Why Do People Hate Lawyers?

Great Debates
101

Is it really that simple? Does it not take a significant amount of time, effort, and training before one is able to “go out and find out”?

**

In each case I am making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions based on what I’ve seen/heard/read. I do realize that if I could safely make these assumptions, we wouldn’t need guys like you. :slight_smile: All of my examples have been chosen exactly because my interperetation has turned out to be wrong.

This leads to fear of ending up on the wrong side of a lawyer, who has the skill and resources to understand the law a lot better than I do. Can’t you see how that breeds fear of and animosity towards the justice system, and its most visible agents - lawyers? (I’m so tempted to quote Yoda here…)

102

Minty, despite being a lawyer I have to chime in on Beelzebubba’s side here to some degree. Most people do in my experience find it pretty difficult to research and find the correct answer to any even moderately difficult question of law.

Of course, if you’ve got reasonable english comprehension skills and the right sort of inquiring mind and enough time and energy, it’s not impossible, but most people that try to be their own lawyer struggle in my experience.

The point to me is: why does that make lawyers bad? A huge proportion of first world society earns a living by selling services or advice. Most people nowadays would struggle to fix their car or computer. But people don’t seem to dislike automotive engineers or computer technicians to the same degree.

The answer a few posters have given for their dislike is: lawyers also make the laws, and they make them more complex so as to give themselves work.

Two points. Firstly, you could invoke the same conspiracy theory against automotive engineers and computer technicians.

Secondly, this suggestion is just that: nothing more than a vacuous conspiracy theory.

Lawyers in private practice benefit to some degree from complex law. There is in my experience very little if any overlap between such lawyers and the lawyers who work in government drafting legislation. The idea that there is some sort of secret brotherhood of lawyers in which the government lawyers (in return for what, exactly?) seek to line the pockets of lawyers in private practice is purest moonshine.

To all the knuckleheads who have posted to this effect I say: cite please?

103

Meh. Maybe. But, you know what really irks me? Bridges. I mean, I want to build a nice suspension bridge, and I know that the math I need is out there, all I have to do is plug the right numbers into the right equations. But these civil engineers go and hide it all in big dusty books, so people like me can’t find it. And you just know that the only reason they do it is so you have to go hire some ivory-tower academic-type civil engineer to help you build your bridge.

And he’d expect me to pay him thousands of dollars, just for doing a few drawings and some math! Maybe talking to a construction crew! How is that fair? I mean, just because he spent 50 grand on his hoity-toity education, that doesn’t mean that he has “special skills” that anyone walking down the street doesn’t have. It’s all some big scheme to keep us regular people in the dark.

104

Princhester- ixnay on mentioning the otherhood-bray, man. We may have to take away your license…

105

Well, I could tell you the truth, but then my fellow attorneys would have to kill me, so…

Yes, it take a significant amount of time, effort and training to learn how to read, er, to research legal questions. :wink:

Sua

106

I was certainly not suggesting that non-lawyers (or even lawyers, for that matter) represent themselves in any actual legal dispute. That is the height of folly.

What I was saying is that there is no rational justification for Beelzebubba’s position that lawyers are disliked because he and his buddies misunderstand the law. One cannot simply read a constitutional amendment or listen to a report on Fox News and reach a conclusion about what the law on any particular subject means, then curse lawyers when it turns out that there’s more to it than the cursory examination might indicate.

107

Although some folks have a bee in their bonnet about lawyers, I am not convinced that the general public hates lawyers. Show me some reliable surveys on the issue. (Why do I sense that I might regret having just said that?)

For those who are pissed off, I can often see why. I’m a litigator, so part of my job is to put pressure on the opposing party to encourage it to settle, or failing that, to beat it up in court. That does not win me any popularity contests with opposing parties, especially if I win. Not many people other than the illustrious Reg Mellor are magnanimous enough to hold charitable sentiments about the ferrets that are chewing on their legs.

My own clients involved in the litigation of family matters sometimes get pissed off at me or the opposing counsel. Essentially they are very upset with their personal lives, and lash out at anything and everything in reach. Interestingly enough, the same ones who are upset with either me or their spouses’ lawyers tend to be the ones who are unrealistic in their expectations, and excessively acrimonious in the conduct of their cases. I still handle a fair number of family matters, though, for despite a few hot heads, most of my family matter clients are tremendously appreciative of my efforts. Helping them get their families’ lives back on track has rewards for me well beyond just my fee, so I tolerate the occasional nut-bar who slips through into the caseload.

Fortunately, such animosity is rare with corporate and commercial litigation, for to those clients I am simply a way of getting them through whatever mess they are in on the most cost effective basis. The bean counter, the computer geek, and the lawyer are just a routine cost of doing business, and good service is usually both well rewarded and genuinely appreciated.

As far as off the job goes, I enjoy the company of people who are interesting, well read, and well spoken, regardless of their occupation, so lawyers often fit the bill simply because such dimensions of their personalities often led them into law in the first place. There are very few jerks in my local legal community. Most are really nice people who are kind and generous, and dedicated to both their clients and to the community at large. I am very glad that I have the opportunity to run with that pack. For those who hate lawyers, it is their own loss, for they are making a hasty generalization that is costing them the opportunity to associate with some really terrific folks.

108

Lawyers make tons of money? Don’t I wish. Up here in Canada we tend to make less than dentists and less than doctors. Paying one’s way through one or two university degrees, and then a law degree, and bar courses, does not make for a pretty financial sight, particularly since all it does is provide one with the opportunity to start out at the bottom rung and work up from there. Like many small businesspersons, some lawyers make a pot-full, some fail entirely, and most simply do their best to make a reasonable living which is above average, but nothing to shout about.

109

{Muffin marches up to the podium, takes a proud stance with arms akimbo, and announces in a Muffinesque tone:
Ta-da-da! You may address me as Muffin, Esq.
{Muffin looks around, endures the deadening silence, and sheepishly backs down from the podium. Oops.}

110

Wow, thanks. You just made my day!

111

In Canada illegally obtained evidence is usually admitted if it is hard evidence going toward a serious crime. The recourse is not to pretend that the evidence does not exist, but rather the recourse is against the police who violated the criminal’s rights.

For example, a fellow in town shot a couple of his compatriot drug dealers just for the hell of it, and then went out and shot an innocent teenager working at a gas bar to make the hat trick. The police had absolutely nothing on this psychopath at all, so they could not get a warrant. They decided to go onto private property and search a truck parked there, and lo and behold found a gym bag with the murder’s clothes and gun in it. The gun had prints, and the ballistics matched up. A conviction followed, and was supported on appeal. The hard evidence combined with the seriousness of the crime outweighed the violation of the criminal’s constitutional rights.

112

That’s the nature of life. As time goes by, people change their opinions as to what is or is not acceptable. For example, can you pinpoint any culture in the world at any time throughout all of history, and say, yes, the law of that culture and time should apply to everyone for all time?

What the legal system as a whole tries to accomplish is a balance between change that refelects the public opinion, and stability so that people know what the rules are. Laws have to be fair but also be predictable. That is often a hard, and sometimes impossible, balance to find. By arguing all sides of an issue, lawyers help judges make such difficult decisions. I think that lawyers perform an extremely valuable service to society in this respect. That some people look only at one side of an issue, and then curse the lawyer on the other side, is a pity because such a reactionary approach fails to recognize the importance of thoroughly investigating and debating a matter before ruling on if or how it should be applied to society in future similar mattters.

113

Sorry to post and run, but this money grubbing sack of barristorial shit has to dribble off to the Stu Bash, where I’ll be spending the evening selling raffle tickets in support of our community’s breast cancer survivor support group.

Top of the season to all you fellow pig-dog, bottom dwelling, scum sucking lawyers.

114

Muffin are you being paid by the post?

Merry Christmas to you all.

115

I’m a lawyer. I keep reading about the bad things that “lawyers” do, and I don’t recognize myself in those bad things. I’m not a plaintiff’s lawyer (I handle civil defense cases, primarily products liability); I’m not in the legislature (and have no desire to be); I think that I’m anal retentive only when appropriately so; and so on. But others appear to believe that, because some lawyers (allegedly) do things that are (allegedly) bad, then I am bad. So why do I feel that I have been prejudged?

A few other observations:

  1. The McDonald’s coffee case: Even though I’m a defense lawyer, I think that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s lawyer in the McDonald’s case have been unfairly treated by the media. In fact, that was a pretty good case: the evidence showed that McDonald’s was heating the coffee to 190 degrees F, whereas home-brewed coffee averages around 143 degrees F (if memory serves me well); further, McDonald’s had received several hundred prior complaints of injury from coffee spills; the woman received second-degree burns to the perineum, and then was essentially ignored by the McDonald’s staff. The $2 million award (reduced to $600,000, I believe) was partly punitive, intended to punish McDonald’s for having ignored other complaints. And remember: It was the jury, not the plaintiff’s lawyer, that awarded the $2 million. Given that 12 people listened to the evidence and rendered a verdict, is it really reasonable to conclude–based on a snippet of a news story–that the lawsuit was frivolous?

  2. One gentlemen discussed his experience being deposed, and another lawyer made some cogent comments regarding the deposition. Let me note that lawyers do not in general go around and conduct depositions merely to entertain themselves or to drive up fees. (I’ll agree that some lawyers conduct depositions to pad fees or abuse others, but they are the exception, and they run considerable risks–of sanctions, of losing clients, etc.) Counsel for one of the parties probably identified Our Esteemed Poster as someone who potentially had knowledge of the facts at issue in the matter. The lawyer for the opposing party then had to cover the bases by finding out what, if anything, Our Esteemed Poster knew of the matter. The attorney who noted (i.e., called for) the deposition couldn’t know in advance that OEP didn’t really know anything about the matter. It may also have been important to show that OEP didn’t know anything.

As for the questions asked by the attorney taking the deposition: at deposition, lawyers will often ask questions about issues that they know about* in order to test the witness’ memory, to determine the witness’ attitude, etc. The questions asked of OEP look pretty benign.

  1. As for observations on how lawyers act in social situations: I’m reminded of an exchange in “The Stranger” (Seattle’s truly alternative weekly newspaper) that began with a letter from a fellow complaining that transvestites always look so tacky and obvious. The next week, someone responded that the original letter writer shouldn’t generalize: he may have observed tacky and obvious transvestites, but he may have failed to observe many other transvestites who were “passing” successfully. Perhaps those who complain about how attorneys act in social situations might consider that their sample is skewed.
  • At trial, a lawyer really shouldn’t ask any witness a question to which the lawyer does not know the answer.
116

I think a lot of people hate lawyers because they fear they can’t get away with bullying and non-compliance with the law as easily. There are a lot of laws that the only real recourse you have when someone violates them is to sue. Some people only do things that the law requires because someone might get a lawyer and sue.