2nd law, if Judge Williams were to have a bag, I’m sure she would be the most surprised of all of us.
BTW, myriad, not myriad of (just in case you wish to maintain a facade of literacy.)
My apologies to Judge Williams.
As to my literacy, from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary :
Main Entry: myr·i·ad
Pronunciation: 'mir-E-&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek myriad-, myrias, from myrioi countless, ten thousand
Date: 1555
1 : ten thousand
2 : a great number <a myriad of ideas>
Literate much?
2d Law - My apologies for ignorantly quoting the adjective instead of the noun.
by the illustrious WB:
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your misspelling of my handle is an attempt at a pun. Bill, if I were your attorney, I would almost certainly strangle you before we got through discovery. But, I’ve dealt with blowhard ignorami who thought they knew more about the law than I before, I might restrain myself.
However, insulting your potential counsel’s intelligence in an entirely hypocritical and inaccurate way (that goes for 2nd Law, too) is not a great way to begin a fiduciary relationship. If calling me stupid is your best insult, you are even more pathetic than I imagined.
My apologies Aerynsun,
I did not mean to do either things you have a problem with in my post. I did not mean to mispell your name(I was just in a hurry to leave when I typed this post so I didn’t go back up to check your spelling sorry) or put the cut down about the jury being stupid so they could relate to the attorney that was purely accidental to(but not bad after reading it again huh 
). And afterall don’t be offended this is the BBQ pit and I hope all these comments are just in fun. They are from me anyway.
Just curious from the way you were talking about our client attorney relationship(stangling and all 
) are you considering taking the case? And before you say no just think of all the straitdopers we can get as witnesses to my bad grammer, deposition cost alone will scare the defendents into settling. Come on aerynsun and 2ndlaw sing along with me "We’re in money we’re in money.
WB, the only way I would work for you would be on an hourly basis (lawyers aren’t required to work on a contingency fee basis), and seeing as I reserve the right to set a sliding scale based on how much my client frustrates me, you’d need to win the billion dollar suit before you could retain my services.
As for singing what I presume you meant as “We’re in the money,” I never sing while I’m sober, and it ain’t cocktail hour yet.
But I would like to say this, WB. You certainly do stir up a lot of controversy on the boards, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And you do start some interesting threads. I just wish you would read other people’s responses and learn from them, as I have. Most of us are here to fight ignorance, and I perceive that there are some things about which you are ignorant which the boards can help you with (as I am ignorant about many things, and learn new things everyday here and elsewhere).
2ndlaw, You’re right it is “we’re in the money”. I would like to blame that on the school system on that to but in all fairness I just plain out forgot the “the”. Oh well. But seriously you never sing that song(to yourself quietly) on your way out of the courtroom when the jury awards ya a killer verdict amount? I use to sing that when I sold a huge schedule to an advertiser. It is kinda like a victory song or something.
And thanks for the kind words. I do have alot things to learn to. And I have learned many things already from these boards but as you suggested I will try harder.
But back to the case at hand. I’ll give ya 40% if we don’t go to trial and 50% if we do. I have always paid by the hour and for once I would like to try the contigency thing. Where my lawyer is in the same boat as me.
I agree with Esprix that this topic has been done to death, but I can’t resist putting in my own 2 cents.
I am a third year law student. When someone makes jokes about lawyers, I laugh. However, I don’t think that’s where the hurt feelings on this message board come from. Dinsdale, no one is asking that lawyers be put on a pedestal. Nor is anyone sobbing “Woe is me. You have to love, admire, and respect us lawyers.” Rather, I think that the lawyers on this board are simply asking for you not to be some stereotyping asshole. If someone makes irrational, baseless stereotypes about my chosen profession that, frankly, aren’t meant in good clean fun, damn straight I’ll be offended. I wish that Dinsdale could tell me what he did for a living without being a smart ass.
More simply put, I can take a joke, but these crass generalizations about all lawyers being the spawn of the devil are ridiculous.
I have enjoyed a lot of Wildest Bill’s posts, but I regret the day that anyone ever taught him the term “plaintiff’s attorney.” Most people sue because they have a legitmate beef. Some people sue because they are money-grubbing assholes. Blame them, not their attorneys.
Wildest Bill, I am curious about something: most of the lawyers I have had dealings with are sometimes the attorney for the plaintiff and sometimes the attorney for the defense. I would imagine that no civil attorneys exclusively practice for one side. Well, maybe except for lawyers who specialize in personal injury; however, the many times you have been sued don’t seem to be P.I. cases. So, how can a lawyer be a nasty, Nazi, scum-sucking slimeball when he is representing the plaintiff but turn into a good guy when he’s representing the defendant? Your own lawyers had probably represented the plaintiff during one case or another. Were they horrible people until the day they took your case?
Turing was also gay and was forced by someone (British gov’t, I believe, but I can’t remember exactly) to take estrogen pills/shots to “combat” this. He grew breasts and died after eating a cyanide-poisoned apple.
Elvis’ first post, in it’s entirety:
“What do you do for a living, Dinsdale?”
My response:
“Elvis - I’m a lawyer. Why?”
Elvis’ follow-up:
“I wish that Dinsdale could tell me what he did for a living without being a smart ass.”
Oh yes, Elvis, I was certainly being a smart ass with that exceptionally witty rejoinder. Clever me. Elvis, with such a firm grasp on the language and an acutely developed sense of persecution, you are indeed well equipped for your chosen career. Litigate long and prosper.
(Alternate response, reverting to my true personality, “Better a smart ass than a dumb ass like you! Neener, neener!”)
I’m not sure anyone has yet come up with an instance of a lawyer being disadvantaged, socially or otherwise, simply because of their status as a lawyer. Did I miss it? Then we would have to extrapolate from any identified examples to estimate the prevalence with which such “anti-lawyer” activity occurs. Absent such examples and discussion, I stick with my impression that lawyers are getting their dander up over nothing more than jokes. Which, I, for one, can get over.
In other words, lawyers have it pretty good. They have the opportunity to make a decent living, to have a meaningful effect through the performance of their jobs, and in my experience, they generally get a good degree of respect because of their status at lawyers. They get to associate with rather educated people and address matters on a pretty sophisticated level. And like I said before, no heavy lifting.
I believe the feeling of persecution is, to large degree, self inflated and perpetuating within certain elements of the legal profession.
People only say they hate lawyers until they need one. They will vilify “pit bull” lawyers and blame the profession for damn near all the world’s ills.
Then they need a good attorney to represent them. So now, these same people who decried the “pit bull” lawyers out one side of their neck, will insist that their attorney do the same thing, only on THEIR behalf. In fact, if said canine doesn’t fight hard enough and bloody enough to suit said client, client can file a grievance with the state bar claiming counsel didn’t competently represent him. Regardless of whether the charge is true or false, time, money and energy have to be spent setting things right.
Meanwhile, the above-mentioned idiot goes back to his lawyer-bashing. It would be great if these people could be denied competent counsel because they’re assholes, but that’s not how it works.
Dinsdale, you’ve got to be kidding me. You are objecting of my use of the term “smart ass” because your comment to me was anything but smart? It wasn’t clever or witty, and I was giving your comment too much credit. Then I will withdraw the “smart” from my characterization of you.
I apologize for my shortcomings, Elvis, but I must admit your wit is lost on me. You’re really adding a lot here, bro.
I am an ass. (Tho I preferred MK’s delivery.)
From the Bottom of my heart, you will make a fine lawyer.
I seem to remember hearing about a case out in California where a company that built new homes refused to sell one of their houses to a lawyer and his wife, on the grounds that they felt the lawyer was more likely to sue them if there was a problem with the house.
Goldie
Hey 24k,
I have heard of that too. I understand the lawyer sued for discrimination of profession(boy if that isn’t a bogus claim). Anyway discriminating against a lawyer because he is lawyer was just too funny for me. I loved it.
Droll.
Kinda like not hiring someone because you think he’s gay.
Or not allowing Christians to rent an apartment.
Really fucking funny.
And how, exactly, is this a “bogus” claim?
Oh, I see - he deserved it.
You are such a fucking hypocrite and bigot.
Esprix
Amusing anecdote. Any idea what the outcome was?
I must admit that Ms D and I, both lawyers, learned early on that there are some situations where you don’t need to be too eager to offer your profession. Say to your kid’s pediatrician. We sensed (rightly or wrongly) that people might act differently towards you if they know you work as a lawyer, even if you are simply interacting with them as a potential customer, a patient, or whatever. We have felt on occasion that people seemed less forthcoming, as tho we were poised to use anything they might say against them. We have also, on occasion, taken steps we deemed necessary to reassure someone we were interacting with that we were firm believers in the existence of accidents, at which no one is necessarily at fault and liable for damages. Maybe this has been overreaction on our part. Can’t say it really has cramped my style, tho.
I suspect many people have an image of lawyers as more likely to initiate legal proceedings should something unexpected or undesirable occur. Or perhaps more eager to weasel out of obligations.
I’m not sure that is unrealistic or undesirable. I think an undeniable result of going to law school is that you are acutely aware of the legal implications of just about everything going on around you. You understand legal relationships and duties that non-lawyers may be completely unaware of. That is not to say that all (or even most) lawyers are sue-happy. But I do believe their training does make them view relationships and events differently than nonlawyers. And I can understand why nonlawyers might resent that.
Now if you want make a big deal out of this, please show me a law where you can not discriminate because of profession? I have never heard of such a law? So did he break a law?
This guy for some reason didn’t want to be sued for something trivial especially since the lawyer would have an unfair advantage(think about from our last discussion) in sueing the developer would he not? So he made a business decision not to sell him a house for the fear of a suit. Is that his fault for having the fear or is it the legal system’s fault?
Sure, maybe the guy(lawyer) wouldn’t have sued for something trivial but then again maybe he would. So doesn’t the developer have the right to sell to whoever he wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with current discrimination laws. Obvioulsy the lawyer had the right to buy some where else did he not?
And dinsdale, you are the type of the lawyer the world needs more of. I thought your post was very thoughtout, understanding and wise. Too bad esprix couldn’t think of those things before he flamed me again.
Now I am curious what happened in the case? Dinsdale would you please relate the outcome?