anti-lawyer idiots

[DrDeth]

@ivn1188

2: The pro se morons. Yes, you can get a book and study the relevant law and cases and represent yourself. Unfortunately, you will 99.99% of the time focus on a minor detail that has nothing to do with your case, you will misinterpret issues, you will miss the glaring weaknesses in your case, and/or you will become angry and bitter because the system is working against you, the heroic bucker of trends who knows that you are being railroaded because it’s just so clear that you are right. You need to join up with moron number 4 below and take my class: “How the law doesn’t work, you blithering waste of oxygen”. The reason you suck as your own lawyer is because it’s too hard for people to make rational judgments when its their own ass on the line. The other reason is that you just don’t know what the fuck you are doing, just like if you dropped me into a job rebuilding engines by hand. One NON-reason is the conspiracy to keep you dependent upon lawyers so that we can leach all your money without providing a service. But hey, what do lawyers know, they took the long route, when all they had to do was crack open “How to Appeal Your Death Sentence for Dummies”.
.

There are times when pro se is the right way to go, you know. Small Claims Court and usually Traffic Court (for minor infractions).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@pravnik

You despise your dad?

I despise the profession in general.

My dad was one of the most stand-up, righteous guys I have ever known. Although he was a passionate advocate of the rule-of-law by-and-large he had a very dim view of most attorneys as well. For instance he (my dad) was a tireless advocate for merit selection of judges in Illinois. Despite decades fighting the good fight he was stymied by other attorneys and legislators whom the current system benefited despite its overt corruption.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Jester

Obviously. Otherwise his argument might have stemmed from something rational, and that is most definitely not the case.

Heh…talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I see your post is just a model of rational argument and logic. :rolleyes:

[AK84]

@Chief_Pedant

It’s perfectly natural, and probably wholesome, to despise attorneys.

Their job in an adversarial system is to create the most advantageous presentation for their client.

That’s a nice way of saying they are paid to lie if they can, distort if they can’t lie, and spin if they can’t distort.

What is frequently forgotten is that when it’s our presentation we want put forth, we want the best possible distorter we can find.

So yes, we despise attorneys. Until we need one. Then we go looking for the cleverest and most devious bastard we can find.

Stop taking it so personally.

PS: Miranda rights is a horrible idea. It should be mandatory for the newly arrested to make a statement–that’s precisely when the truth is most likely to be found out. Such a statement should be recorded on video to show how it was produced.

This is bullshit on so many points

1. In the Codes of Practice of most bar associations and law societies around the world make it pretty darn clear that you can’t knowingly or recklessly mislead the court. Lieing would be a big professional conduct violation, it could get you chucked out of the bar.

2. Lawyers only do as instructed by clients. In family law cases, its not your spouses lawyer who is “putting them up to it”, you can bet your sisters virginity that its your spouse. Hell, half the conferances you have with clients revolve around you pretty much pleading with them to act reasonably. You often have to talk them out of doing some pretty drastic stuff

3. A lawyer is never an asshole a client is.

[Polerius]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Well, it’s not “may” versus “shall,” nor is the sanctioned activity as innocuous as crossing the street, but you might be interested in the case of “a fine, or imprisonment … and both.”

From your link: “Any individual who violates … this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years, and both.”

Talk about a stupid law. Who the hell comes up with these things? Why didn’t anyone in the chain catch how stupid it was?

[Jester]

@Whack-a-Mole

Heh…talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I see your post is just a model of rational argument and logic. :rolleyes:

Point taken, and apologies for the less-than-informative snark. I hadn’t re-upped my caffeine yet, but one lunch break later I’m feeling like less of an asshole.

My main point of contention, though, is that when you say:

Laws are not written in plain language such that you pretty much must retain an attorney. How the actual court works is impenetrable to the average Joe such that they have little chance of understanding even the process except on a vague level.

It seems to be completely missing the point that the OP was making. The laws have to be written that way, precisely because, as you say:

The legal system is abused mercilessly as a tool to harass.

There are a lot of dipshits that try to take advantage of the law out there, so the law has to adapt and be hyper-specific to minimalize the dipshittery. It’s then the lawyer’s job to be up to speed on those rules so that the playing field can be leveled.

Is there often a lack of balance favoring the people with more money and less ethics? Sure. Do a lot of people use the law for intimidation? Totally. But that’s going to be the case with any system, ever, because a lot of people are assholes. The purpose and intent of the law and lawyering is a sound one, and though there are a lot of dipshits out there practicing, there are a lot of other people like your father (and mine as well, incidentally) aware of those problems and attempting to average it all out a bit and gradually inch the whole thing closer and closer to effectiveness.

[buttonjockey308]

@Guinastasia

No no-Stan Shmenge is the one who hates COPS.

But is, never the less, a moron.

[msmith537]

@ivn1188

2: The pro se morons. Yes, you can get a book and study the relevant law and cases and represent yourself. Unfortunately, you will 99.99% of the time focus on a minor detail that has nothing to do with your case, you will misinterpret issues, you will miss the glaring weaknesses in your case, and/or you will become angry and bitter because the system is working against you, the heroic bucker of trends who knows that you are being railroaded because it’s just so clear that you are right.

As any casual viewer of any TV judge show knows, the average moron’s legal argument usually consists of some version of “that’s not fair”, “he’s being mean”, “I didn’t know that” or “I know I’m guilty and thought I would just try to talk my way out of it.”

@Whack-a-Mole

Honestly though the last thing they want in a justice system is actual justice. It is an adversarial system where often the person with the best attorney wins (barring smoking gun evidence)…

Bottom line, attorneys are aware of the rotten apples in their bunch and the overt flaws in the system and yet do little to nothing to fix any of it or work to rid themselves of their more flawed members. They are cool with the status quo because it is in THEIR interests, not society’s interests.

That’s why we have an aversarial system. Because most judges and juries don’t have your particular superpower to automatically know what’s “right”. Maybe you can provide some suggestions for changing it?

@Enderw24

Not offhand. But let’s take corporate policy. Twenty years ago there were no corporate handbooks to explain policy and procedures on computer usage. Then you get some jerkoff looking up scat porn on a BBS and they try to fire the guy.
“But no one said I couldn’t look up guys filling a girl’s mouth with shit,” he proclaims innocently.
So the lawyers write into the policies that you can’t look up scat porn on the internet.
Then another guy starts looking up regular porn. So they change the policies again to all porn.
Then someone spends all day long on the internet playing games. So the lawyers change their policy again to cover “inappropriate usage.”
But what is “inappropriate usage”? Now someone’s on a message board and the company says that what he’s writing is “inappropriate” and try to fire him and an argument ensues over the terminology.

Most states I’ve worked in are “employ at will”. They don’t need to have anything written in corporate policy in order to fire you.

The reason companies have corporate policy is for the employee’s benefit. It is to let all the employees know what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. “I didn’t know” won’t protect you from getting fired or give you cause to sue. It will, however, theoretically tell you how to act at work. I mean no one told me not to shit on my bosses desk either, but I’m pretty sure that would get me fired.

The whole reason we have lawyers is because it is an imperfect world. We need people who understand the law to be able to take positions for or against actions within the framework of the law, to represent people when they get in trouble with the law and to advise us how to avoid getting into trouble with the law.
That said, I still think a lot of them are pompous, self-agrandizing, moronic jerks who graduated from college with bullshit liberal arts degrees, realized that they weren’t going to make a living as a philosophy major and decided to go to law school because they thought lawyering paid well. It’s a profession, like being an accountant or an engineer. I don’t know why they hold themselves so far above everyone else. I’ve worked with a lot of them and I’ve found few of them to be intellectually impressive. At least in any sense of making a decision and leading people to the completion of a task. Mostly they just argue themselves into inactivity.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Jester

It seems to be completely missing the point that the OP was making. The laws have to be written that way, precisely because, as you say:There are a lot of dipshits that try to take advantage of the law out there, so the law has to adapt and be hyper-specific to minimalize the dipshittery. It’s then the lawyer’s job to be up to speed on those rules so that the playing field can be leveled.

There have been efforts afoot for quite awhile to get the law and regulations (just government stuff in general) written in plain language. This does not mean they are dumbed down so your average 8th grader can decipher them but so people to whom it is relevant can understand what is being said without an attorney to interpret.

Here is one such effort (Plain Language.gov) and examples of how they simplified the language while retaining the specificity necessary in regulations/laws.

Is there often a lack of balance favoring the people with more money and less ethics? Sure. Do a lot of people use the law for intimidation? Totally. But that’s going to be the case with any system, ever, because a lot of people are assholes. The purpose and intent of the law and lawyering is a sound one, and though there are a lot of dipshits out there practicing, there are a lot of other people like your father (and mine as well, incidentally) aware of those problems and attempting to average it all out a bit and gradually inch the whole thing closer and closer to effectiveness.

I do not deny lawyers are necessary.

I do disagree with you on how hard they try to improve the system.

My dad fought for literal decades to get merit selection of judges in. He was tireless in this regard. But it did not behoove the current structure to do that so they blocked it. It was very hard to get Joe Citizen to understand it enough and care to put sufficient pressure on their legislators.

As for disbarment it seems a rather difficult thing to get done. Look at Jack Thompson for instance. He was an enormous pest in the legal system and it was rather shocking how long he was able to continue before Florida finally pulled his plug.

Consider me unimpressed with attorneys’ ability/willingness to police themselves and improve the system.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@msmith537

That’s why we have an aversarial system. Because most judges and juries don’t have your particular superpower to automatically know what’s “right”. Maybe you can provide some suggestions for changing it?

I dunno…maybe professional juries whose sole purpose is to see justice is done. Perhaps with the power to subpoena or ask for further clarification from the attorneys. Juries who could draw from a pool of people from various disciplines so they can truly understand what things like what given forensic evidence does or does not say or understand probabilities better than the layman who almost always gets it wrong, or understand complex financial evidence and so on. A jury a bit more hip to legal double-speak aimed to sway but lacking actual substance.

Attorneys faced with such juries would have to be more on their game and adhere to the rules a bit better.

Just an idea off the top of my head.

Each attorney seeking to win regardless of the truth or justice of the matter is not a recipe for seeing justice done.

Illinois suspended the death penalty because SO MANY people on death row were found to be innocent later. Good prosecutors, lousy/overwhelmed public defenders with little resources = innocent people on freaking death row! How can you be ok with that? I do nto know but I am willing to bet a lot of prosecutors in those cases had a pretty good idea they had the wrong guy (or at least a sufficient amount of doubt) yet persisted anyway.

Want an example? Here’s a doozie.

Roland Burris, current SENATOR for Illinois, sought the death penalty for an innocent man having excellent reason to believe he WAS innocent. But hey…it was politically in his interest to send the guy to jail and be killed to further his political goals.

Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris’ decision to continue to prosecute, despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors, the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.

<snip>

But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Burris refused. He was running for governor.

<snip>

Burris’ role in the Cruz case was “indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency,” Warden said. “There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent.”

Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.

SOURCE: Burris sought death for innocent man - POLITICO

Not disbarred for that. Actually made it to be a Senator.

But hey…nothing wrong with the system right? Working as intended?

May I submit it is totally fucked up when something so brazen as that, with a man’s life on the line, is allowed to continue and despite people shouting about it continues anyway.

[brazil84]

@Whack-a-Mole

Got injured and want to do a civil case? No attorney will touch it unless they have a reasonable expectation of a substantial payday…regardless of how “just” your cause may be (although if you are very rich you can access the system…people of moderate means are just fucked).

. . .
In business it is quite often used to gain a competitive advantage even if there is no expectation of winning. The case will be in the courts for years and that can be enough, win or lose (my father is an attorney who defended a guy in this position…my dad won the case after 6+ years and it really was never in any doubt he’d win but his client had gone out of business several years before because of all of it). Yet such practices are defended as ok.

It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction here. Do we want to make it easier for people to hire lawyers and bring lawsuits? That would help with the first problem, but result in more lawsuits of the type described in the second paragraph.

Or do we want to discourage people from bring lawsuits? In that case, there will be more people with “just causes” (to use your words) who cannot get justice.

The problem is not with the legal system so much as with human nature. For every potential plaintiff who thinks he has a “just cause” (to use your words) there is a potential defendant who probably* thinks that the case is completely and obviously frivolous.

*When I use the word “probably,” I mean it in the normal, English sense of the word and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia meaning.

[Guinastasia]

@Loach

Cite

Ah, missed that one. Thanks. Gee, wonder who’s gonna help him when he finally gets caught DUI one of these days.

[msmith537]

@Whack-a-Mole

I dunno…maybe professional juries whose sole purpose is to see justice is done.

Isn’t that the judges job?

Professionals tend to be motivated by advancement in their chosen profession.

The way it works now is you have an impartial jury of the defendents peers who decides the case and a judge who makes sure that legal procedure is followed.

How do you think a “professional jury” would respond to pressure from a senatorial candidate prosecuting a murder case? Do you believe they would be completely unbiased?

@Whack-a-Mole

Perhaps with the power to subpoena or ask for further clarification from the attorneys. Juries who could draw from a pool of people from various disciplines so they can truly understand what things like what given forensic evidence does or does not say or understand probabilities better than the layman who almost always gets it wrong, or understand complex financial evidence and so on. A jury a bit more hip to legal double-speak aimed to sway but lacking actual substance.

I hate that you are making me defend lawyers, but what is this miraculous “double speak” you speak of? They dont have freakin jedi powers.

Let me give you a little information about what I do. There is a branch of management consulting that deals specifically with the issues you described. These companies have subject matter experts in forensic accounting, computer forensics, finance, economics, valuation and specific industry knowledge. Law firms pay them to gather all the “complex financial evidence” and distill it down into something attorneys and eventualy the judges and laypeople on the jury understand. Opposing counsel will hire similar experts from other companies to counter them. I’ve never actually served as an expert witness, but I’ve helped attorney’s write depositions to discredit the other side’s. It’s actually fairly interesting work.

Part of having a competant legal defense is hiring the right expert witnesses. And part of the adversarial process is testing the credibility of that witness with experts of your own.

Anyhow, you typically don’t need to hire Ernst & Young for your standard dude beat his wife to death cases.

@Whack-a-Mole

Each attorney seeking to win regardless of the truth or justice of the matter is not a recipe for seeing justice done.

It is because of the inherent flaws and biases that we use an aversarial system. Each attorney is seeking to win because their duty is to represent their side as vigorously as possible. Truth must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s not a perfect system, but I don’t like this idea that you can have some arbitrary body that somehow knows the truth and justice of the matter. I would not feel comfortible with a system where the same government that pays the prosecutors office’s salary also pays for every subject matter expert and professional juror.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@brazil84

It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction here. Do we want to make it easier for people to hire lawyers and bring lawsuits? That would help with the first problem, but result in more lawsuits of the type described in the second paragraph.

Or do we want to discourage people from bring lawsuits? In that case, there will be more people with “just causes” (to use your words) who cannot get justice.

The problem is not with the legal system so much as with human nature. For every potential plaintiff who thinks he has a “just cause” (to use your words) there is a potential defendant who probably* thinks that the case is completely and obviously frivolous.

I would hope the attorneys would be the initial gate keepers. Although it might be “easier” to bring a case I would hope attorneys would be more likely to say “you have no case, this is bullshit.” Of course if the person really wanted to persist I suppose they could on their own dime.

The current gate keeping amounts to an attorney’s assessment of whether the attorney can make money on it. Not whether the case has much merit.

Take the case against Dow for breast implants. Been awhile since I looked at it but IIRC one legal firm brought case after case against Dow. And they lost case after case as the scientific evidence was flimsy to say the least. The law firm fought against making it a class action suit since that would be one case, win or lose all. Instead they sued over and over and over till they found one sympathetic jury and voila! PAYDAY (and a rather big one). Then dozens more cases followed in a pile-on Dow fest.

Eventually Dow had to file for bankruptcy because of all this.

[Jackmannii]

@ivn1188

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE BAD LAWYERS is opposed by another lawyer

I’m quite happy with only 50% of lawyers being full of shit. I don’t see a problem either.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@msmith537

I hate that you are making me defend lawyers, but what is this miraculous “double speak” you speak of? They dont have freakin jedi powers.

Seriously…do we need a lesson on creative use of language to persuade? There are abundant examples of clever, technically accurate, utterances that can be very misleading. Hell, we get down to absurdities on what the “definition of ‘is’ is”.

Additionally, we bust people for logical fallacies here all the time but they can be hard to spot many times and I’d wager your average Joe can be fooled into a conclusion that is not actually merited by the argument’s logical basis. Maybe the opposing attorney will catch it but these things can be hard to explain. “If the glove don’t fit, you can’t convict!” Well actually maybe you can but now the opposing attorney needs to go on a long technical rant. People like the snappy phrases.

Part of having a competant legal defense is hiring the right expert witnesses. And part of the adversarial process is testing the credibility of that witness with experts of your own.

Anyhow, you typically don’t need to hire Ernst & Young for your standard dude beat his wife to death cases.

Uh huh…IF you have money and lots of it. Which most people don’t.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, two in three people charged with felonies in federal court can’t afford an attorney. In state courts, the proportion is four in five. These people are assigned public defenders, the much-maligned advocates who represented the accused in most of the wrongful convictions mentioned above.

<snip>

Another problem, one that Davis acknowledges in the preface, is that Chicago’s Murder Task Force is an atypical, relatively well-funded public defender’s office. Its attorneys do juggle a heavy caseload. On average, each of the unit’s 33 lawyers handles 27 cases at a time; there were 816 new cases in 2001 alone. But they’re pretty well paid (top attorneys make $80,000 to $90,000 a year), they have a support staff, and they have the money to hire their own investigators, forensics experts, and psychiatrists.

Most public defender’s offices don’t have those resources. A 1999 U.S. Justice Department study of the country’s 100 most populous counties found that 97 percent of their law enforcement budgets went toward police, courts, and prosecutors, with the remaining 3 percent going to public defenders. That study didn’t include less populous, rural areas of the country, where the public defender position rotates among private-practice attorneys or is filled by a single lawyer in private practice who receives a stipend of a few thousand dollars per year.

SOURCE: http://www.reason.com/news/show/123025.html

Again…you have the cash you may get justice.

The rest of us are fucked. That lawyers continue the mantra that all is fine, it really actually works well, grates on my nerves.

It patently is not working well if we feel that “justice” is the desired goal.

[MOIDALIZE]

Isn’t that more of an argument for the need to increase funding for the criminal justice system so that we have more lawyers working these cases, rather than an argument that the system is broken and it’s the lawyers’ fault?

[Caffeine.addict]

The vast majority isn’t going to take a case that is truly frivolous. You can get sanctioned for filing a pleading that is frivolous.

From

@[Rule 11

(Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute)]By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Seriously…do we need a lesson on creative use of language to persuade? There are abundant examples of clever, technically accurate, utterances that can be very misleading. Hell, we get down to absurdities on what the “definition of ‘is’ is”.

Do you have some examples of this? Don’t forget that the judge sanctioned Clinton for giving evasive answers in his deposition.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Caffeine.addict

The vast majority isn’t going to take a case that is truly frivolous. You can get sanctioned for filing a pleading that is frivolous.

I am not a lawyer, but I can nonetheless support your contention with an anecdote from my own life. A few years ago I offended a woman whom I had hired to assist me on a freelance writing project. She decided to sue me. Early in the process, as I was being deposed, her attorney seemed to realize not only did the case have no merit, but that she had not been forthcoming with him about her case, and he withdrew shortly thereafter, as did her next attorney. She ultimately took me to small claims court where she ended up getting chastised by the judge for being a moron.

Now, this woman unquestionably harassed me via the legal system. But that was the result of her hatefulness, not any misconduct by her lawyers.

[brazil84]

@Whack-a-Mole

I would hope the attorneys would be the initial gate keepers.

. . .

The current gate keeping amounts to an attorney’s assessment of whether the attorney can make money on it. Not whether the case has much merit.

What exactly are you saying here? If somebody has a weak (but not frivolous) case but they really want to pursue it, then all lawyers should refuse to help that person even if he or she is willing to pay?

That lawyers don’t do enough pro bono work?