My sentiment exactly. Yay barriers to entry!
Well, clearly not. What makes you think it’s not necessary? You simply assert that simplicity is possible. I don’t run around shouting that surgery should be simpler. It just wouldn’t work. It’s not possible. If there’s a better system out there, please by all means point to it.
You misuderstand the OP. Not only do some want fewer new lawyers, some would like to shitcan a large number of the current crop. Yay!!!
So far, every time I’ve had to use a lawyer (usually because my employer Said So, once because we had to do paperwork after Dad’s death and my uncle offered - uncle is a lawyer), the task has cost more money and time than if I’d done it myself. I’ve done the same tasks (obtain visas and work permits, change ownership of homes and cars, etc.) by myself, so I know how much it cost me. Several times the lawyer has sent me wrong information (for example, contact data for the US embassy in France: I’m a Spanish citizen and was working in Italy at the time, so I guess the lawyer just took the average or something).
While laywers have their uses, too often people use one when they don’t need to.
Also the US legal system seems to be strangely convoluted. There’s a lot of checks that are performed before the creation of any new law in most of Europe but which don’t exist in the US, in order to ensure that you don’t have laws which contradict each other. A lot of the US legal system feeds upon those contradictions. And for each contradiction, you shortly get some precedent going in one direction and some going in the opposite, so you can quote God and the Devil in the same closing speech. Jolly good fun but I’d rather stick with physics.
Navapal (a lawyer): “in Europe, we think that legislation is like physics - it’s got some rules you can’t break; in America nobody knows for sure what the freaking rules are - not even the lawyers.”
Again, I’m all for genuine specific reforms to the legal system. I’m certainly no fan of frivolous lawsuits, and if anybody’s got a plan to separate them from meritorious lawsuits, I’m all ears. I just don’t think general “lawyers suck” complaints are really helpful or accurate.
Maybe we should switch to a “continental” system rather than keep the “Anglo-American” system of common law we have now, as Nava’s quote implies. However the common law system is so embedded in our society, it might take a constitutional convention to replace it. I’m not sure that’s something anyone wants to risk. Also, the statute based continental system has it’s weaknesses too.
Again, I think a lot of the fault lies not with lawyers, but with the litigious, sue-happy american public. Lawyers are simply meeting a market demand. To paraphrase the NRA, lawyers don’t sue people, people sue people.
[QUOTE=jrfranchi]
I think the USA has too many laws and far too many lawyers.
[/quote
Who’s to say? Does a peacock have too many feathers?
So who should write laws if not people who understand the law (IOW - lawyers)? Deli clerks and software engineers?
Well other than the courts, the bar association, and the same market forces that apply to all jobs.
Why are these (with the exception of engineer and doctor) mostly blue-collar jobs any more or less honorable?
There is no civilization without laws
This is such a small part of what lawyers do it’s not even worth mentioning.
What talent? Arguing over minutia?
jrfranchi Quote:
Originally Posted by Campion
Or move to one of the many states that do not require attorney involvement in a transaction. Or be your own attorney. You don’t need one, as long as you understand what you’re doing. You don’t? Well, then, before you buy your next house, educate yourself. If you’re not willing to learn what you need to do the lawyer’s job, don’t complain. Ditto the plumber, the auto mechanic, etc…
Did you learn to read?
Maybe you should have gone to someone other than Uncle Vinnie?
People have this magical, almost mystical view of lawyers. I don’t understand why. Probably because on TV, they are portrayed as these attractive, dynamic, powerful, super intelligent, ruthless sharks. In real life they are usually as dull as accountants. No one says we have too many accountants. They spend 90% of their day sifting through millions of pieces of paper looking for inconsistancies or incriminating statements. Or they look at the minutia of contracts to make sure that it is written in a way that is unambiguous and leaves no loopholes or legal exposure. There’s nothing magical about lawyers. They are not superhuman and law school is not a crucible of fire or a guantlet or any such metaphor. The shear number of lawyers should prove that.
No matter how simple you make the law, there will always be exceptions or special circumstances that need to be debated. Most of us who have other jobs don’t have the time to learn every law applicable to what we do so we hire experts to handle those matters.
People who say “kill all the lawyers” usually don’t know that the context of the quote is a speach by an anarchist in Shakespeare’s Henry VI that wanted to overthrow the government. Just as our society gets more complex, so to must our laws. IMHO, the people who are against lawyers usually fall into one of these catagories:
-They hired a shitty one
-They had a judgement not go their way
-They don’t know anything about lawyers or the law
-The seem to think that people should just “know” what the outcome of a trial or legal matter should be based on whatever annecdotal evidence and 30 second blurbs they’ve seen and it then should then procede to that conclusion
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Exactly the point made by the OP; the public good is not served by a system so arcane that only lawyers can write laws. Yes, laws should be written by deli clerks and software engineers. That’s the way the founding fathers envisioned it.
And precious little with them.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The founding fathers, eh? Let’s see, 34 of the 55 delegates to the constitutional convention were lawyers. I’d be interested to see where they said that they themselves should not be allowed to write laws.
I’d be interested to see where I said that. Don’t confuse the desire for an accessible system of laws that can be written and read by ordinary citizens with a ban on lawyers in government. I said laws should be written by deli clerks and software engineers, not that they **can only ** be written by them. The founding fathers envisioned a government of part-time politicians, not full time bureaucrats.
I actually think there should be some kind of basic law class that all college students should be required to take. It would cover basic contracts, wills, mortgages/rental agreements, etc., basically things that many people would need in the course of their lives. I’ve been thinking about checking into that as an elective for my current degree. At the least it would demystify “legalese” and not have people scared to take care of simple contractual situations.
- Why is this the fault of the 400 lawyers rather than Chrysler?
- For that matter, why is this such a horrible action on Chrysler’s part in the first place? After all, they’re in business to make money and if they conclude it would be more cost-effective to challenge the law than comply don’t they have the option of taking that approach?
As for the basic question of how to reduce the number of lawyers: Perhaps we could institute a hunting season to cull the population until it’s back within proper bounds. Although I suppose establishing the season would require writing regulations, which would require more lawyers. Which kind of defeats the purpose.
[quote=Larry Borgia]
…I think a lot of the fault lies not with lawyers, but with the litigious, sue-happy american public. Lawyers are simply meeting a market demand. To paraphrase the NRA, lawyers don’t sue people, people sue people
Problem with those arguments is lawyers interpret the laws, lobby to block the smallest of reforms to the system and directly write the laws toov(via a vast majority in the Senate and a 45% plurality in Congress comapred to Canada’s 13%)
Brings to mind that “Original 13th Amendment” tinfoil hat theory that barred lawyers from public office.
Many thanks to TokyoPlayer for the extra info on the McDonald’s coffee case. I did not know all the background, and clearly the background does make a difference in this case (but then, it usually does). Amazing how many corporations feel that customer satisfaction and safety are less important than keeping current SOP unmodified.
jrfranchi , you appear to have made up your mind that laws & lawyers are evil, and that lawyers are trying to maintain their business by making things too complicated for “common folk” to understand. It probably makes you feel better to feel justified in your loathing of lawyers, but is very unlikely to be true. Try talking to lawyers about why they went into law, and I think you will surprised by how many of them (in addition to liking getting a good income and thinking they would be good in this field) went into law to try to help others (and yes, get paid at the same time). And no, IANAL, nor are any of my family members lawyers, nor do I get any compensation for promoting lawyers here or anywhere else.
As to the incorrect advice you got from a lawyer: surprise, lawyers are only human and are quite capable of making mistakes despite being experts in their field. You are justified in being annoyed at the error, but that error does not reveal that lawyer to be malicious. Or have you never made an error in your job (hopefully not as stupid as the one you mentioned that lawyer made) ?
As for the fact that it cost you more time and money to have a lawyer do something than to do it yourself: of course it did! If I may use an admittedly imperfect analogy: It costs far more to dine in a fancy restaurant that it does to put together a simple meal at home and eat it; you are paying for the convenience, the chef’s expertise, the ambiance, and a whole host of other things. It also takes longer to get you fed than it would at home, typically. While the lawyer was dealing with the problem you presented to him, presumably you were freed up to do something else with your time and energy.
Madd Maxx , I agree with you completely on the need for a basic / practical law course in late high school or college. It needs to be added to a curriculum that would include a basic health care course and a basics of financial management course, to name two other gaps that come to mind. Sounds like a good topic for another thread, if it hasn’t already been done.
I have always said high school doesn’t do a sufficent job really preparing students to be independant. Balancing a checkbook, credit cards, loan applications etc. are woefully under-discussed in the public education system.
Ooh! Ooh! I’ll go first! I suggest, “Don’t be a jerk.” It’s plain enough English, everyone knows what it means and no one ever disagrees with its application, right?
[sub]Unlike the state, the sdmb has no monopoly on force and cannot limit your life or liberty or seize your property. Still hasn’t stopped people arguing about it.[/sub]
That’s idiotic. As I mentioned, there is nothing magical or mystical about being a lawyer. They are just people who have trained to understand the law and issues related to the law. The are not any more or less moral than deli clerks and software engineers by virtue of having a J.D. Deli clerks and software engineers are not any more or less inclined to self interest or coruption by virtue of not having one.
The only difference is that a lawyer is trained to make logical arguments for or against a position within the framework of the law in court system which they are experienced working in. They know what needs to be filed with whom and they know what arguments to make.
The typical moron on the street (IMHO based on mostly Judge Judy and other TV judges) usually takes a position of “it’s not fair that I don’t get my way” or “I really didn’t like the agreement that I made”.
An reasonibly intelligent individual should have no trouble reading 99% of the laws on the books and looking up the words they don’t understand in a legal dictionary.
That doesn’t even make any sense.
jrfranchi, you bring up excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly. What we basically have here is a system utilizing its own peculiar system of codes, logic and jargon that only the trained initiates of a certain profession can function and operate in. Obviously, only members of that profession are allowed to fashion these systems and work within it, so it is in their best interest to deliberately complicate it. I speak, of course, of computer programmers and system analysts.
Computer coding is arcane, difficult to understand, and computer systems and software are deliberately made so that only those who have received special training can make, set up and operate them properly. When I attempted to write my own computer code to make a simple operating system for a home computer of my own making, I learned that the writing of these systems involves knowledge of complex and wholly uneccessary systems of binary, hexadecimal, ASCII, and on and on. If you want new software or a new system, you are forced to hire another programmer becuse the programmers deliberately create confusing codes and systems for their own protection. They say that it’s necessary for these codes to be complex to make a complex system work properly, but it’s obviously a racket. Computer code should be written by comedians, so that everyone can clearly understand it.
I’m sorry, but computer programmers and analysts are the ruination of mankind. I plead with all aspiring computer programmers and analysts, please go into an honest profession instead. It is not too late. I have to hope that all programmers and analysts fail their certifications. I wish we could do away with the profession.
And why is this nasty little offering not in the pit where it belongs? You owe an apology to a great many lawyers.
If you don’t want to make use of lawyers, then there is a very simple solution. Don’t hire any. A lawyer can not do anything that you can not do for yourself. If you do not have the requisite reading comprehension and analytical skill to handle your matters yourself, don’t go crying about how it is so unfair. Society, including the legal structure at its foundation, is not about to dumb itself down to make you happy.
The difference is each year computers are simpler to use and program. My field is dwindling away. Eventually you will work computers by fairly standard speech. Can you really say the same.
So, even if I’m in a minority opinion, this is not worthy of debate. I am not calling for harm or anything else to be done to lawyers. I am just asking for a simplified law code and that more young students with the intellectual ability to pass the bar choose other fields. I don’t believe this is nasty. Why would simpler laws be so bad? We strive in technology to make everything easier. Why can’t we simplify the law?
We have one profession that makes the laws, judges the laws and both prosecutes and defends the laws.