# Arrogant Attorney Asshats **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2009, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476 "2009-04-27T08:11:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/141 "2009-04-28T03:11:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > She gave a family friend who apparently kinda sorta specializes in either divorce law or real estate law $2000 to be available on a PRN basis. As a true retainer or advance fee? Also, pro tip, n00b, for when you enter law school–don’t call it a “PRN basis,” (I had to google fer chrissakes!) just say “as needed,” then you won’t (i) fail legal writing, and (ii) get a rep as a cheezy gunner. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/142 "2009-04-28T03:12:54Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I still am genuinely curious about these payments **Stoid** is making to lawyers. Would you enlighten me? The Retainer Man looks at her stuff “to make sure she hasn’t screwed up.” Of course, if that’s any sort of substantive review, he’s an idiot. And if it’s only a review for formatting and she really paid 2000 beans for it, he’s screwing her, metaphorically speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/143 "2009-04-28T03:17:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Also, pro tip, n00b, for when you enter law school–don’t call it a “PRN basis,” (I had to google fer chrissakes!) just say “as needed,” then you won’t (i) fail legal writing, and (ii) get a rep as a cheezy gunner. 😉 😃 That came from pharmacy school, not law school. I don’t say it very often. What the heck is a cheesy gunner? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/144 "2009-04-28T03:18:08Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > IANAL but this is my impression: It’s advice because there will be no case exactly like yours–no brown bunnies with pancakes on their heads. There may be cases of brown hares with tortillas, or black bunnies with muffins, or brown bunnies with pancakes but ALSO with bacon or brown kittens with french toast. Whether those are substantially the same thing will determine what you do next–most especially if they don’t mention the case of the brown-spotted bunny with the doughnut that you find out about later and decide they should have mentioned it and they mislead you/lied to you when they didn’t mention it. A. I’m asking if they’ve ever heard, not citations. (Wow, I can imagine the hysterical laughter if a lawyer said “yeah, I’ve heard about it” and I asked for the citation itself!) B. I am not about to take the words of a single lawyer in a single conversation as representing all the data available on any subject. That would be incredibly stupid. So “failing to mention” something is not an issue. It becomes issue if you are my lawyer and I rely on your advice and assessment. Which I did once and here I am today… Pretty much all the explanations and examples that are being offered are right on…for clients and the lawyers they have hired. None of them make much sense when you try to apply them to a single conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/145 "2009-04-28T03:20:06Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I never said, and do not believe, that the most important reason to give or not give advice, is whether you get paid for it. But since in many cases malpractice insurance does not cover non-clients, it is wise for an attorney to have a formalized relationship with an actual client before practicing law on that person’s behalf. Actually, **Jodi** the “just a bit” was not that, with which I agree (and I’ll add in New York’s requirement for lawyers to have written engagement letters explaining the terms of the engagement), but with the implication that **Stoid** was seeking to get lawyers to do legal work for her for free. As I understand Stoid’s view, incorrect thought it is, she was looking to obtain answers to what she sees as minimally intrusive “information requests” – just an offhand comment on whether you’ve seen a pancake/bunny case – and not asking the lawyers to do what she sees as real or extensive legal work. I don’t think she understands that to properly answer what she sees as a simple question there needs to be some often substantial legal work behind the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/146 "2009-04-28T03:21:05Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > The Retainer Man looks at her stuff “to make sure she hasn’t screwed up.” Of course, if that’s any sort of substantive review, he’s an idiot. And if it’s only a review for formatting and she really paid 2000 beans for it, he’s screwing her, metaphorically speaking. Seeing as how you have not been privy to the conversations, you pretty much are making stuff up, ya know. Kinda bold for a lawyer… ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/147 "2009-04-28T03:24:10Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > I, for one, am quite glad to give people I know short explanations and answers to legal questions _where I am qualified to give proper answers_. \*\* It builds goodwill for the legal profession \*\*and for lawyers individually. This flies in the face of the clear principle expounded in the seminal case of \*Pissing \*v. _The Wind_. ---
**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/148 "2009-04-28T03:24:31Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > B. I am not about to take the words of a single lawyer in a single conversation as representing all the data available on any subject. That would be incredibly stupid. So “failing to mention” something is not an issue. It becomes issue if you are my lawyer and I rely on your advice and assessment. Which I did once and here I am today… > > Pretty much all the explanations and examples that are being offered are right on…for clients and the lawyers they have hired. None of them make much sense when you try to apply them to a single conversation. You don’t listen, you don’t listen, you don’t listen, you just don’t fucking listen. It really and truly is just like trying to have a conversation with my dad. I’m not even mad at you, **Stoid**. I’m torn between sadness and a kind of awe at your innate ability to simply not hear dissenting voices and sit there at your keyboard wondering why everyone seems to be yelling at you. It’s truly amazing. I am listening to the stream of consciousness of someone who is mildly insane. It’s one of the reasons I post here. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/149 "2009-04-28T03:25:03Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Pretty much all the explanations and examples that are being offered are right on…for clients and the lawyers they have hired. None of them make much sense when you try to apply them to a single conversation. **Stoid** , what I and the other lawyers are trying to say is that the legal, legal ethics, and professional issues are _identical_ whether the answer is in the context of a formal retention (with or without pay) or in just a single, short conversation. A big issue you learn in legal ethics courses is when the attorney-client relationship starts, and that can very well be in the course of a single, short, offhand conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/150 "2009-04-28T03:26:51Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > A. I’m asking if they’ve ever heard, not citations. (Wow, I can imagine the hysterical laughter if a lawyer said “yeah, I’ve heard about it” and I asked for the citation itself!) > > B. I am not about to take the words of a single lawyer in a single conversation as representing all the data available on any subject. That would be incredibly stupid. So “failing to mention” something is not an issue. It becomes issue if you are my lawyer and I rely on your advice and assessment. Which I did once and here I am today… > > Pretty much all the explanations and examples that are being offered are right on…for clients and the lawyers they have hired. None of them make much sense when you try to apply them to a single conversation. Stoid, your little make-believe Q and A sessions fail to prove your point for the following very simple reason: You will surely ask a follow-up question if you get the anser you want. The follow-up question will bring the conversation closer to the facts of your case. If you get a willing victim on the line, the conversation will surely steer ever closer to your case until you just lay out the whole sordid tale and the lawyer commits seppuku for having listened to you for that long. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/151 "2009-04-28T03:27:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Seeing as how you have not been privy to the conversations, you pretty much are making stuff up, ya know. Kinda bold for a lawyer… The part of my post in quotes is a direct quote from you. The fact that a review of your work is either substantive or non-substantivet is a self-evident aplication of logic – it must be one or the other, and cannot be both. So perhaps you’d like to specify exactly what stuff I’m making up? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/152 "2009-04-28T03:29:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Stoid, your little make-believe Q and A sessions fail to prove your point for the following very simple reason: You will surely ask a follow-up question if you get the anser you want. Oh, maybe not. Stoid: Have you ever heard of any cases involving X, Y, and Z? Lawyer: Why yes, yes I have. Stoid: Thanks so much! _:: click ::_ ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/153 "2009-04-28T03:33:50Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > I don’t think she understands that to properly answer what she sees as a simple question there needs to be some often substantial legal work behind the answer. So it is said, over and over. But I don’t notice anyone explaining how that could possibly be true. Seen it? Heard of it? Yes. No. Ya either have or haven’t. What is the mysterious “substantial legal work” that needs doing? I’m genuinely interested. Because so far, no one has been very specific about what I am saying (versus reworkings of what I’m saying so that it CAN be answered), it’s just lots of “malpractice!” “research!” “SSubstantial legal work!” Okay…paint the picture. I ask you the question. You search your mind for a minute and realize that yes, you do recall lhearing about a case that was very similar. You can open your mouth and say that right there or you can do what exact substantial legal work first that will change what comes out of your mouth? Wait wait, don’t tell me: go look it up, make sure you remember it right, cross check to see if the decision was overruled later… none of which will make any difference to your statement “Yes, I do remember hearing about such a case once.” And then, when I say, "Can you remember anything about it that might help me find it, since searche’s on “pake and bunny” haven’t brought up any cases? You think… and you think it’s possible it was in fact a rabbit, not a bunny. But you aren’t really sure and you dont’ want me to rely on your memory. You can open your mouth and say all that or you can go do substantial research and legal work. That I didn’t ask or expect or pay for and isn’t necessary, because I undestand when you say “Wel, it might have been a rabbit, not a bunny, but I’m not entirely sure. Don’t rely on my memory as the final answer, but try using rabbit in your search. Good luck!” I’m guessing you are taught to always complicate the simple in the second or third year of law school, after you’ve been primed a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/154 "2009-04-28T03:37:39Z")
Hey Stoid did you ever post what I suggested in that other thread (i.e., a concise summary of the case with an explanation of the grounds for appeal and your analysis of the issues). Because, as I said in that other thread, that would sure shut us all up if you knock our socks off with a good and concise post like that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/155 "2009-04-28T03:39:58Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You think… and you think it’s possible it was in fact a rabbit, not a bunny. But you aren’t really sure and you dont’ want me to rely on your memory. You can open your mouth and say all that or you can go do substantial research and legal work. That I didn’t ask or expect or pay for and isn’t necessary, because I undestand when you say “Wel, it might have been a rabbit, not a bunny, but I’m not entirely sure. Don’t rely on my memory as the final answer, but try using rabbit in your search. Good luck!” Since none of the resident attorneys are likely to be Californians specializing in family law or real estate or (specifically, distressed sales), there is a non-zero but not statistically significant chance that any of them have the slightest fucking clue where your goddamn bunny is. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/156 "2009-04-28T03:41:40Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Seeing as how you have not been privy to the conversations, you pretty much are making stuff up, ya know. Kinda bold for a lawyer… For what it’s worth, I agree with **Jodi** here, and have misgivings that it might the latter of the two alternatives. You should reflect that most laypeople who pay $2,000 to engage a lawyer would not expect to have to spend much time (any time) doing legal research and certainly would think it irregular to post their legal questions on an internet bulletin board rather than consult with the attorney they’ve paid two large. Perhaps your lawyer does more than this; I should certainly hope he would. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/157 "2009-04-28T03:45:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m guessing you are taught to always complicate the simple in the second or third year of law school, after you’ve been primed a bit. Maybe so, but when exactly were you taught to refuse to acknowledge that something that might appear simple can in fact be complicated? Or is your inability to see that more in the nature of a birth defect? ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/158 "2009-04-28T03:52:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Since none of the resident attorneys are likely to be Californians specializing in family law or real estate or (specifically, distressed sales), there is a non-zero but not statistically significant chance that any of them have the slightest fucking clue where your goddamn bunny is. To make matters worse, the bunny she is seeking (And let me just say out loud that the mere fact we have to now refer to her issue as a fucking bunny just illustrates the worthlessness of this whole thing) is invariably the one case from a municipal magistrate, decided in 1904, shrouded in the mists of time, written by the then-justice of the peace illegitimate offspring of Abraham Lincoln and Jane Austen. This case, when pulled from the dusty archives ala Indiana Jones, will glow with the inner golden light of justice, and when transported, Pulp Fiction briefcase style, to the courthouse, will melt the very fucking faces off of the judge and her friends at the other table. Unfortunately, we’re talking about the land of fruits and nuts, aka California, and not the back lot at Paramount, so there is probably no controlling precedent that is of use, and a good lawyer would just distinguish it out in any case, because obviously **Stoid** is incapable of simply making a clear and concise argument, and instead is going with the tried-and-false strategy of looking for partners in her archaeological dig for the lost stare decisis of El Hombre Gato de la Pantalones. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/159 "2009-04-28T03:54:46Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Stoid, your little make-believe Q and A sessions fail to prove your point for the following very simple reason: You will surely ask a follow-up question if you get the anser you want. The follow-up question will bring the conversation closer to the facts of your case. If you get a willing victim on the line, the conversation will surely steer ever closer to your case until you just lay out the whole sordid tale and the lawyer commits seppuku for having listened to you for that long. Nope again. I do not talk about my case. I don’t want to talk about my case, and most of the lawyers only want to talk about my case, that’s exactly the issue, because they want to know how what I’m asking relates to my case before they answer. They ask and ask and drive me nuts. “Well, tell me about your case” NO. I don’t want to talk about MY case, please! Stop asking! You cannot possibly address my case in a 5 or 10 or 30 minute conversation, there are too many variables. I just wanna know about this little tiny bit of law itself. How it relates to my case is an hour long conversation neither one of us wants to have not least because we won’t arrive at an answer and both of us will have wasted our time. So please stop making my case the issue. (And of course I will ask a follow up question and another and another and the lawyer is entirely free to stop answering me any time with a simple: can’t spend this time anymore, see ya.) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/160 "2009-04-28T04:13:01Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I turn to an airline pilot, who travels to many parts of the world, including the four destinations I’m considering. So I ask him the following questions: > > Do you know if any of these locations has a lot of parasitic diseases that need to be avoided? Have you ever gotten sick yourself or known of anyone getting sick? (If the answer is yes) do you happen to know what the diseases are called, so I can find out more information about them? Your example is the perfect example of why what you are asking for is advice. I don’t expect you to be able to understand this (because you have layperson litigation syndrome, which I have seen a number of times in a couple of decades of practice), but I’ll post this anyway for the benefit of others: What does “a lot” mean? Would many diseases of low incidence count, or if there are only a couple but they are of high incidence would you want to know about those also? What is the definition of a parasitic disease that needs to be avoided? Most places have some parasitic diseases. Where is the line as to what is to be avoided or not? You are asking me to judge an appropriate level of risk avoidance and then apply it in order to draw a line as to what I do and do not tell you about. Have I or anyone I know ever gotten sick? Sure. In every place in the world. But then maybe that’s not what you meant. Should I answer exactly what you mean, or should I assume you are talking about in the locations concerned? Are you talking about parasitic diseases only, or would you want to know about very serious and widespread non-parasitic diseases that I know about in these locations? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=9)