# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/161 "2009-04-28T04:15:36Z")
Stoid, you are so giddy about Obama being elected (which is fine, to a point) that you are now posting somewhat incoherent bullshit. You are sitting there feeling “hell, I can post anything and they will agree with me.” Or “I will just post this just to piss off people like Jodi or Bricker.” Whatever. Sorry, you need to re-read what the legal professionals here have told you. You are becoming the obstinate goofy person you were in the past when you posted a lot more. Not trying to “Obama-ize” the thread, but the tone of your recent posts makes this self-evident, things like using formal text, then dropping into slang and so forth. Like “I takes me some issue” (from a recent GD thread, context unrelated to this) You have rarely used vernacular like this in all the years you have posted here. One of these things is not like the other. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/162 "2009-04-28T04:18:29Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > … cross check to see if the decision was overruled later… Just a friendly word: the term is not “cross check to see if the decision was overruled.” It is simply, “note up the decision.” ---
**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, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/163 "2009-04-28T04:27:36Z")
> [@Klaatu](#): > > Stoid, you are so giddy about Obama being elected (which is fine, to a point) that you are now posting somewhat incoherent bullshit. You are sitting there feeling “hell, I can post anything and they will agree with me.” Or “I will just post this just to piss off people like Jodi or Bricker.” Whatever. In the words of Aristotle: _what the fuck are you talking about?_ ---
**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, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/164 "2009-04-28T04:31:19Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Just a friendly word: the term is not “cross check to see if the decision was overruled.” It is simply, “note up the decision.” I’ve never heard “note up the decision” here in the States. Down here, it’s called shepardizing, from the paper service that used to – and AFAIK still does – provide cross-indexing of cases so that you can see if the case has been cited and if so with approval (green flag), with reservations or distinguishments (yelllow flag), or overruled (red flag). Sherpardizing is checking whether the case is still “good law,” as distinguished from cite-checking, which is merely the editorial process of double-checking that the specific citation to volume, book, and page is correct. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/165 "2009-04-28T04:36:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Without checking your link yet, I’m going to predict that all the rulings that resulted in actual malpractice or ethics violations involve _actual_ clients and lawyers working on actual cases. I predict not a single one will involve a specific question from a non-client of a lawyer that was answered with purely factual information and constituted the entirety of their interaction. I am prepared to be wrong, the world is a wacky place, which is why I’m going to look. But I really don’t think so. (And lawyer fears, while understandable, are excessive. At least in California, legal malpractice is a very high bar to clear, starting with the requirement that the client show that the case would have gone differently absent the lawyer’s “malpractice”. Good luck with that if you haven’t won your appeal already.) Here’s the perspective you may be missing in all this: to anyone with any familiarity with you and your case (i.e., any lawyer you might be asking about information from), you’ve already demonstrated that you have the time and energy to fight to the bloody death in a court of law in order to rectify a wrong you’ve perceived. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’d win in a malpractice claim. They probably don’t want to risk making themselves a target in your eyes. From everything we’ve all seen in these threads on your case, you’ve demonstrated a pitbull-like tenacity to wring every last drop attention from the legal system you can get. I have no idea how good or bad your case is, or how good or bad your self-representation is (though your refusal to understand the particular context of ‘legal advice’ doesn’t speak well). But from my outside perspective, I’d think twice about crossing you just because of the amount of your blood, sweat and tears you’re willing to put into an effort to seek justice. I simply wouldn’t want to risk engaging you at all. ---
**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, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/166 "2009-04-28T04:39:31Z")
He’s so hot right now. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/167 "2009-04-28T04:40:33Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I’ve never heard “note up the decision” here in the States. Down here, it’s called shepardizing… Thanks, **Jodi** –you’ve broadened my knowledge. We use the colored (coloured? :)) flags too, in certain databases, but as you can see (and as I learned from your post), we use an entirely different term for the task. Thanks again! ---
**Author:** ![keturah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e95f7d/32.png) [@keturah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keturah)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/168 "2009-04-28T04:48:36Z")
To a point, you are asking attorneys for their information. You are not asking an artist, a business owner or the random person you find on the street. You are asking for an expert in the law to weigh in and give you information–_based on their experience_. They don’t owe you their years of information gathering simply because they have done it–that is their craft. They make money based on their experience–Their “information” is worth money. ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/169 "2009-04-28T05:21:11Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > This is where your major disconnect is. In legal terms, any discussion that relates to your case - precedent or case law, for example - is “legal advice.” Note the distinction between between “legal advice” and the way you’re using the word “advice” on its own. The attorneys are using it as a term of art and you’re using it as a descriptor. > > If you’re sitting around the kitchen table bullshitting, “advice” is a perfectly valid descriptor. But you’re in litigation, so it’s a term of art. There’s no other way to approach it. **Enginerd** ’s response was to **Stoid** ’s succint observation that “Advice is suggesting a course of action”. I gather Enginerd is not a lawyer. He got the point perfectly, and expressed it with admirable clarity. This means that the point is not at all obscure, or apparent only to the minds of disingenuous lawyers. **Stoid** , however, does not seem to grok this. This is a worry. Further, **Stoid** speaks of her fascination with the subject of law, and of discovering how bits fit with other bits, and so on. Regrettably, there is a huge divide between the cultural fantasy of the autodidact (whether the self-taught subject be sleuthing, higher mathematics, quantum physics, the law - whatever) and the reality. In the fantasy, the autodidact is always the outsider who speaks truth to power. The fantasy picks up themes of rugged individualism and can-do self-reliance prevalent in many Western cultures. She is the gifted amateur whose fascination with the subject itself allows her to rise above the inevitable grubby politicking and commercial aspects of it, and grants her the power to cut through cant and gain Buddha-like clarity. Never happens. The problem is that the auto-didact is distracted by shiny ideas that fascinate. She doesn’t have to pass exams, so she doesn’t have to bother with the bits that don’t interest her, the hard slog of learning the whole of the subject. Thus, the auto-didact doesn’t know what the whole of the subject looks like, or what the gaps in her self-acquired knowledge might be. Without the discipline of being taught by those already schooled in the subject, there is no real way she can know that her meanderings haven’t missed some pretty important stuff. I am a criminal lawyer. But if I had just taught myself the cool stuff about DNA and the definition of murder, I would be worse than useless. I had to sit through all the boring stuff about equity and property because, surprisingly, it is important for me to know. For example, in a criminal case about fraud, what was the exact nature of the property misappropriated? Was it a chose in action? What entitlements attached to the property involved? Was it actually the offender’s property subject to a duty to account or a constructive trust or was it technically the victim’s property? If the boss gives the secretary the day’s takings to bank, and she keeps half and bank’s the rest, who “owned” the property at the time she took it? What if she dishonestly writes herself a cheque on the boss’s account after it is banked? If an investor likewise gives money to a broker to invest and the broker spends half on his overseas trip, who owned the money? These questions mostly have reasonably simple answers, but it requires some learning in the field to know that, and similar questions do not always have similarly simple answers. If I had tried to teach myself criminal law, I would never have known this stuff, because I would never have thought to think of it. I need to know it in order to know at least that there is this big area of learning that I need to look into if I am going to be able to do my job properly. That’s why just asking “Have you ever heard of a case like this?” or “Is there a statute that covers this point?” are not trivially easy questions to answer. Cases often conflict. The differences can depend on exquisitely subtle points of distinction that some would say are illusory. Exactly how “like” the facts you present do you need the case you want me to have heard of to be? Without the context provided by the real case at hand, hypothetical questions are almost impossible to answer. Lastly, **Stoid** , the previous thread seems to date from February. Can you tell us where your appeal is at? When is it due to be heard? I do genuinely wish you well, but I understand how anxious all this can make you. ---
**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, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/170 "2009-04-28T05:54:21Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Just a friendly word: the term is not “cross check to see if the decision was overruled.” It is simply, “note up the decision.” Wowsers! People still shepardize? Like with books? I just look at the flag in the top left corner of Westlaw. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/171 "2009-04-28T06:34:38Z")
My middle brother recently got his JD, and loved to talk shop while doing it. (To the point where I began to dread some late night phone calls where the subject was surely to be some subtle point of the law that fascinated him and made me want to defenestrate myself) Anyways… one of the things I learned was that Law School is, really, not about the laws or specific statutes, but about learning a pattern of thought and analysis. It was, in a nut shell, “legal reasoning”, from which all else flowed. It certainly wasn’t designed to Keep The Little Guy Down by needlessly complicating every issue and forcing them to pay retainer to dastardly, mustache twirling fat cats. It was, well, what it actually means to be a lawyer… which is more about thinking/acting like a lawyer and much, much less about specifically knowing the minutia of a country’s laws. Along the same lines, I learned that there are very good legal, ethical and, yes, monetary reasons why lawyers have to be very careful when discussing the law with people, especially people asking for advice (even those who couch it in terms of ‘information’). The law virtually never says “If you have clearly done A, B and C and had D done to you by Person E, do not pass go, simply collect $200.00.” Everything is answered in terms of how a person’s specific circumstances relate to both general and specific guidelines. The law is not plug-and-play. It’s not a formula that you can just switch out some variables for a mathematically pure answer. The question “what does the law say” is almost meaningless and usually has to be answered with “what is the most likely interpretation of the laws in relation to your specific situation.” And that, of course, necessitates _advice_. Even for simple questions. I remember that the friend of one of my brother’s girlfriends wanted to know about her apartment’s lease, her landlord, and their mutual obligations under that lease. My brother had to start off the conversation with a metric ton of disclaimers (“I’m not authorized to practice law in your state and this is not to be interpreted as legal advice, but under the law in my state generally what has to happen in order to…”) To do otherwise could have opened him up to serious financial damage as well as losing his career. Up until now I hadn’t thought that this point was in any way arcane, but either it is or the OP is simply resistant to learning. ---
**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, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/172 "2009-04-28T06:47:50Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > 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. I have to confess I don’t follow. The fact that most “laypeople” would have enormous expectations because they gave a lawyer $2000 (assuming that is true, I don’t know what most people think) is their misinformation to confront. I’ve been in this mess since Ocotber 2006. I’m very clear about how little $2000 buys, and I ain’t blowing it on proofreading. The man gave me 2 hours last year after talking both to me and the lawyer friend of mine who introduced us. He impressed me as having a greater degree of understanding of what was going on than any other lawyer I’d talked with, because it was one of his areas of specialty (or rather, part of it was, the part I was most concerned with.) He had compelling things to say about it. He gave me a slashed rate for the time we’d already had. I had the opportunity to give him the $2000 in exchange for more such communication, via phone and email, regarding the law and legal theory that I’ve been dealing with. I’ve basically paid him to be a consultant. He also put his name on my petition for writ of supersedeas, which I asked for because some people have insisted to me that the words “pro per” trigger an instant denial. I wanted to be sure that at least that one possibility was removed. Was summarily denied anyway, but that’s the norm for some 90-plus percent of writ petitions. At least I could feel secure it wasn’t because I’m self-represented, and now that I’ve made two motions to my division of the appeals court and they’ve granted both, I hope I’ve established a little bit of credibility with the justices who will be considering my appeal itself and they will be a little less prejudiced when they read and consider it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/173 "2009-04-28T06:57:52Z")
Here’s one thin g I wonder. Why is it you can’t just put an iron-clad disclaimer that says “if you use this information I’m about to give you in a real court of law, then you cannot sue me.” To my layperson perspective, it seems that a disclaimer will let you get away with almost anything in civil law. (Note: I’m sure there’s a reason, like maybe a case where it was ruled that such a disclaimer was illegal.) ---
**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, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/174 "2009-04-28T07:16:50Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > I have no idea how good or bad your case is, or how good or bad your self-representation is (though your refusal to understand the particular context of ‘legal advice’ doesn’t speak well). But from my outside perspective, I’d think twice about crossing you just because of the amount of your blood, sweat and tears you’re willing to put into an effort to seek justice. I simply wouldn’t want to risk engaging you at all. Oh for god’s sake. Where in this have I made any indication that someone saying no to me is “crossing” me? Even if you DO give a bullshit explanation? Where have I shown a tendency to mindlessly attack those who have “crossed” me? I’m remarkably able to cope with a straightforward refusal, I can even cope with a bullshit refusal, I just find it seriously irritating. good grief. What’s truly fascinating about all this is the enormous time, energy, and typing that has been devoted to explaining how impossible it is for a lawyer to even consider giving the slightest bit of information without in-depth study and thorough comprehension of every angle…by the same people who have absolutely no problem whatsover asserting that they know _exactly_ how full of shit I simply MUST be, based on message board conversations. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/175 "2009-04-28T07:22:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Here’s one thin g I wonder. Why is it you can’t just put an iron-clad disclaimer that says “if you use this information I’m about to give you in a real court of law, then you cannot sue me.” > > To my layperson perspective, it seems that a disclaimer will let you get away with almost anything in civil law. > > (Note: I’m sure there’s a reason, like maybe a case where it was ruled that such a disclaimer was illegal.) If such a disclaimer doesn’t work then why do they even bother in TV shows with “Don’t try this at home” ? ---
**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, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/176 "2009-04-28T08:15:30Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 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. **Stoid** , that your case is so complex that cannot possibly be addressed “in a 5 or 10 or 30 minute conversation” is exactly the reason that a lawyer cannot give you “information” about what “this tiny bit of law” is. Where a client has a complex case, it is impossible and irresponsible to just give legal advice on one little bit of the case because it is virtually certain that whatever might be applicable in a general case has different factors that apply when mixed in will all of the other history and procedural aspects of your particular case. More generally, it’s really impossible to say what “the law” is divorced from a particular set of facts and circumstances. Indeed, perhaps the most important thing drilled into you in law school is that changing one small fact in a case (or law school hypothetical) can flip the result around entirely. When a lawyer is discussing a case with a client, it is incredibly frequent that the client will not realize what is the most relevant fact that changes the case, and perhaps offhandedly mention it in the end (if it comes up at all). Often, the thing that changes everything will not be directly related to the legal issue under consideration, but will be some aspect of the broader situation that brings a whole new area of the law into play. When there are multiple, competing legal principles at issue, there is rarely a simple answer. In other words, “your case” is exactly the issue, and to give an answer on what “the law” is would be something that most lawyers cannot and will not responsibly do. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/177 "2009-04-28T09:52:18Z")
Stoid, not a lawyer but I have been reading these threads. Just wondering, are you purposely cherry picking the posts to respond to or are you doing it by accident? Seems to me that there have been quite a few posts that have clearly and concisely explained why you are wrong. These posts have been ignored. Instead you try and pick apart those few posts that aren’t as clearly on point. ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/178 "2009-04-28T10:50:30Z")
Stoid, you have had this point explained to you at least two dozen times already, by lawyers as well as other professionals. You were asking a lawyer for advice, and he was completely honest in saying that he didn’t want to give you advice. It wasn’t him being dishonest in any way. If you must think of it as a term of art, do so. It really is amazing how many lawyers are responding to you. Bricker, Jodi, ivn1188, Billdo, Polerius, Kimmy\_Gibler, Noel Prosequi, Spoons, Princhester, Dinsdale…and a few more (sorry if your name’s not here :)). I myself am receiving the results of my bar exam today. If everyone who is a professional in sky technology tells you the sky is blue, and you insist it’s mauve, you’re either deliberately being obtuse or you can’t think past your own stubbornness. I’d call you a blithering idiot but that would be an insult to blithering idiots everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/179 "2009-04-28T11:10:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ummm. No. > > Or rather, yes: if I had asked those questions, then I would be asking advice. _ **You** _ are asking those questions. Not _ **me** _. I didn’t ask them in this thread, and I don’t ask them in real life. > > For many reasons, top of the list being I do not _ **want** _ his/her _ **advice** _. Being “advised” to move in any direction I don’t have sufficient information about to evaluate isn’t helpful. > > You have erected a StrawStoid with whom to argue. Should you want to continue to discuss this with the actual Stoid, you will need to refer to what the actual Stoid actually said. > > The fact that I am seeking information (i.e., case law, statutes, his own observation) from Joe Lawyer so that I can more effectively find even more information so that I can improve my understanding so that I can feel more secure about my legal decisions…does not mean that I am asking Joe Lawyer to predict the outcome of my decisions or advise me on what decisions to make. > > If that distinction continues to escape you, perhaps removing it from the legal realm altogether will help make it clearer: > > I am facing a decision about where to go on vacation. There are a large number of factors that will affect my final decision, such as heat, humidity, cost, what type of travel is required, how long that travel will take, possible diseases, language spoken, what kind of food is available, what entertainment, potential local dangers… on and on. > > I am having a hard time getting any information about local diseases. > > 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? > > So which of the following have I just done: > > A. Asked the pilot for information about one of the factors involved in my final decision about where I will vacation, or > > B. Asked him to advise me about where i should go on vacation? > > C. Asked him to predict whether I will come down with a particular disease? > > If your answer is B or C or both, then you have made it clear that we have an irreconcilable difference in our understanding of language and communication that makes further discussion or debate completely pointless. > There is scads of assumption going on all over the place, you know, both in this thread and in the real world. I find it very hard to believe that you really believe I said all those "my"s… you knew you were _assuming_ that’s what I _really_ meant. That’s what lawyers do, too. And while, again, everyone has a right to limit themselves to what they are comfortable with, for whatever reason it makes them comfortable, i.e., a lawyer declining to say anything for fear that I will treat it as something it isn’t, there is no validity in asserting that you **know** that my clear expression actually **IS** something **other** than it appears to be. Sorry, didn’t see this one. Do you know what a paraphrase is? Go look it up, there’s a good girl. Why don’t you calm down and read the thread again? Hardly anyone’s been openly insulting. ---
**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, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/180 "2009-04-28T13:21:17Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Here’s one thin g I wonder. Why is it you can’t just put an iron-clad disclaimer that says “if you use this information I’m about to give you in a real court of law, then you cannot sue me.” > > To my layperson perspective, it seems that a disclaimer will let you get away with almost anything in civil law. > > (Note: I’m sure there’s a reason, like maybe a case where it was ruled that such a disclaimer was illegal.) A disclaimer can’t really be ruled illegal, per se, but you would never call one “iron clad” regardless of what it said. **Stoid** could sign something waiving any and all rights of action against **Hypothetical Legal-Advice-Giving Poster X** and promising never ever to sue with a cherry on top and crossing her heart and then run down to the post office and get it notarized and it still wouldn’t be “iron clad”. > [@Polerius](#): > > If such a disclaimer doesn’t work then why do they even bother in TV shows with “Don’t try this at home” ? Having a defense does not mean you won’t get sued. It just means you’ll (probably) win. There’s a very good reason why civil suits don’t usually go to trial: litigation is really really expensive, _whether or not you win_. If you’re a lawyer, you have the choice of representing yourself, of course, but then you’re still working for free and costing yourself the money you’d be earning for real work. If you do get sued, and win, you get your attorney’s fees back. Usually. In some jurisdictions and under certain circumstances you may not be able to recover all your costs or even _any_ of your costs- if the plaintiff is adjudged to be insolvent or indigent, for example. In theory, you’ll be granted a lien against some or all of their stuff, but it’s not like you can just go over to her house and pick out a nice piece of furniture. Thus, the point is not to get sued in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=10)