The quote attributed to my name in that post wasn’t mine, it was villa’s.
I think there might be some sort technical glitch associated with quoting going on; I was having trouble multi-quoting earlier…
Yes, that is part of it. For many other reasons, see above.
I don’t like them - don’t think they work as well. Mainly because the inquisitor’s inherent biases will come into play. The nice thing about an adversarial system is that it’s up front and in the open.
Congratulations
No, and I don’t hate lawyers either. 
The pompousity really makes attorneys endearing.
:rolleyes:
Well good for you, you’re one of the good ones. Not to worry, some of my best friends are attorneys.
This brings up an important point–it’s almost wrong to look at lawyers obligations and roles outside of thinking about how they fit together into the legal system as a whole.
As it was explained to me, one of the best ways of understanding lawyers’ ethical obligations is that they are most valuable as a component of the adversarial system we use today-and that system is the real value we get out of the way lawyers’ obligations define and support their role in the system. This is not to say that their obligations are without value (for example, in a lawyer-client relationship, confidentiality creates trust–just like it does between a priest and parishoner, or doctor and patient–and that is a good thing)–but that the real value is in how the different roles of different lawyers come together to create a system that we value.
to put this in a practical context–many people talking about ‘bad lawyers’ (including in this thread) discuss the stereotype of the slimy defense lawyer–and think that a defense lawyer should just work towards some goal of “truth” or “justice”–as one poster put it:
The problem with this kind of idea is not that it’s meritless–but that it fails to appreciate how the defense lawyer fits into the system as a whole. To shift the defense lawyer’s obligation without changing anything else would be catastrophic.
To use an example Brickbacon provides:
If you knock over a vase, you’re not likely to defend yourself vigorously. One reason this is true is that your friend (who owned the vase) is not out to get you, is not trying to make the strongest case possible to prove it was your fault.
This isn’t true in court. There is a prosecutor, whose job it is to put people in jail. When she comes into court, she will make the best case possible to convict–she’d be failing in her job if she didn’t. The defense lawyer has certain obligations (for example, confidentiality), that help him in his role, and the prosecutor has certain powers (for example, the right to bring charges, or to ask for search and arrest warrants) that help her in her role. At least in theory, they balance in some kind of rough way.
Now imagine the courtroom–rather than two adversaries, the defense lawyer and the prosecutor would almost work together to convict–in order to really have a court process that will work to determine “factual guilt” in a non-adversary way, you have to get rid of the parts of the system that support both sides’ roles.
There are many people (myself included) who have the greatest of respect for criminal defense lawyers because of how they work to create a system of justice that is a great social good–regardless of whether we think their role, and the stands they take would be moral or right in the abstract, I think there’s a very strong case to be made that they are both moral, right, and beneficial in the context of our legal system.
So those who dislike lawyers–are you taking the full context into consideration, or are you just looking at one part of the system, and condemning it without thinking about what that does for the system as a whole? Do any of you have different views about the legal system as a whole, rather than what I’m hearing in this thread, which are complaints about some actors therein?
whorfin touched on most of this, but I just wanted to add my two cents and tie it all together with a simplistic example.
(1) Regarding Defense lawyers who get criminals “off”. Imagine this headline in a newspaper, “DEFENSE ATTORNEY GETS SCUMBAG OFF THE HOOK”
Example: The defendant broke into someone’s house and stole their TV. He told this to his lawyer. The prosecutor, who decides what to charge, charges the guy with “burglary,” which is (generally) “breaking and entering into the home of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony inside.” The defendant also admitted, and the defense attorney can conclusively prove, the crime was committed at 4:00pm. That’s not “at night” so not guilty, guy goes free.
Nobody likes this result, of course. But who’s fault is it? Should the defense attorney not get his guy off? The guy is a scumbag, yes; the guy broke into a house and stole, yes; but the guy just isn’t a burglar.
Part of the problem lies in the hands of the prosecutor who’s goal is to put this guy away for the longest amount of time. In this example, the prosecutor should have charged with robbery (or both), which is the same crime but during day. The reason he likely did not is, the sentence for robbery is not as long as it is for burglary, and he figures “at night” won’t get in the way of convicting an admitted scumbag. It usually doesn’t; but when it does, it makes headlines.
(2) Regarding lawyer/client privilege. The reason for the privilege is we want people to be able to talk absolutely freely with their lawyers. If we did not have this privilege, you’d get the same result (ie, the fact the guy is the actual killer, would not be told to anyone). The reason is, if the guy knew their was no attorney/client privilege, he would never tell the attorney for fear the attorney would rat him out.
You have a point–especially about prosecutorial errors leading to acquittal. Isn’t it funny how we don’t see headlines like “PROSECUTOR FAILS TO PROVE HIS CASE–NO LEGAL REASON TO HOLD DEFENDANT, WHO IS FREE TO GO”–which is a more accurate description of the result.
In a system with the presumption of innocence, defense lawyers don’t get people “off”, they convince a jury that the prosecution hasn’t managed to prove what it is constitutionally required to prove. All the focus, however, is usually on the defense lawyer–not on the two other actors (prosecutor and jury) with a role in the acquittal.
Also, note, as CoolHandCox points out, a jury isn’t asked to prove if a defendant has done something wrong–they’re asked to determine if a specific crime [or set of crimes] has been proven–and each crime has specific elements that must be established. Hence, when a prosecutor has failed to prove his case, it’s not just because the jury has some abstract doubt, or the defense lawyer has introduced some fuzzy-wuzzy confusion----there is a definite list of elements that a jury must conclude to have been proven, and the prosecutor has failed to convince them that one is true. And if that is the case, the defendant ought to be free to go.
Further, as in CoolHandCox’s example, a defendant may have committed burglary in commonsense terms, but not in legal terms–and it is unquestionably jury misconduct to convict someone in such a situation.
The overall point being that a trial is a structured process with checks and balances–and so even the slimiest of slimy defense lawyers can only get so far with chewbacca–and so I wonder if a lot of the opposition to lawyers comes from how the mass media/public perceive what goes on–which may not reflect how the legal system actually works.
I don’t know why other people hate lawyers.
My annoyance (I would not say hatred) is that you need an attorney on your side to cope with the structures that apply to you which lawyers have written which are not possible to parse if you are not trained in law. That makes it a protection racket, in my book.
so how much of it is “overpaying”? Do you consider that much of it “ill gotten gains”? why or why not? what happens to the part she is paid but you feel she hasn’t earned?
Paid more than the President and the entire congress too. So what? so are athletes, movie stars, and countelss other entertainers and their representatives. That is life.
The Magna Carta has nothing to do with the shape of our legal system, and what guilt and innocence means, and what justice as a whole means? Nothing led from that to English common law and then towards our current system in the US?
BTW, what is your assessment of my “legal education” that “blinded” me? Top school, middling school, bottom ranked school and why do you think that? I am really curious to hear 
Also, you do realize you are arguing why people hate lawyers while you are married to one and living the good life at least in part due to her success at exactly that. Doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent to you, maybe even what lawyers often call “the perception of a conflict of interest”? Why the venom?
I understand the points you are making, but I don’t think that completely addresses the issue of why people dislike lawyers.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s ill gotten gains. They didn’t commit a crime to get the money. I don’t think they should give it back, or feel bad for making a lot of money. However, I don’t think those salaries are justifiable in many circumstances.
The point was that the salary is not directly correlated to one’s experience or expertise. I noticed you didn’t address the rest of what I said.
Do you actually read what I said? You quoted the sentence too. I will repeat it for you.
The Magna Carta has nothing to do with why people most hate lawyers. What part of what I said implies that I was stating that the Magna Carta has nothing to do with the shape of our legal system and what guilt and innocence means (in a legal context I presume)?
Even if your argument boils down to, the Magna Carta led to the current system and the problematic framework lawyers must operate in, you are overlooking the many of the arguments made in this thread which highlight other reasons people dislike lawyers.
I don’t really think it matters where you went to school. The blindness I tend to see in a lot of lawyers is an elevation of legal ethics and standards above those of society, and/or a conflation between the two. Many also can’t see the forest for the trees, and many tend to think a legal obligations make the exempt from societal judgment.
Where is the inconsistency? I don’t truly HATE all lawyers obviously. I just recognize that the field seems to attract more than their fair share of scumbags, and that the powers that be are pretty ok with that. I think any fair person can admit that the vast majority of lawyers are decent people; most of whom do boring, non-controversial work. If my criticism comes of as venomous, I apologize.
For that matter, neither is the President’s salary–it’s fixed by statute. The same goes for any federal judge, (who, I may note, have the benefit that it is unconstitutional to cut their salaries while they hold office).
Further, while lawyers’ initial salary doesn’t really turn on their skill (as people are hired straight out of law school), performance in school affects what jobs are available, and the jobs are hard to keep unless you have both skill and gain expertise–further many firm partners are compensated directly in proportion to the work they do. So just arguing it should be correlated isn’t enough–as lawyers’ salaries are correlated to experience or expertise in practical terms.
Lawers R Evil because you or someone you know or care about lost your shirt to a smooth-talking fast guy that only those rich guys seem to be able to afford. You usually end up with one of those bumbling rookie lawyers that seem to give you advice counter to common sense.
Or something, I don’t know. A lot of people expect defense lawyers to be like Perry Mason and prosecuting attorneys to be like Jack McCoy. God help us all if they ever step foot in the same courtroom.
The prosecution is reticent to go to trial because they know the other side is going to mount a vigorous defense. Plea offers are predicated by the threat of a trial; if there’s no threat of a vigorous defense at trial, the prosecutor doesn’t have any incentive to make a plea offer. I don’t know what you mean by “Most ethical attorneys will not actual throw a trail if they have to go to court.” I suspect a typo or two snuck in there and changed your intended meaning.
OK, let me be blunt then.
People dislike lawyers because they let their individual experiences override their limited understanding of the justice system, its history, and the role attorneys play in it.
They never really present a realistic alternative and a plan to make a transition though.
Is it justifiable in your wife’s case?
OK, now you are making a specific statistical claim when you say ther eis no correlation. I have to insist on a cite
In any case, on what grounds should “salary” or any “income” be correlated with experience or expertise rather than supply and demand in the marketplace? In the US of course…
No, try to pay attention. I will summaraize my understanding of this aprt of your argument.
- The Magna Carta plays a role in shaping our modern justice system
- lawyers have a role in part of the modern justice system
- People hate lawyers because of how they execute their duties in the modern justice system.
- Yet the Magna Carta has nothing to do with why most people hate lawyers.
:dubious:
I am not overlooking theirs, I am discussing yours.
I don’t dispute that some people hate lawyers. I don;t dispute that they verbalize it commonly the way it has been done here.
I do suggest that such arguments are fallacious and irrational and hence unpersuasive here where we fight ignorance.
Soooo, speaking of fallacious arguments, making any assumptions there that maybe you don’t have a good reason to be making, any presumptions you might want to go back and double check (hint: re-reading the entire thread will find you the part you missed, I just double checked it myself).
More statistical claims wrapped around a strawman, none of which is provable but which you assert as fact.
Not venomous to you, simply opinionated without rational consideration is how it comes across to me.
Good point.
Yes, but the system is completely out of wack. Some examples.
And here.
And of course, higher 1st year pay translates to higher pay for all associates over time. I think it’s awfully hard to justify those types of salaries being solely based on market forces, and the desire to attract top talent. More importantly, the increased, and often prohibitive costs of going to a “top” schools means you are far less likely to see the type of correlation between raw talent and school choice (if there was a strong one in the first place). Yet, most of these firms will not even sniff the resume of a person who didn’t go to a top school, and graduate near the top of their class.
While I agree with your overall point, this section just isn’t true. LSAT, undergraduate GPA, and bar passage are all (imperfect) markers of talent, and all correlate very highly with school ranking. And yet tuition, conversely, doesn’t particularly correlate to school ranking. Moreover, virtually any US citizen who gets accepted to a top law school can finance his education with debt and then pay off that debt with a biglaw salary.
Sure, some may feel that way. Others, understand the justice system and still think lawyers are slimier than average. In fact, there have been a few surveys (cited here) showing law students and lawyers often have negative views on lawyers. Those are people in the best position to gain a hands-on understanding of the justice system and its history. IMO, one of the reasons many lawyers leave the field is because they dislike the work and the people they work with.
Which has nothing to do with it. Why does an opinion, or a recognition of a problem warrant that one must come up with a solution?
Of course!
How could anyone offer a statistical cite on something like that (which was obviously an opinion)? Either way, see above.
It’s doesn’t appear to be based on either. See above.
Did the Magna Carta have any direct affect on the aspects of our current legal system which people find objectionable? Are the only reasons people hate lawyers because of the way they execute their duties in the modern justice system? Or, is it as I have been saying, far deeper than that. I don’t know why you find this so hard to understand.
The 2nd amendment allows people to own all sorts of guns, but if I dislike “gun nuts”, it probably doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution.
Unpersuasive? It’s their opinion. It’s not necessarily based on ignorance; just their history and understanding of the world. You aren’t trying to challenge any of that, just that they are wrong because they are. You haven’t even bothered to try to defend the actual actions of lawyers deemed objectionable. You didn’t even comment on it. You just state that they are obligated to behave that way by professional and legal guidelines. Take about an unpersuasive, weak defense.
How about this. Do you think R Kelly’s lawyers acted in a moral way? What about the countless lawyers who secure acquittals for guilty people who go on to victimize more people? Or what about Clinton’s parsing of the word “is”? Do you feel these are morally neutral, or do you just think that lawyers are no more likely to exhibit these flaws than the average man?
Can you elaborate on this? What are you trying to say?
Wow. Do you understand the difference between an opinion and an assertion of fact? Context matters. Did you really expect an study comparing the attractiveness of various occupations to scumbags, or did you just want to feel the thrill that goes up your leg when you scream for a cite?
Well then you need a thicker skin.
Which is to be expected with any self-fulfilling prophesy. Ask yourself what the schools ranking are based on? It’s not value-added, in most cases, but rather many of the things you mentioned.
Follow me here. Smart rich kid goes to a good high school, gets a fancy test prep, and does well on the SAT. Gets into a good school based on the above, takes an relatively easy major, and gets good grades. Again, gets LSAT prep, kills that test, then gets into a good law school. Does well, goes to Barbri, gets a leg up to pass the bar…
Situations like this happen all the time, and are often a result of irrelevant social forces, and inertia. Talent obviously pays a large role, but a number of other things play a larger role in my opinion. Kinda like how a disproportionate number of hockey players are born in the first 3 months of the year as a result of age cutoff restrictions. Those tests and schools, with an often prohibitive barrier to entry, don’t to a great job of nurturing and identifying true talent.
Now, you could make the argument that that the current system does identify the best among the prospects out there, but I’m not even sure that is true.
First, because it seems that law schools don’t do a great job of preparing students to do actual legal work, hence clients balking at paying big-firms high prices for work done by junior associates. Thus, if you are in a system where there is a great deal of on the job training, you would be better off lowering the “standards” to create a meritocracy; particularly since the standards are fairly arbitrary.
Second, as I said before. Many prospective law students cannot afford to go to an expensive school. For some people that might mean 150k in debt plus time and opportunity costs. It’s becoming harder for anyone to justify that if they know that getting a job where they can command a high salary is a crap-shoot.
Lastly, all of this ignores the more important point that a lawyer needn’t be the best, but rather good enough. This is a situation where the perfect has become the enemy of the good. Particularly since you have all these firms overpaying Supreme Court clerks and other summers, when a UVA of Norte Dame grad would be just as capable of doing the actual job, and would work for less money. Unless you think people at those schools are incapable of learning how to do quality work, I don’t think the system is functioning efficiently.
It does to some extent. Your point obtains, but I think it’s glossing over the fact that the top law schools have astronomical tuition.
- Yale (44k+15)
- Harvard (39k+17)
- Standford (40k+16)
- Columbia (43k+15)
- NYU (41k+20)
There is more variation down the list.
Yes, in general, you can finance your education with debt, but that pretty much means you have to get a corporate job to make it worth it. Don’t you think there is a problem with a system that functions in such a manner? Or, more germane to the issue, will such a system attract decent people to such jobs for the right reasons?
The same is true of any field as your surveys. sports is an excellent example. take football. where you go to school matters, and sometimes perceived talent wins out over real talent. Salaries go up to the point where rookies make more than established veterans.
I don’t get why people go into a field fully aware of the pay structure and then bitch about it if it doesn’t favor them, especially if they have no workable plan for reform.
Bottom line, lawyers are free agents, selling their services on the open market.
As for attorneys at non-profits, so what? That is a subset. Everyone else at a non-profit, even with multiple grad degrees, is making far less than they could on the open market too. That is how a non-profit work- it is even more brutal at reducing costs than a for-profit. What, the lawyers should get more so the sick kids get less?
means. It has a very precise meaning.
OK, it doesn’t unless one is just whining.
How could anyone offer a statistical cite on something like that (which was obviously an opinion)? Either way, see above.
It has everything to do with it. Here is what you said:
Are you suggesting that correlation is not a statistical concept? Or maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it means, or at least what you want us to believe it means.
The way to offer a cite is to find a study, or do it yourself, and collect the data and demonstrate the statistical correlation. Actually, these are really pretty basic Stats 101 claims, the hardest part would be collecting the data probably, the actual calculations and hypothesis testing, not so much.
So if you make statistical claims, provide a cite. Their might be such a thing available for all I know, it is not out of the realm of reasonable expectations that someone will have looked at it, regardless of the results.
If you are making stuff up, your claim can be your cite
Maybe you misunderstood my question. I get that you assert it is not. I also get that you think it should be. But I don’t get why you think it should be, so I asked for your reasoning on why.
Of course it did, it is the foundation of our legal system. It has a direct effect the same way your house is affected by the material used for the foundation. If ti was mud, instead of concrete, I expect the rest of the house would perform differently.
Remember, even by Shakespeare’s time, lawyers were hated.
Pretty sure our current legal system and pay scale didn’t exist then, but the Magna Carta as the foundation of the then-current system did exist.
Probably? So you acknowledge it might? How might it, play the devils advocate for a minute and tell us how it might have something to do with the Constitution in your mind.
Only to you. You are painting all lawyers (except your overpaid wife) with a prejudiced brush while dismissing the ethical, legal, and market system they work under, all while refusing to offer an alternative that we can consider to see if there is a solution available to you. I don’t see the need for major reform - if customers are dissatisfied, the market will take care of the salary issue.
I am not familiar with all of the case in order to judge if it is moral, and anyway, “moral” is not a fixed concept for all. I am however satisfied that the combinations of an adversarial system, one or more juries, civil and criminal courts, and various appeals and direct negotiations between parties results in justice being served more often than any other system available to us.
BTW, I have jury duty next week
It was an exercise for the reader, a test to see if he/she was really reading for comprehension before making assertions that are demonstrably not founded in truth
Yes I know the difference of an opinion form an assertion of fact when I see one.
An assertion of fact generally hands the form “It is …” It claims a universal, or at least demonstrable fact or situation.
An opinion generally has the form : “I think it is true that …” or something similar. It reflects the author’s belief about a matter.
If all this is your opinion and of no further consequence, than why are you trying to persuade us it is true, rather than that you hold this opinion?
We already believe you hold the opinion, which is fine, it is your right.
But you are trying to persuade us to hold the opinion too, which indicates you believe the facts asserted underlying the opinion are true, or that you are playing games. I believe that you believe the fact asserted are true rather than that you are playing games. I could be wrong, I surely have incomplete information on that though.
I doubt this is true. Do you honestly think nurses, garbage men, or engineers have a negative view of their co-workers as people? More importantly, you just completely abandoned your indefensible position that people “dislike lawyers because they let their individual experiences override their limited understanding of the justice system, its history, and the role attorneys play in it.” Does that only apply to the non-lawyers who feel that way, or do you now admit that your assertion was just pulled out of your ass? Not only do you assume everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, but also that they are blinded by some personal grievance.
Agreed. But then again, this is why most sports have tried to limit such egregious pay by creating salary caps. And again, people often (correctly) complain that athletes are overpaid in many circumstances. Doesn’t make the criticism less valid.
Again with this workable plan for reform. It’s such a ridiculous expectation. You can write it off as whining, but it doesn’t make their criticisms less valid. recognizing a problem can often be as important as providing a solution. There is also no expectation that they must go hand in hand. For example, suppose I could prove the theory of relativity is wrong, but could not come up with a competing theory. Am I just whining, or am I contributing something valid?
For the most part, but the market (again) breaks down in certain circumstances the same way it does for CEOs and Yankees players. Why don’t you try addressing the specific points made in any of the cites I linked to.
No, but the reality is that the private sector paying more means the non-profits need to pay more to. Corporate fiscal profligacy has a direct effect on those sick kids one way or another.
Again, what is the problem with that?
First, look at the cites I linked to above which will do as good a job of bolstering my opinion on the matter as anything will. Second, you cannot establish a convincing correlation between amorphous things like experience and expertise. Neither can be reduced to a quantitative measurement in a non-controversial manner. Even so, the cites do a great job showing that in limited circumstances, that seems to be the case.
I’ll get right on that. :dubious:
You are seem to be the only one who interpreted that as a statistical claim. It was no more a statistical claim than when you said the following:
Would it be valid for me to ask you for a cite on that? Why or why not?
Salary should be based on some rational and objective measure because it would be more efficient, and would prevent the costs of such excess from being passed on to consumers in terms of higher prices. Paying a 1st year 180k means they charge their clients more, who then charge their customers more (cited above). I dislike the practice for the same reasons I dislike the Yankees paying astronomical salaries. Eventually, the little guy is gonna get gouged, and there is no rational reason this happens in the first place.
That’s not the issue. The question is, does having a concrete foundation dictate what kind of house is built on it? The answer is generally no. Now if I go to buy a house, but decide I hate the bathroom design and the appliances, does that have anything to do with the foundation?
Similarly, does the Magna Carta have any direct influence on our modern rules of evidence, the ABA, law school prices, corporate lawyer salary, etc, etc? Our legal system is founded upon many documents and principles, most of which have little to do with the animosity towards its practitioners.
Even granting that that is true, it needn’t bare any relevance to why lawyers are hated today, nor is it necessarily related to the Manga Carta.
You missed the joke, my wife is indeed overpaid. Regardless, you can’t give people a pass on abhorrent behavior just because their chosen vocation requires that they engage in such behavior. A person will still be judged on their behavior. People may have negative views on abortion doctors, executioners, and soldiers in many cases. Should they all be given a pass because their jobs dictate they do something one might feel is immoral? We are having a similar debate right now about the CIA torturers. Should people not think they are bad people just because they felt they were obligated to torture people? This is one of the reasons people argue the “just following orders” defense is not valid or acceptable; particularly when it comes to individual moral judgment.
I provided a cite for the highlights. You can google the case for a more general overview. Don’t duck the question.
How does that relate to how valid the criticisms of lawyers are?
Because it is a debate forum. Are you seriously asking that question? And I also doubt you truly understand the difference between assertion of fact and opinion if you are continuing to argue for cites for things that are opinions.
Yes, and in a debate, you use evidence and logic to support your opinion. Neither of us can be proven wrong. You can only be found to have not sufficiently supported your position.
I am not playing games. I do honestly believe that a large number of people dislike certain types of lawyers, and that the animosity is completely valid and understandable. Many, if not most of these people don’t hate them as a result of their ethical obligations either.