This is pretty much my conclusion as well.
villa My interest in this discussion is limited so please tell me if you disagree with this.
-
Are there attorneys out there who knowingly get murderers and rapists of the hook?
-
Are there attorneys who knowingly draft contracts that don’t protect one party but are ironclad on the other?
All of your defenses of attorneys are uninteresting to me. This thread asks about whether attorneys are hated for their ethical obligations. I don’t hate attorneys. I just offered an opinion why people might hate attorneys.
If those sorts of things never happen then the hatred of lawyers is completely unfounded.
IANAL, but itis my understanding of the US egal regime that accused is not guilty until convicted, regardless of when the alleged event happened prior.
hence, one is not a murderer or rapist until convicted.
So it follows, the defense advocate, not having a crystal ball, can not “knowingly” get someone off the hook.
Each party has its own advocates. One’s own advocate owes no allegiance to the other party.
Those would be based on a misunderstanding of legal ethics.
As I said earlier, I have yet to meet anyone who makes such an assertion of hate that has read let along understands and internalizes the ethical obligations.
Still, maybe you are right, hatred for misunderstood ethical reasons is still hatred for ethical reasons in a sense.
I might be on the verge of changing my opinion on the OP, but it wouldn’t make the haters look any better, arguably it makes them look worse.
Any luck on finding out what actually happened in the McDonald’s case, mswas?
I am sure there are. I am also sure that the majority of criminal defense attorneys don’t ever ask their client if he did it. I also know I cannot put a witness on the stand knowing he will lie, and the majority of attorneys will abide by that. I also know there are soldiers out there who knowingly shoot civilians; priests who knowingly molest children; doctors who knowingly prescribe drugs because of the kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies. I don’t hate soldiers, priests and doctors.
Of course there are. A lawyer who does not seek his client’s best interests in drafting a contract is not doing his job.
However, you might be interested to know a contract entered into where one party is represented, and the other is not is potentially unenforceable if the conditions of the contract are sufficiently egregious.
And what I am saying are those bases for hatred are irrational. Applying the actions (and many of the things you complain about violate the ethics codes) of a few to a profession as a whole is the basis of an irrational hatred, much as a person becoming a racist because he was mugged by an African American is irrational.
DSYoungEsq got it right I think. Attorneys, especially litigators (which I think are what most people think of when they say attorneys) are pretty much inevitably a second best solution. No one wants to be involved with us. Our job is to get you the best out of a crappy situation.
I’m still intrigued as to what Brickbacon does for a living, and how s/he is in a position to judge the guilt of parties before trial, and to determine which side of a civil matter is worthy of vigorous representation and which isn’t.
And furthermore, a contract is at its most basic a tool for allocating obligations and the risk of nonperformance of those obligations between the parties making the contract. How those obligations and risks are allocated is something to be negotiated between the parties–there is no inherent “right” answer as to how much a contract should cost, or who bears the risk of certain kinds of accident/failure making one side unable to perform.
Hence, the fact that a contract binds parties or allocate risks unequally isn’t unethical or wrong–It’s entirely possible, common, and sensible for two people to WANT a contract ironclad as to one side, and easy for the other to escape—for example, my life insurance policy has a term that I am guaranteed to be able to renew it if I want (and hence can bind the insurer to a contract to insure me), while I can stop anytime I want–I’m not bound to renew the policy if I don’t want to., and my insurer can’t make me do so. The insurer charges me more for the right to compel them to keep insuring me, and in return, accepts the risk that I might get sick next year (or, hopefully, many years from now)–and they’d not want to insure me at the price we both agreed upon. That’s not a problem with the contract-that’s a benefit i’m paying for.
And a one-sided misunderstanding, at that–it’s to me a far worse moral breach, and should be an ethical breach for a prosecutor to pursue an indictment when he knows (or strongly suspects) the defendant to be innocent.
I’ll look it up later…maybe.
Ok.
Ok, so people dislike him for doing his job.
Tell that to like every musician who got a shitty contract. Why don’t more lawyers seek damages in these kinds of case?
Irrational/rational, whatever. Meaning they are emotional, yes they are.
So I read the McDonald’s case, but a bad example doesn’t mean that what I am saying is wrong. There are frivolous lawsuits and lawyers willing to argue them.
Just call 1-800-PAIN-LAW. If you have Pain, you need Law!
No you won’t. You’ll go on quoting it as an example of the tort system gone crazy without the first clue about the case.
I don’t think people expect an attorney, hired by one party, to write a contract with terms favoring the other party. I don’t think that has anything to do with the dislike of lawyers.
OK. Every musician who got a shitty contract. It is possible your contract is unenforceable as unconscionable. It is also possible it isn’t.
What I didn’t say is that there would necessarily be damages involved. And more importantly, a lawyer doesn’t create cases. They represent a person who is involved in a case or controversy. I cannot turn up to court tomorrow and say that a musician got a shitty contract and it should be canceled. What you should be asking is why more musicians don’t sue to have their contracts voided as unenforceable.
I guess it is too much to expect that in a debate on why people hate lawyers, the validity of the reasons put forward might be considered.
LOL I really wish vBulletin had the laughing smiley.
Getting shafted by said contract certainly does.
So many possibilities.
shrugs I don’t know why more don’t. Maybe because the big corporate law firm will bury the small time lawyer they get to represent them. Meanwhile his lawyer will charge him for every delay due to procedural briefs.
They are valid, plenty of people have been shafted by lawyers. After all, so many politicians are lawyers.
I imagine you at the lawyer’s guild meetings singing, “We shall overcome”.
But what about inquisitorial systems? I’m sure they have their own set of problems, but are they better or worse than adversarial systems?
Well and good, I’m touched by the pro-bono work rag. But what about that POS lawyer who “represented” the crook who claimed that he and 3 other relatives were injured in a non-existent car accident? (My wife tapped the bumper of his parked truck-there was NO ONE inside at the time). This POS was claiming “whiplash” injuries for his clients. The judge didn’t think so…when eye witnesses testified that the damge amounted to $10.00 of scraped paint. Had this crook won the case, myself and all the other drivers of Massachusetts would have paid higher insurance rates for years.
Yeah, “high ethical standards”-that was good for a laugh!
sounds like the system worked for you, whats the problem exactly?
courts exist to resolve disputes when the parties can’t resolve them themselves.
everyone is entitled to an advocate in a dispute.
the other side’s advocate owes no allegiance to you.
which part of this would you change exactly? why not pray tell the part where your wife drives without touching other people’s cars thus avoiding the dispute in the first place?
Exactly–the legal system is there SPECIFICALLY TO figure the facts out–to distinguish between Ralph’s experience (car accident, no damage) from the case where the car accident does wrongfully injure someone else–and they have a right to be made whole.
The question of what can be brought is a tension between a too lenient rule (too easy to sue), and a too strict rule (too hard to bring meritorious cases). Also, sometimes clients lie to their lawyers–so don’t think every bad lawsuit is the fault of a bad lawyer.
If Ralph’s case got to trial, then it seems to me (IANAL) that the other side’s claim had more merit than he suggests–since it would have been thrown out earlier if factually meritless (say, on summary judgment). If a car accident took place, it was Ralph’s Wife’s fault, the issue isn’t who is at fault, but the amount of damages. The fact that Ralph was right on tha question doesn’t mean that the court didn’t need to make a factual finding to conclude he was right–and trials are how courts make factual findings.
Even so, there are bad lawyers. I don’t mean to defend them. I just think they’re no worse than bad doctors, bad pilots, bad engineers, bad drivers. There are also good lawyers–who help protect their clients, or who work pro bono to do social good.
I think Ralph’s example just proves to me that DSyoung is right–that a lot of opposition to lawyers comes from the fact that litigation is not a friendly process, and even if it works as it is supposed to, it’s expensive, time consuming, and unpleasant.
There already are exceptions, aren’t there?
Is this quote correct:
If it is, the exceptions clearly haven’t caused the system to collapse.
According to the same source: “only a few [states] have measures that permit them to disclose information to prevent wrongful incarceration”
If, as hobscrk777 says
I don’t see why the exception to prevent wrongful incarceration is not allowed.
BTW, I have some GQ-type questions:
- Can one side call the opposing lawyer to testify? I assume not.
- If your client lies on the stand, what can/should you, as their attorney do? Nothing?
But we will all celebrate it on July 4th! 
You are right. Total mind blank on my part. If the rule was that exception was allowed, I would have no problem with it - obviously the rule has to exist at the time the confidential communication was made, it cannot be retroactive. My point should have been that confidentiality only works if the communication that was confidential remains confidential so long as the rules in place at the time of the communication are followed. Hope that makes sense.
A lawyer can only be called to testify in VERY rare circumstances. He has to recuse himself. (This is from memory). I can’t think of any case opposing parties would be allowed to call an attorney off the top of my head.
You tell them before hand you will not allow them to do it. If you know they are going to do it, you perform what is called a “noisy withdrawal.” You tell the judge you have to withdraw from the case. He asks you why. You say because of client confidentiality, you are not allowed to say why. The judge says you can’t. You tell the judge you really really really have to. He then knows why and lets you go.
I think - if anyone in court more often than me has dealt with this, please chime in.
Well good. One piece of ignorance fought.
If you go to Doctor Nick rather than Doctor Hibberd, and get complications, do you hate doctors. Well probably you do.
Crappy thing about us lawyers. We tend to be averse to making comments about the outcome of a specific legal situation without access to any of the facts. Something you could benefit from.
His lawyer should work for free, dammit!
Not sure why I am bothering, but what the hell.
I am glad you are touched. I love the pro bono work I do. I have even had the opportunity to prevent a person running the risk of execution. I’ll look back on that one a lot more fondly than anything else I have done in my work life so far.
As for your wife’s accident, assuming you are telling the truth 100%, it sounds like the opposing lawyer’s clients were crooks. And the system worked. What you have absolutely no proof of is that the lawyer was a crook, or that he had any proof that the case he presented was not the truth. But seeing as you have complete knowledge of events where you were not present, such as his meetings with his clients, I guess it is reasonable to presume he did too.
Right, because most mistakes lawyers make only involve money, and the mistakes doctors and engineers make usually kill people. :dubious:
They basically are under the control of lawyers. The ABA gives law schools accreditation. They “set the academic standards for law schools, and the formulation of model ethical codes related to the legal profession.”
So yeah, lawyers pretty much do run things.
Not exclusively, but they don’t help things by insisting that law school be a 3 years despite the fact that many think it is unnecessary, or by establishing a rigid system by which the top jobs go almost exclusively to the top people in the most exclusive schools, or insisting many 1Ls not work during the school year or the summer. If the ABA, and lawyers in general, really wanted to reduce the costs of becoming a lawyer, they could easily do so.
I’m not doing it because I have no desire to be a lawyer. It has nothing to do with income, nor is it jealousy. Full disclosure, my wife is a attorney at a very exclusive firm. She is overpaid, as are most of her co-workers.
The differences in the way the market sets many corporate lawyers’ pay and those of other occupations are plentiful. The most important being that there is simply a breakdown of market forces at a certain level. First-year attorneys at many firms are paid more than Supreme Court justices. Yes, they generally work ridiculous hours, but at the top level, the rising pay of summers and associates is more about keeping up with the Jones and status more than it is about actually needing to pay that much to attract talent, or the value of the work being done. That why you have many associates doing basically the same work many staff attorneys do for half the (often still inflated) pay.
As do I, but I recognize that that is my selfishness talking. I certainly don’t want the same for a child molester who victimizes someone I know, or a criminal who kills one of my loved ones.
We are getting off track here. This discussion is about why people dislike lawyers. I was explaining why people dislike people who tend to view the law the way you do. I don’t need a history lesson. I understand why the law is the way it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s particularly palatable to the average person in many circumstances. Despite your protestations, I do consider it confusing the issue when lawyers put the system on trial when the facts aren’t in their favor. Or when they manipulate the system with hand-picked juries whose favor they curry by appealing to their biases. Effective lawyers know this, so they take advantage. They may be professionally obligated to do so based on the system we created, but that doesn’t make any less morally objectionable in many cases.
Because the prosecution is equally reticent to avoid trial. Most ethical attorneys will not actual throw a trail if they have to go to court. Both sides know that so they generally try to work something out beforehand. I get why they do it, but I think it’s often not in the best individual interest of the client, or the potential victims of a crime.
It’s bizarre to suggest that an ideal system would be one on which the primary goal is determining guilt? I was not stating how the system is currently, but rather how one that didn’t inspire contempt for the law and its practitioners might function. Are you so blinded by a legal education that you cannot recognize that the average person does not share the same set of ethics and morals that most lawyers in these circumstances? The Magna Carta has nothing to do with it.
But the system doesn’t work very well in many cases. Particularly when one side has a distinct monetary advantage. In those cases, lawyers on both sides are all too happy to use that discrepancy to their advantage. In those cases it becomes just as much about winning as it is about figuring out the facts. I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand why the average observer witnessing one of these charades would find it distasteful. A prime example of this, and the effective of a good defense lawyer can be seen in the R Kelly trial. This article is particularly humorous.
More on the trial here and here. The last article includes the following gems:
Why should any reasonable person not think this lawyer is a pretty big scumbag?
In other words, yes, you agree with the OP that attorneys professional and ethical obligations may be one reason why the average citizen has a negative opinion of them.