 or 12 more times a hole in the spacetime continuum will open up and magically fix the justice system and make us think you’re **not** a crank. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/236 "2009-04-22T03:37:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seriously…just Google this stuff. There is LOTS out there. My god you’re right. [Lawyers definitely do not do anything to reform the system.](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/breakthroughlegislation.aspx) Since so many Congresspeople are lawyers, they must also be [ignoring the problem](http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=301775). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/237 "2009-04-22T04:06:42Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > My god you’re right. [Lawyers definitely do not do anything to reform the system.](http://www.legal-aid.org/en/mediaandpublicinformation/inthenews/breakthroughlegislation.aspx) > > Since so many Congresspeople are lawyers, they must also be [ignoring the problem](http://durbin.senate.gov/showRelease.cfm?releaseId=301775). It is not enough to do a little pro bono on the side and say we tried. First of all, that puts the interests of the poor and underrepresented at the mercy and generosity of lawyers. A group that has a lip service obligation to do some pro bono work, but not all that is necessary, half that is necessary or a zillionth that is necessary. Yes it is better than nothing, but if you are one of the teeming millions that does not have free legal service from a patron lawyer, it does little good. That being said, the lack of free lawyers rates a next to nothing on my complaints about lawyers. 'Course that may be because I don’t personally find any difficulties with that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/238 "2009-04-22T04:08:32Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole;11062656 The United States has more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world ([cite from the Master] ([Does the United States lead the world in prison population? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2494/does-the-united-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population))). 1-in-100 adults in the US are in prison ([cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html)). [/QUOTE] Why are lawyers responsible for the drug war? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/239 "2009-04-22T04:17:15Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Jesus H. Christ, Whack-a-mole. Give your keyboard a fucking rest. (Now we know where your username comes from.) It comes from bashing vermin like you repeatedly back into their hole. Dumbshits keep poking their head up though. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/240 "2009-04-22T04:19:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Why are lawyers responsible for the drug war? Lawyers are not responsible for the drug war (which as an aside I think ending would do a world of good on several fronts not least regarding a lot of this). Like it or not though lawyers DO have to prosecute and defend the people caught in the drug war. They still have rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230.md?page=13)