This thread may have died. It originator seems to have surrendered, perhaps not unconditionally. None- the –less, you all are going to get the doubtful benefit of some random and disorganized thoughts.
No one gets angrier about over reaching by lawyers than other lawyers. While the bar may present a united front in public, the extent of mutual criticism within the profession is substantial. Even in my small locale there are several lawyers that hold each other in such contempt that they will speak only in the courtroom and on the record. The major bone of contention is, as might be expected, over charging. Making your opponent reinvent the wheel in every case comes in a close second.
The three pillars of the practice of law have always been greed, stupidity and lust. In it were not for these human failings there would be much less conflict and much less need for lawyers. As long as these conflicts are to be resolve in some sort of state sponsored forum there will be rules and a need for people trained in the operation of the forum, that is, lawyers. You might as well deplore the existence of physicians. As long as there is illness doctors will perform a needed function. Same with lawyers, as long as there is conflict there will be a need. This is not to say that you should be eager to need a lawyer’s services any more than you should be eager to have the services of a doctor, or an undertaker for that matter.
The company of lawyers, on the other hand is usually pleasant. As a class there is no professional group that makes more stimulating and enjoyable company (with the possible exception of the guys who do taxes—that bunch needs to be leavened with a couple of trial guys).
Once engaged, a lawyers first, and some would say only, duty is to the client and to the integrity of the court. This becomes a complicated problem in some criminal cases. The integrity of the system ,however, requires that the defendant receive a full and vigorous defense in all cases, no matter how one sided or ugly the facts may be, or how despised the client. In our system, it is the state’s job to persuade a judge or jury of the defendant’s guilt. In is no part of defense counsel’s duty to make a private determination of guilt and conduct the defense to achieve a consistent out come.
Since this is the Pit, it seems to me that too many people are getting their information from the movies or are informed by their own envy and failure.
DKD, I fear that you are mistaken in your claim that you are a third year law student. I can believe that gazoo studied law. (though the fact that he points out that his law school is accredited suggests probably not at a very good school) You simply have not. Your argumentation is below the level of most high school students. Most of your logical fallacies have been pointed out, so I won’t bother to add to the pile. I will suggest, however, that anyone who thinks they are arguing when they spout the following:
is an idiot. Argument, as any law student (and, frankly, any adult of average intelligence) knows, consists of logically related assertions; random, unanswerable sentence fragments are not assertions.
The next time you are talking to your mates about how you managed to convince people on the internet that you are a law student, please consider that the only reason people responded with the respect they did was that it is considered good form on the boards to take people at their word.
If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies, then proceed to your law school administration, and demand a refund. They have taken your money without providing the services promised.
You’re operating on a false premise there. Regretably, I have to report that “idiot” and “lawyer” are not mutually exclusive. Don’t ask me how they pass the bar. Marilyn Quayle can’t have that much spare time on her hands.
All professions, trades, regulated occupations, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships draw their validity from the government. The government draws its validity from the people. If you do not like what the people vote for, do not take it out on lawyers.
You stated: “There are no good lawyers.” You stated: “Lawyers are scumfucks” You adduced that the moral position lawyers find themselves is due to the immorality of law: “Law is a bad, bad business…” and “You enter the profession and you’ve made your choice. You’re either down with power and all it stands for or you’re down with people.” You posited a question concerning the utility of the law, but due to the forming of the question and the extremely negative statements you made concerning lawyers and the law, this question could only be taken as being rhetorical and being a dismissal of the utility of law: “Every year more legislation is passed than in the previous year (all of it made up nonsense in the high minds of the out of touch) and every year more people enter the profession. Do we really need it all? Can we ever be rid of it? The more it spreads, the more acceptable it becomes to ordinary people, most of whom lack the interest or insight to understand it’s true nature. It’s like a great monkey on the back of society, ever growing and ever tightening it’s grip.” You are directly reversing your initial position by now claiming that you “have never suggested that law is useless,” for what you suggested is that the law is worse than useless.
The increase has been due to legislation. Legislation is made by elected legislators, not lawyers (outside of some elected legislators already being lawyers, just as elected legislators come from many other backgrounds). The elected legislators make laws on behalf of the people who elected them. If the elected legislators do not act in accordance with the people’s wishes, then they will not continue to be elected, and their offensive laws will be removed from the books by their replacements. That is what lies at the heart of responsible government. When there was less representation there was far less legislation. The increase in legislation is directly related to people holding and exercising their franchise. If you do not like responsible government and the way people vote, do not take it out on lawyers.
The three strikes rule was not made by lawyers. It was legislated by representatives of the people. If you do not like the course decided upon by the people, do not take it out on lawyers.
In criminal law there are prosecution attorneys (Crowns) and defence attorneys. Crowns make a middle class wage paid for by the government, and play a vital role in protecting the people from harm to both their persons and their property. For every Crown, there are several defence attorneys. Defence attorneys make a middle class wage, usually paid for by the government, and play a vital role in protecting accuseds from excesses by the government.
The Crown only enforces that which has been legislated, and as we have already covered and we will cover again, the legislation is a result of the desires of the people. If you do not like the laws of the people, do not take it out on Crowns.
Defence attorneys make their cash in protecting accuseds from unduely harsh laws and unfair processes. If you have a problem with defence attorneys fearlessly assisting their clients in standing up against the weight of the state and protecting their liberty, then you have a view which is alien to that supported by the people as expressed through constitutional tradition and existing legislation. If you do not like the balance in the criminal justice system which is insisted upon by the people, do not take it out on defence attorneys.
First, learn to control your vulgarity. It reflects poorly upon you. Your language in your first post was as scurrilous as your accusations were slanderous, and continuing your vulgarity in further posts is pitiful.
Second, you are confusing criminal law with an inequitable distribution of economic and political power. Criminal law does not keep socially disadvantaged people in their places; it helps to protect people of all classes from those of all classes who would otherwise harm them. Inequities in prosecution, conviction and incarceration rates are not a result of lawyers, but rather a result of both legislated power imbalances and societal power imbalances which have not been successfully addressed through legislation. In short, these power imbalances reflect society’s level of desire and level of acceptance, and are not reflective of lawyers. If you do not like society’s power imbalances, do not take it out on lawyers.
You have stated that your “interest is more geared towards legal history.” Then you should be aware of the history of legal activism. In the United States and in Canada lawyers have used their respective constitutional protections to press for less suppression by the governments which have been elected by the majorities. Through such work, power inequities are continually being chopped away by lawyers who are often supported by members of the judiciary against the interests of the empowered majority. Look at your own nation’s lawyer’s work during your period of excessive capital punishment and transportation, during which time the lawyers and the judiciary were the only thing which stood between the underclass and abusive laws enacted by the empowered classes. If you do not like society’s power imbalances, do not take it out on lawyers.
Judicial error rates are a significant problem. Ammunition of the sort which you need but have failed to cite can be found in the Liebman Study. You have totally ignored the function of the criminal balance of proof standard and the criminal rules of evidence, which are heavily weighted in favour of the accused so as to prevent judicial error. If you have an improvement to offer, then become a member of the profession and work toward having your improvement put into effect. If you do not have an improvement to offer, then do not take it out on the lawyers who are on their feet on a daily basis fighting to protect their clients.
Suggesting that defence lawyers do not care if they win or lose is entirely unfounded and demonstrates a tremendous lack of understanding of the nature of the profession. I refer you to my previous post, in which I stated my concern over youngsters in law school “knocking on the outside of a building, imagining what is going on inside, and then drawing hasty conclusions.” I do not know your age, but you certainly appear to fit the problem. Please advise me if you are not a youngster with little or no legal experience in the criminal defence field, and if you are such an inexperienced youngster, then please provide proof of your claim that defence lawyers do not care if they win or lose.
Stating that defence lawyers “rub their hands together at the thought of an appeal” again demonstrates your lack of experience in criminal defence work. Most appeals are undertaken by appellate defence lawyers, not trial defence lawyers.
First, although both criminal defence lawyers, the first instance trial lawyer will have a significantly different skill set from the appellate lawyer, so more often than not, the first instance trial lawyer will hand off an appeal to an appellate lawyer who has greater specialized experience in appellate work.
Second, if the trial lawyer did not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of the client, then the client will chose a different lawyer for the appeal.
Third, appellate work usually pays poorly when compared to trial work. The level of preparation required for most criminal appeals far exceeds that usually required at the trial of first instance, but private funds more often that not have evaporated by then, and public funds are tightly controlled. Aside from the relatively rare rich criminal client, most criminal clients are down and out, as you have noted, so the key to financial survival by a criminal lawyer is in volume at the trial level, rather than far more labour intensive appeal work without a dedicated appeal practice.
Fourth, appeals are relatively few when compared to the number of first instance trials, so any trial lawyer (as opposed to an appellate lawyer) depending on appeal work would be a fool.
Fifth, due to the amount of preparation an appeal takes, appellate work performed by a trial lawyer will significantly reduce the time the available to other clients. This can harm the lawyer’s practice, for most clients are either return clients who over the years will stay with the lawyer who is available rather than with one who is only occasionally available, or are referrals from people they know on the street or in the cells, who would only refer lawyers whom they know, the odds of which would decrease as more appellate work is undertaken.
You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the practice of criminal law. Do not take out your own ignorance on criminal lawyers.
What about it? It is aggressively prosecuted. The degree to which greater resources are directed to violent crime is a function of the desire of the people as legislated through their representatives. If you have a problem with the way which the elected government apportions resources between white collar and violent crime, or between crime against corporations and crime against individuals, do not take it out on Crowns.
What about them? If you think that the only virtuous lawyer is a poor lawyer, as you have implied, then you are sorely mistaken, and should obtain some experience before making such derogatory accusations.
Are you suggesting something immoral about successful business persons who build financially rewarding legal practices? Are you suggesting that there is something immoral with more experienced lawyers being able to justify higher fees? Higher fees are willingly paid for superior service. If the legal profession is to attract top performers, then remuneration for lawyers must be competitive when compared against remuneration in other professions and industry in general. Do not expect lawyers to not only take on massive educational debt, but then also sacrifice remuneration equitable to their level of ability when compared to other professionals and business persons. Such an expectation on your part is exceeding naive.
The simple fact of the matter is that clients who can not afford expensive lawyers chose less expensive lawyers, which creates opportunities for youngsters to be hired on at successful firms and learn the ropes from highly accomplished senior counsel, and which creates opportunities for these same youngsters to head off and establish their own firms once they have obtained enough experience. This is what ensures that the legal system offers affordable and competent lawyers. It is also a simple fact that not every client can have a very senior lawyer. There is no way around this, by virtue of less experienced lawyers having to take years to develop into senior lawyers. If you have a problem with the majority of competent but less experienced lawyers offering their services at significantly lower rates than the minority of senior lawyers, then come up with something practicable and more egalitarian rather than tilt at windmills.
What about them? That is an issue of power imbalances between nations, and between corporations. It is not some legal conspiracy, and is not directed by lawyers. The world is a harsh place. If you do not like what nations or corporations are doing to entire peoples, or if you do not like the laws which elected representatives have passed, do not take it out on lawyers.
What about it? The United States is an oddity in the first world common law nations in that it still supports a death penalty. All these nations have extremely similar legal systems, and all lawyers in these nations go through similar training, and all lawyers in these nations function in similar capacities, so the death penalty can not be attributed to them. Quite simply, the United States has a death penalty because it is what Americans as a people want. If you are opposed to the death penalty, do not take it out on lawyers.
What about him? His degree was in economics, not law. He was an oil man and a politician, not a lawyer. If you are upset with George Bush, do not take it out on lawyers. If you are upset with the people electing George Bush, do not take it out on lawyers.
Perhaps you have confused George Bush with his son. George Bush Jr. obtained a B.A. and an M.B.A., not a law degree. He was a business man and a politician, not a lawyer. If you are upset with George Bush Jr., do not take it out on lawyers. If you are upset with the people electing George Bush Jr., do not take it out on lawyers.
Your lack of knowledge of the subject on which you declaim is disturbing. Not only do you not draw a rational connection between your facts and your conclusions, but you are profoundly in error concerning your basic facts. That your “interest is more geared towards legal history” makes it all the more astounding that you lack basic knowledge of the historical figure on which you speak with such exclamation. Do not take your own profound ignorance of basic historical facts out on lawyers.
You have confused right and wrong with legal and illegal. Comprehension of right and wrong in no way requires a legal education. All that is required is a general attention to the society in which one is raised and daily prudence.
An understanding of what is legal and illegal often requires extensive education and experience because any given issue may require significant inspection to which a non-specialist would not have the time or background to give the necessary attention. So as to provide social and economic stability, and offer a measure of legal predictability, a body of law must exist. Time and effort must be devoted to learning that body of law. This is particularly necessary if lawyers are to be able to protect minorities against majorities, for if all law depended only on local and immediate perceptions of right and wrong, then there would be no protection against majority tyranny. In other words, extensive legal education is necessary to protect against mob rule. For someone who’s “interest is more geared towards legal history,” your avoidance of the role lawyers play in preventing mob rule shows a shallow understanding of legal history.
Extensive education is necessarily expensive. If you have a problem with the expense of a legal education making it elitist, look to the government’s social and educational policies, and do not blame it on lawyers.
On a related note, refer back to my previous post in which I recommended that a greater proportion of mature students at law school would help provide a necessary “…sense of direction and a sense of proportion…” What you perceive as a barrier to impoverished youth from entering law school is what I perceive as an opportunity for youth to get out into the world, obtain some experience, and come back to university as adults. These intervening years provide an opportunity to make wise life decisions leading to the financial ability to return to school for a few years. That many youngsters ride their parent’s pocketbooks through the university system including law school is iniquitous, but again if you have a problem with the education system, do not blame it on lawyers.
If you wish to have a serious discussion, try to limit your focus to a particular issue. “Lawyers are scumfucks” is far to broad to be defensible. Be precise in your statements rather than make sweeping generalizations such as “There are no good lawyers.” Work within your experience base, rather than speak on a profession of which you have only an extremely limited knowledge. Get your facts down correctly, for arguments built on erroneous facts are invalid, and make it hard to take you seriously, regardless of whether what you say may be true or not. While you are at it, clean up you language if you expect to be taken as anything other than an immature lout, for again this detracts from focussing on your facts and arguments.
Most importantly, try to form logical connections between your facts and your conclusions, rather than identify things which you do not like and then attribute them to lawyers without establishing any rational connection. Unfortunately, although you are obviously well meaning and display a social conscience, your arguments for the most part are non sequitur. Your posts lack intellectual rigour. If you develop the ability to produce solid arguments, you will be taken much more seriously by the lawyers who have responded to your posts, whether they agree with you or not. Remember that one task of a good lawyer is to be able to objectively analyse all positions. If you develop the ability to put forth a rigorous argument built on established facts, then your position will be seriously considered by the lawyers in this thread, regardless of their initial positions. Until you develop the ability to put forth a rigorous argument based on established facts, you will continue to be afforded the consideration which you are due, which in your case is rather limited and even negative.
On a broader scale, try to remember that both law and government are practical beasts. If you tear either down, you must necessarily be willing to propose something both superior and practicable. Simply pointing out matters of concern without providing solutions is no more than immature ranting, and does a great disservice to the many fine, dedicated lawyers who have devoted their lives to making both a better profession and a better world. Try to be constructive in your criticism, rather than just whinge. If you take a mature and thoughtful approach to investigating issues and putting forth solutions, you might learn that most of the lawyers on this board share your desire to improve the lot of common folk, and would be more than happy to provide insights from their own experiences, including their work in poverty law, human rights, and governmental policy making, rather than chop you off at the knees.
Good luck with your exams. I hope you succeed in whatever career you chose. Try not to be bitter, for in your frustration you will miss many opportunities to make the world a better place. Although it is your choice to lash out in a snit, try not to make a habit of it, for if you let such an attitude affect your life decisions, you will find yourself wasting both your talents and your training, which would be a great pity given the position, society, and time into which you were so fortunate to be born.
To Muffin’s impressive list of the difference between trial and appellate work, let me add two observations, one of which is really just a refinement of one already on the list.
One of the more common claims made on appeal is “ineffective assistance of counsel.” It’s a rare case indeed in which an attorney is able to argue his own ineffectiveness on appeal; a different lawyer is almost always needed.
More fundamentally, the jobs of trial and appellate counsel are very different. The trial lawyer seeks to persuade the fact-finder of certain facts - presenting and arguing the evidence as persuasively as he can to urge a finding of fact that favors his client. The appeals lawyer does not argue fact. The decisions of fact at trial are binding on the apellate court (assuming they have support in the record). The appellate lawyer, then, is much more of a legal “purist.” He has a set of agreed-upon facts in front of him; he must argue that those facts compel a different conclusion of law than was reached below.
Limited response to OP and Jodi’s initial (I believe) response. Spent a brief period representing a couple of S&Ls doing collections, foreclosures, and bankruptcy. How depressing. To this day I believe the worst view one could get of the legal practice is stopping by bankruptcy court. Not because it is routinely done in an unfair or incompetent manner, but simply because it is a very closed “club” between the lawyers on both sides, the judges, and the trustees. Very impenetrable to an outsider, and the participants familiarity with each other and the subject matter gives the appearance of underhanded dealing. The learning curve is a bit steep. (Oh yeah - both S&Ls were taken over by the feds, and the firm fired my supervising partner after he lost his two biggest clients.)
In response to ignatzmouse’s recommendation c/o a refund, on occasion when I receive a particularly illiterate and incompetent pleading from opposing counsel, I have been tempted to look up the attorney’s alma mater in M-H and send them a copy, chastising them for foisting such incompetence upon the legal profession and society as a whole. Have never followed through on that, tho.
(Better stop now before I get on my soapbox about how poorly law schools train their students for the actual practice of law.)
why do the posters waste their time? Well, on this board, we are dedicated to fighting ignorance, and you are exhibiting it in spades;
Did anyone note the funny? DKD is so weak in his convictions that he plans to enter the legal profession even though he thinks it is evil, but he is firmy committed to continuing this ludicrous battle on this board.
On the plus side, if people like DKD continue to become lawyers, it means that my children and my children’s children will have the opportunity to start Pit threads entitled “Why lawyers piss me off” for years to come.
DKD, you’re provoking too many memories of “successful” law students who mistook the act of falling in love with their own vocabularies with actually learning. In your postings you exemplify lawyers’ worst traits: delusional narcissism, grandiosity and self-righteousness, all utterly unleavened by any genuine understanding of law, politics, philosophy or history. That you apparently lack even the least capacity to acknowledge ignorance or error means that you represent a grave threat to any person who employs you, whether as a lawyer, a file clerk or a bricklayer.
I hope that eventually you will prove me, Minty, Jodi, Sua, Muffin and the rest of us wrong, and that in the process you don’t hurt too many people.