Why Do People Hate Lawyers?

Great Debates
61

First, disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. I have an extremely limited understanding of the law. I’m also not trying to be confrontational or snippy at those in this thread who are part of this particular profession. I am using a few examples that I and my circle of friends find most dislikable about the law, and where lawyers fit into that.

I (and the people I tend to associate with) dislike lawyers in general because of my impression that they twist the language and law to suit whatever the immediate goal is.

Because the second ammendment which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” can be legally ruled not to confer or support an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Because the fourth ammendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Yet, as long as the search is either random or done to everyone, then some how it’s legal (Think roadblock. Think TIPS).

Because Florida law states “If the county returns received by the department by 5 PM on the 7th day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored” Yet recounts can continue.

Because New Jersey law states you can’t make changes to the ballot less than 51 days before the election. Yet changes can be made.

Because it can become necessary to inquire about the definition of the word “is” in a given context.

One can never be sure where one stands with regard to the law because the law can be changed right out from under you, or be ruled that it does not say what it says. Lawyers make the arguments and judges (former lawyers, as I understand it) make the rulings.

62

Selective quoting. You missed the introductory clause–states and militias, remember?

As a general proposition, this is patently false.

Huh?

Patently false. The New Jersey election code is 100% silent on making changes to the ballot less than 51 days before the election.

So, you hate lawyers because the English language employs both past and present tense? Sorry, can’t help you there.

Examples, please?

63

minty- remember, if the ruling goes against the way you believe, then it’s the fault of the sleazy lawyers.

If the ruling goes the way you believe, then justice was done.

64

But of course.

65

It is selective quoting. I’m concerned with the part that says “the people”, so I suppose I could have left out most of what I quoted. According to most of the accepted interperetations of the second ammendment, “the people” must mean something like “selected government officials” rather than “the collection of individuals who are the citizens of the United States of America.” Were it to be limited to those groups mentioned, I would have assumed there would be some more explicit modifier, such as “these people”. One wonders if “the people” referred to in the fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are the same people, or to what specific groups of “the people” these amendments appy.

Which part? From here:

Withdrawn. Upon further review, I find that I don’t know as much about this case as I thought.

Then what is the “New Jersey R.S. 19:13-20” that was so frequently quoted?

A: I don’t hate lawyers. I do in general dislike the fact that the law is too complex for the average person to understand. I do in general dislike lawyers, and yes it is a knee-jerk reaction born of fear that I don’t understand the law well enough to defend myself should I ever run afoul of one. Sorry.
B: I thought the word “is” pretty much embodies the present tense.

66

It’s not really another issue. Then, you have to get into why the sanctions are too rarely applied, and that almost inevitably gets you into saying that lawyers look out for each other’s personal interests at the expense of the rest of us. That ties in neatly to views of lawyers’ unique ability to enrich themselves at our expense without our having an ability to opt out of the system. Those attitudes aren’t necessarily fair, but the refusal of the legal community to police itself adequately is part of the problem, not an incidental.

67

You got that right.

Everything else. In fact, roadblock checkpoints are only legal for purposes of checking for drunk drivers. The Supreme Court recently ruled that they are illegal for other purposes.

The statute that establishes procedures for party nominees up until 51 days before the election. As I said, the statute is 100% silent about whether or how to change names on a ballot less than 51 days out.

Yes, as did President Clinton. He was asked whether there “is” a relationship between him and Monica. He said no, which was a truthful response–the relationship no longer existed.

68

Well, actually you can “opt out” of the system, if by “the system” you mean the process of hiring a lawyer to represent you. Nobody says you have to do so. You can certainly educate yourself and represent yourself in almost any legal proceeding.

If by “the system” you mean opting out of the entire legal system, you can actually do that as well. You can always resort to alternative dispute resolution methods and never involve courts or lawyers or anyone else.

I think a great many people who hate lawyers do it because it’s simply convenient or easy to do so, without any particular justifiable reason. It’s easier for people to say “let’s blame the lawyers” instead of recognizing that most of the things people hate lawyers for are, in fact, problems caused the greed and bad motives of society itself.

Take that ridiculous case where the woman sued McDonalds a couple years ago when she spilled her hot coffee in her lap. If you don’t like lawyers winning huge awards, then don’t sue McDonalds for millions of dollars when you dump your hot coffee in your lap. Most of the complaining I heard about when that case was in the news was more critical of the lady’s lawyer than the lady herself. It’s more convenient. It’s easier.

Then again, as a previous poster said, it could just be that people hate lawyers because they’re jealous.

Yours,
Realhoops, Esq. (Disclaimer: I don’t actually use “Esq.”… that’s just for the amusement of Dinsdale)

69

Actually, that’s a bit of an overstatement on my part. I don’t know the precise details, but suffice it to say that they are generally illegal.

70

As a practical matter, no, you cannot opt out of the system. Anybody can sue you for anything and force you to pay a lawyer to clear it up.

The woman who sued McDonalds’ couldn’t have done so if there hadn’t been a lawyer willing to take such a “ridiculous case” (as you called it), in the clear expectation of at least gaining a nuisance settlement and making some money himself. Even if the case had been thrown out, Mickey’s would still have been out the cost of their own representation. That makes it another example of lawyers helping each other make a living.

Your witness, counselor.

71

Or, as I said before, you could educate yourself and not pay a lawyer and clear it up yourself. You are not required to have a lawyer, either to sue or to be sued.

Again, the woman who sued McDonalds most assuredly could have done so if there hadn’t been a lawyer willing to take such a ridiculous case. As I said before, she could have sued without a lawyer.

I would say it’s equally valid to say there wouldn’t be any lawyers out for making tons of money if there weren’t greedy people willing to pursue such cases. It’s as valid a point as saying people wouldn’t sue if there weren’t lawyers willing to take the case. Perhaps more so because people can pursue these cases regardless of the lawyers, but lawyers can’t make the “complained about” money without the greedy clients in the first place.

72

Now you’re selectively quoting. Have you no thoughts on the rest of my concerns re: “the people”?

Does that ruling stop them from ruling tomorrow that roadblocks are legal for the purposes of checking for drunk drivers AND drug paraphernalia, but are illegal for other purposes, tomorrow?

I am not ready to concede this point, but don’t have the time to research it at the moment. I’ll come back to this later.

Right, but the point was that he had to ask the grand jury to define the word. It’s quite frightening to think that I might be construed to be saying something other than what I intend due to quibbling over such a frequently used word.

73

Realhoops, I did make a point of italicizing the word practical. It is not reasonable, in the real world outside of law school with which you may be unfamiliar, to suppose that there would have been such a suit if there had been no lawyer willing to file it, or that there would be nearly as many frivolous suits in general if there were no lawyers willing to engage in them.

There is certainly a problem with excessive lititigiousness in US society, but to brush off the lawyers’ role as being innocent servants of it instead of major contributors to it is just silly.

74

I understood that you italicized the word “practical.” But you also then said that “Anybody can sue you for anything and force you to pay a lawyer to clear it up.” That comment has nothing to do with the practicalities of the matter. The reality is that if you get sued, you can represent yourself. If you want to debate the practicalities of doing so, such as whether you are likely to succeed doing so, whether the court will cut you slack for being less familiar with the procedures and rules, etc., fine. Otherwise to say it is impossible to opt out as a “practical” matter and then say you are “forced” to hire a lawyer without giving any reason why you are forced to do so is, to me, unpersuasive. JMHO.

For the record, I am quite familiar with the “real world” outside of law school, and since I don’t really know you at all I will assume that you did not intend anything offensive by that comment.

Finally, I think we can find some common ground concerning the litigousness of our society. I agree you can’t just brush off the role of some lawyers in contributing to this problem. I also hope, however, that you’d agree that it is equally unfair to brush off the role of those individuals who are greedy and seek out lawyers willing to take the case.

75

I don’t hate lawyers, but despise the system they created. A list frivilous & illogical settlements that could overfill a thread could be compiled in a matter of minutes. Hopefully, tort laws will be overhauled & reformed on both the state & national level.

76

Sure, but they’re not really germane to this thread. Try this one instead. All you’re really complaining about there is that other people have different interpretations of the text than you do. :shrug:

Huh?

You can start with my explanations here and here.

He did no such thing.

You won’t be. Neither was Clinton. Jones’ lawyer merely asked a stupid question, received a truthful response, then Ken Starr later asked why he didn’t volunteer that there “was” a relationship.

77

Realhoops, congratulations on acknowledging an argument on only the second try. You bring to mind another reason why lawyers get less respect than they otherwise might, particularly on the GD board - their “debating” tactics. An example is your hammering on the theoretical possibility of representing oneself in court as a counter to the claim that, in the real world, it is not often enough a possibility to be practical.

I’m glad you finally agree that lawyers themselves at least contribute to excessive litigiousness and its associated costs, to the innocent and winners as well as to the guilty and the losers. But I’m ready to assert that they contribute to excessive disputativeness as well - and you’re an example.

78

Well, I’ve read through this entire thread. I’m a law student so while I’m studying to become a lawyer, people are practicing at hating me. :slight_smile:

Before I get to some of the comments in this thread, I’d like to answer the general question in the OP. First of all, searching through this thread, I’m truly amazed that the word “ethic” has come up only 3 times and the word “moral” has never shown up until now. Why is that? I think they go to the very heart of the matter here.

We discussed this very question last year in lawyering, and one of the opinions that we came to is that the profession of lawyers is unlike almost everything else out there in one regard: a lawyer must often times put aside any moral qualms to better serve the client. Your opinion does not matter. What you believe to be right or wrong does not matter. You are there to serve your clients and so you must give up a part of yourself and adopt their outlook in order to do so.

If you are a public defender, you are a public defender whether you are representing a man framed for a crime or a baby rapist. Your job is not to say “baby raping is wrong” it is to zealously defend your client to insure that EVERYONE has the opportunity for a fair trial.
I applaud the work of Timothy McVeigh’s lawyers and I’m sorry that one of his original attorneys had to stop working on the case due to repeated death threats against him. Why? He was just doing his job.
DAs also do their job and they continue to uphold laws the public might see as bad. Kansas’s Romeo and Juliet laws come to mind. It doesn’t matter what the public thinks. The law is the law and it must be upheld until it is changed.
How can the DA uphold a law he might find to be distasteful? It’s
his job. How can a DA sacrifice his moral stance to do it? It’s his job.

This is what people don’t understand. This is what they have such a hard time wrapping their minds around. Pulling yourself away from what you personally believe to be right is such a foreign concept to most people, it’s really no wonder they don’t understand lawyers.

People feel lawyers are unethical and immoral and that’s why they hate them. What they fail to see is a society where lawyers didn’t do that, where lawyers served themselves and not their clients. It would be a different world but not, IMO, a better one.

I’ll respond to a few comments in this thread in the next post.

79

  1. Um, isn’t it the system that you, as a voter, created? Take some responsibility for your own culpability, man.

  2. You probably could create such a list. But a list of proper lawsuits and logical settlements would crash this server and by compiled more quickly.
    The cases of which you complain represent a tiny percentage of all cases in this country. There is a legitimate debate over at which point, in terms of percentages, those types of cases demonstrate a problem with the system. What is not legitimate, in a country of 270 million people, with millions of lawsuits filed each year, is pointing to a hundred (or even a thousand cases) and pretending that those are a representative sample or even have any meaning without context.

Sua

80

This was answered in part by sua, but I want to elaborate a bit.
7.3 of Kansas’s rules of Professional Responsibilty says, in part:
a) a lawyer shall not by in-person or live telephone contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship when a significant motive or the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain.

I’d be willing to bet all the states have a rule similar to, if not exactly like, that one. Lawyers are bound by a clear set of rules that guide them to keep a higher standard. Often times, these rules are burdening, especially when questions of a potential conflict of interest arises. But they’re ultimately there to protect.
How often are they followed? How often are lawyers punished for breaking them? I couldn’t tell you that. But the rules are there anyway.

Politicians serve one basic purpose: working to better meet the needs of their constituents through the passage of laws. The problem is that the drafting of a law is very complex and very time consuming. All with good reason.
Imagine a group of parents coming to you, the Legislator, and saying they can no longer enjoy the park because those young hooligans with their bikes and skateboards rip through it and disrupt the peace. So you get together with other Legislators and enact a law: No vehicles in the park.
Simple right? No complex language. No lawyerly sounding words. No clauses or subclauses or anything. Just no vehicles in the park.

What’s a vehicle? Is a stroller a vehicle? Is a remote controlled airplane a vehicle? Is a wheelchair a vehicle? Will that interfere with any rules laid down by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
What is the park? Is the sidewalk surrounding the park the park? Is the parking lot for the park the park? If so, are cars vehicles to? Must we now barricade the parking lot?

The drafting of laws is complex and it takes an intuitive mind to write a law that’s narrow enough to get the job done but broad enough to cover possible future legal issues. A lawyer is trained to think like that. There’s absolutely no reason why a non lawyer cannot do the job of a politician, but lawyers are naturally trained to think of the law in a way that paralels nicely with the way a politician must think of the law.
I’m enjoying the conversations about the 4th amendment this thread has partially sidetracked into and look forward to future responses.