Yes, and in my family when I was a kid, I was to never drink milk straight from the refrigerator and put the container back empty. So of course, I never did.
The ethical constraints in state bar codes are a joke. They have little to no bearing on how attorneys act, short of maybe preventing the actual theft of IOLTA funds every once in awhile (and I unfortunately see the disbarrment and suspension notices every month that show that even that happens enough). Citing to a code does not provide an answer to the fundamental honesty and integrity of attorneys in general.
In my experience, attorneys are no more or less dishonest than any other profession, than the baker who unloads some two day old donuts on you at full price, than the car mechanic who tacks an extra hour’s labor on the bill, than the babysitter who pokes through your dresser when you are gone, than the blue collar road repair workers who seemed to need to take breaks every 20 minutes and leave equipment on site to rust at taxpayer expense.
As I said before, the difference is the amount attorneys rake in generally, the amount they can gain by these small “deviations” from ethics (selling the day old donuts as fresh might net the baker $1.00, billing an extra hour for “research” might net the firm $300), and the commoner’s hatred for those who make more off of their greed than they do. 95% of humanity is base, coarse, and looking to drink, screw, and rake as much cash as it can while doing as little as it can. Some professions just do it a little better than others.
Have you ever lied to anyone in the course of performing your duties as an attorney? I find it interesting that you, like Spavined Gelding are very specific about the people you don’t lie to. Why don’t you just say you’ve never found it necessary to lie to anyone in the course of performing your duties as a lawyer, if such is so?
I disagree. I made a comment to the OP intended to convey that scrupulous honesty would be a deterrent to a law career. I didn’t speak to you personally. Further, I’m sure there are certain lawyers whose practice doesn’t require them to lie or misrepresent anything. I’m thinking of attorneys who handle paperwork for wealthy individuals, showbiz types, etc. But the odds of the OP winding up in this type of practice is roughly the same as winning a lottery compared with the total number of attorneys doing other types of work.
Well, at least you’re right in that they only seem contradictory. While I’ve not had run-ins with any lawyers myself, I have known more than a few people who have. I’ve also seen hundreds on television, and I’ve had several courtroom experiences where I was either a witness or I was accompanying a relative who had a matter before the court.
No, it was not a cheap shot nor was it gratuitous. It was not intended to be a smart-ass crack at attorneys. It was, like I said to KSO, a sincere warning to the OP that scrupulous honesty would more than likely preclude a career as an attorney.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying “Yeah, we lie sometimes, but it’s necessary given the nature of how law is practiced, and it’s for your own good anyway, so shut up about it, you ingrate!”
I will elaborate further but I have to step away from the computer for now.
What specifically about the profession makes it so inherently dishonest? Do you think it attracts dishonest people or do you think it makes people dishonest?
Are there any other professions you think are inherently dishonest? Advertising? Public relations? Plumbing?
You mention two democratic politicians who are also lawyers. Have you ever voted against a Republican because s/he was a laywer? If not, why not?
Here’s a super-duper little cite for ya. Note that not only was the behavior of Westerfield’s lawyers reprehensible as they knew he was guilty, it was dishonest in that they continued to try to deflect blame onto the innocent parents of a little girl who had been abducted and murdered. Never mind their grief and loss, just try to pin the blame on them anyway in order to try to get your despicable client off the hook…because, you know, that’s the way it works.
Then note that California’s defense lawyers have come rushing to the defense of these low-lifes, saying pretty much the same thing Spavined Gelding did, i.e. we just don’t understand the law. Well, whether it’s the law or not, and whether it’s a necessary part of the best system possible, it’s still dishonest and it’s still lying, and I would not be willing to do it. Of course, not all instances of lawyer lying are as egregious as this, but it illustrates the point.
It requires dishonesty of the vast majority of those who practice it.
Well, automobile and insurance sales come to mind…and as a body shop owner told me one time when I was singing the praises of a certain automobile sales manager I thought highly of, "I know you like him, but it’s a fact of life that if you sell cars a certain amount of dishonesty is built in. It’s the only was to compete because everyone else is dishonest, and the only way to stay in business is to play the game the same way everyone else is.
Nope. And I doubt that I would. But then again I can’t imagine a Republican president saying something like “I didn’t have sex with her, she had sex with me” or “It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.” This kind of comment is another example of lawyerly dishonesty. It’s like denying that you’re having sex with someone, because at the moment you were asked, you weren’t. It exactly this kind of dissembling that I’m talking about when I say lawyers are dishonest.
Something not mentioned above: you should pursue any opportunities possible to work with lawyers. Think about getting a job, over the summer or part-time in a private firm if you think you may be interested in private practice.
Had I done that, I probably would have altogether skipped working in a private firm. It was not my cup of tea, and many of my classmates came to a similar conclusion.
Oh, :rolleyes: I’m not even an American, but I have to ask you if you ever heard of Richard Nixon, Republican President, who did and said all sorts of things?
First time I can recall rolling my eyes at anyone on this message board. But really, over-generalize much?
I should probably add for the sake of Spavined Gelding and any others trying to fight the good fight the way they have to fight it, that I am aware that lawyers are necessary and that to a certain degree they way they practice is built in. What I am saying, in the main, is that if it bothers you to have to be dishonest, you will probably not be successful as an attorney.
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was being asked if I would vote for a president who had been out of office for thirty years and who never, regardless of what you may think of him, said anything so stupid as “I didn’t have sex with her, she had sex with me.”
Nope, silly me…I thought I was speaking of current Republican politicians. My bad!
:rolleyes: Your own self!
When you say this, are you considering withholding or refusal to divulge information as equivalent to a “lie”? Because here I would say you’ve gone too far. I cannot think of anything, other than greed, that requires an attorney to lie.
…was (from all accounts I’ve read) a very successful lawyer in NYC. He represented many p[eople, from all walks of life. He was also a lying, unprincipled scoundrel, who viewed his leagl practice as a means to an end.
Was Mr. Cohn an anomalie? Or was he typical of a certain type of lawyer?
Anyway, for those of you interested, Nicholas Von Hoffman discusses Mr. Cohn’s conception of legal ethics in his biography (“CITIZEN COHN”). You might find it an interesting read.
How so? Really, go ahead and cite a couple examples of appaling statements by a few lawyers, but that anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove that it is “required” of the “vast majority” of laywers.
So dishonesty from a Democrat laywer-president is an example of how all laywers (and democrats?) are liars, but an example from a Republican lawyer-president doesn’t count because it’s past your arbitrary statute of limitations?
Really now, I’d like to keep this civil, but you since you say that the “vast majority” of laywers are dishonest, but then you say you’ll vote for a republican laywer anyway, I don’t see how this is anything other than mudslinging or intellectual dishonesty.