Lawyers Are Not Engineers!!!!!!!!

The BBQ Pit
61

**

In my experience, lawyers have no trouble at all laughing at themselves, but like all satire, it is at its most funny when you can see the underlying truth. Something that is sadly lacking in your OP.

**

Fuck, you really are quite thick, aren’t you? Do you actually think this comment makes any sense? Poor chap.

You would actually appear to be entirely unable to see that attempting to persuade someone to make a particular decision, does not alter the fact that someone else (ie the jury) makes the decision, has the ability to make an alternate decision, and therefore bears most if not all the culpability for doing so.

Or to use your example, OJ could have spent a billion dollars on his defence, he could have had 4000 lawyers on his team, but in the end, the jury just had to say three words: “Guilty, your honour”. They decided not to.

**

I’ve dealt with this in my last post. If you don’t get it, you don’t. I can’t put it any clearer. You think lawyers should play judge and jury. We don’t, we shouldn’t, no one appointed us to, we have no right to, get used to it.

**

Oh, the Shakespeare thing. You really are determined to look like an idiot over this, aren’t you? First you say something dumb. Someone calls you on it. So you change your position. Someone calls you on that. You deny you did so. So I spell out your change of position to you. So now you try to pretend you were joking all along. The last desperate gambit of a loser. Pathetic.

**

So presumably you are now prepared to accept that if lawyers bear some culpability, so do clients, juries etc?

**

We have those here, though to a lesser extent. And the parts of the story you are missing are:
[ul]1. the part where the client’s eyes light up with dollar signs and they instruct the ambulance chasing lawyer to go ahead (without which instruction the lawyer would not be able to proceed)
2. the part where the jury decides that the client deserves damages
3. the part where subsequently the manufacturer decides to seek advice from their lawyer to avoid future lawsuits
4. the part where the engineers decide what safety devices to fit, to further the manufacturer’s decision to follow their lawyer’s advice.[/ul]

Oh, but I forgot. There’s a hole in your brain where the concept of decisions by juries, clients, manufacturers and engineers is.

There’s only so many times I can make these points to someone who is not listening. This has been the last time. Feel free to have the last word. I’m out of here.

62

So you say. If its such drivel, then why are you “wasting” your time here?

Actually, dad and I pretty much settled our beefs with one another some time back. Nope, dad offered to pay me because he knew I needed the money (my current job pays shit) and because he would find it demeaning to simply hand me a check periodically for no reason.

Well, thank you for sharing. Ever seen the movie Fight Club? Remember what Tyler Durden says to the police commissoner?

Remember that the next time you think your money makes you better than the rest of us.

I see, so humor is best when its 100% accurate with no exaggeration whatsoever. Mmmm, I don’t think so, and since the OP was written to please me and not you, I don’t think I’ll worry about it failing to meet your definition.

I suggest that you read a copy of How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence (one of the most successful lawyers in America). He repeatedly states that on those rare occasions when he lost a case that he didn’t think that the jury was to blame. No, he blames himself. He also takes credit for his victories in that he made the superior argument.

No, I’ll settle for them exercising a little common sense and having the courage to tell someone wanting to file a frivolous lawsuit to get bent.

Oh yes, I was seriously advocating the murder of all lawyers. Right. :rolleyes:

Uh, no. I grasp all that, what you fail to grasp is that I really don’t give a shit about it in the context of my OP. Were I intent on having a serious discussion about the whole thing (say in a forum like GD or GQ), I would certainly make mention of that. However, this is the Pit and wild ravenings are expected here, not cold discussions of facts.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

63

You’re welcome! And no, so no.

64

Laws and justice very seldom have anything in common.

65

Is that the quote? Because it’s bullshit, of course. If you think justice and law have little in common, try getting the former without the latter.

66

And TUCKER’s continuing to bash my profession naturally doesn’t make me respect him any more. Maybe if he does a few more laps round the yard on the ol’ riding mower, he can come up with a couple more movie references. They’re always so persuasive.

67

:: stands up and applauds ::

Good show, mate! Against this most stupid example of pig-headedness, you fought the hard fight. It’s good to see someone the grace to walk away with dignity.

68

Hate to break it to you, but I don’t work here.

**

So we’re back to you acccepting money to assist your parents. Too bad mowers work poorly at cutting umbicals.

Why don’t you just stop worrying about the evils of counsel, and instead focus your efforts on getting a well paying job? I realize that law, academia and lawn care are out, but there are lots of other careers to be tried. Go on, give it a try.

Don’t just wallow there with your transitory, poor paying job, taking unfounded pot shots at others who have worked hard to do something with their careers.

69

Muffin-

What kind of lawyer are you if your best retort to Tuckerfan’s comments is to ridicule and mock him for taking money from his father for mowing his lawn?

In my opinion, not a very good one.

You might have some good arguments, but they’re lost when you resort to the same kind of name-calling that you’re so critical of him using against you.

70

Anyone else notice that the Dopers who have a legal degree and an engineering were the least angered by my OP? They didn’t feel the need come at me with both barrels, whereas the ones who are lawyers and not engineers seemed to feel that they were on some holy crusade to prove me wrong. I mention this because a few months back I posted a similar screed against software engineers. None of the software engineers on this Board came after me for my OP in that thread, even though there were some incorrect comments in my OP. Nope, they agreed with me that there were some real shit for brains out there, but that it wasn’t necessarily the software engineers who were responsible for the things that were pissing me off so. Needless to say, a fun time was had by all.

Additionally, there’s a clue to who my employer is, in that thread. Key my employer’s name into the search engine and see how many Pit threads it brings up. Should be three of them. You’ll notice that I didn’t post any response to them. What I did do in two of the cases (the third was a problem that I couldn’t help with) was to privately e-mail the person who made the OP and offer to help them with their problem. I did not try to claim that my employer was a good company or anything. I told them that I understood not only their problem, but how it could have happened.

In both cases, the Dopers were happy to hear from me and didn’t lash out at me for being an employee of said company, nor did they broadcast the fact that I was employee on the Boards. Both of us got what we wanted: a happy customer.

71

Jodi there’s the little known but much respected correlary to Godwin’s law:

“anyone quoting/citing the movie Fight Club as a support to their position has relinquished any hope of being taken seriously”.

Come on over here and we’ll toss back a few beers, ok?

72

Tuckerfan, get it through your incredibly thick skull, all the way into your marsupial-sized brain, that the reasons we’re tearing you to pieces are because you:[ul][li]Slandered the legal profession as a whole based on spurious and/or demonstrably false grounds; []Utterly failed to attribute responsibility to any other persons, even though lawyers could not possibly effect any change whatsoever without the willing assistance of clients, juries, judges, legislators, engineers, and consumers; []Consistently evaded any responsibility for your own misstatements, particularly regarding your imbecilic appeal to Shakespeare as authority; Repeatedly attributed opinions and motives to attorneys in general without even bothering to inquire whether those opinions and motives were shared in any way by the attorneys you were addressing.[/ul]None of those items demonstrates that you are capable of anything more than childish, petty, knee-jerk assault on an imaginary boogyman, and you got called on it.[/li]
Hey wring, hand me one of those, will ya?

73

[Homer]MMmmmm . . . beeeeeeeer . . . .[/Homer]

74

::tossing beers to Minty & Jodi ::

75

[sub]I’m still lurking here, I have to admit. Wring, can you toss trans-pacific?[/sub]

76

with the assistance of my Ronko Catapult, anythings possible!

77

A few random thoughts:

  1. I’m glad that Tuckerfan is mowing his father’s lawn so consciensciously. A lot of people would mow the lawn only once - the day before dad got back.

  2. If Tuckerfan is trolling, he’s doing a great job.

  3. For what it’s worth, I’m a lawyer with an engineering degree.

  4. Let’s face reality: Lawyers bear a lot of responsibility for products liability law in the United States right now. It’s true that judge, juries, and clients make the final decisions. But lawyers present facts and arguments to decision-makers and sometimes have a good deal of influence.

  5. As I alluded to before, lawyers deserve some of the credit for the current state of the law. It’s interesting that Tuckerfan mentioned that his father abandoned him and he had to depend on charity. Not so long ago, it was much more common that men would be killed and maimed by unsafe industrial machinery, leaving widows and children to depend on the Church.

  6. Even if you are smart and cautious, you benefit from safety features that result partially from products liability law. Aren’t you glad that the car driven by the idiot who’s tailgating you won’t burst into flames and ignite your car if he should rear-end you? In any event, even smart and cautious people do stupid things on a regular basis.

  7. Annoying labels and safety features are a small price to pay for our greatly enhanced safety. I suppose that Tuckerfan has the right to complain about them, however.

  8. As a lawyer, I won’t take a case if I know the client is lying. But I will take the case even if the client will benefit from a law that I don’t necessarily agree with. The practical reality is that if I only took cases where I agreed with the applicable law 100%, I would either starve or become really good at fooling myself.

  9. It’s sad, but the law is unjust a lot of the time. Economically, it’s just too expensive to fine-tune justice to an infinite degree.

78

CnoteChris, whatever make you think that I have been putting forth arguments? Those who have, have not made a dent in Tuckerfan, so I see no reason to add to those well presented arguments.

I’m simply learning more about Tuckerfan, and presenting my opinion of him, just as he has presented his opinion of my profession and as you have presented your opinion of me. This is the pit, not GD.

79

Ah, a calm, measured response from a lawyer, who also happens to have an engineering degree, I’m not surprised.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all safety features which had been put in place as a result of product liability lawsuits were evil. Indeed, I even said:

Which was a reference to the Ford Pinto.

I also don’t hate lawyers. I immensely respect Gerry Spence and the lawyer who takes the same shop class as I do. I don’t always agree with them on everything, but I respect their opinion.

That being said, I intended this to be light-hearted tirade, some people, however, chose to take it seriously.

What really pissed me off about the mower was the throttle location and the fact that you couldn’t engage the throttle with the brake on. The mower was parked in my dad’s storage building with two narrow ramps for you to get the thing in and out of. I wanted to be able to put the thing in reverse with the brake on, ease it back slowly and be able to make whatever corrections I needed. That wasn’t possible with the way the thing was engineered. I eventually had to get off the thing and push it out by hand, which is dangerous because the yard slopes and its quite possible the damn thing could have gotten away from me and done some damage either to my father’s property or the neighbors. How my dad gets it out of the shed, I’ve no idea.

It just seems inconceivable to me that anyone who calls themselves an engineer could willingly design such a thing. I understand part of the reasoning behind the design, but the combination of the elements and the manner in which they’re put together strike me as being dangerous. Better to have the throttle in an easily accessable place and allow you to have some use of the brake and the throttle at the same time.

I have a passionate love of well-designed machines. I take my user name from the car created by Preston Tucker. A wonderful automobile, chockfull of safety features (most of which were not mentioned in the film), all carefully designed to enhance the driving experience and be totally unnoticed until their needed. So when I come across a machine with safety features that make it more difficult to use the thing for its intended task, my blood boils.

So there ya have it.

80

What I have never understood about these liability cases is the role of the judge. Shouldn’t the judge use a little common sense, and throw out most of the more egegious cases? Andre Tobias, in his book about life insurance, relates the story of a woman employee of the City of new York, who slipped on a tunafish sandwich, that someone had dropped on the floor of the cafeteria. Her lawyer filed suit against:
-the City
-the company managing the cafeteria
-and finally…HELLMAN’S MAYONAISE!
The idiocy of this is staggering! How could a judge (in his right mind) entertain such an absurd case?