ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Hence the lawyer hate

Susan Walsh asked me about why I despise lawyers:
Care to explain? I actually know a ton of married couples where both are lawyers, the dynamic is positive, the kids are high achieving, everyone seems to have good values. Lawyers marry and have families, and most of them do corporate law. Why the hate?
Lawyers are among the most useless, parasitical, and unethical scum on the planet.  They are a shameless guild in the medieval sense that uses the government to erect artificial barriers to competition, they are fundamentally and intrinsically dishonest about what they do and for whom they work.  Talk to a lawyer sometime about what "the law" truly is... and if you can catch one being honest for a change, he'll tell you "whatever a judge declares it to be".

Nota bene: if one doesn't know the difference between written law and case law, and understand how the latter trumps the former, it's not even possible to have an informed opinion on the issue.

No one who works in an industry based on “billable hours” and charges fees based on the time they’ve supposedly put in rather than concrete results delivered can claim to be even remotely honest. One thing I’ve noticed in my dealings with lawyers in five countries is that if you make the mistake of trying to hire a reputable, top-notch lawyer to actually do something, the first thing he usually tries to do is hire another lawyer to do the actual work for him.

Now, the domesticated form of lawyer, the in-house counsel, can be all right, mostly because they can’t pull all the usual stunts since they’re on salary… even though they try to hire outside counsel every time they’re not kept on a tight leash.

Finally, lawyers are the larval form of politicians.


Labels:

169 Comments:

Anonymous robh October 04, 2012 12:07 PM  

If lawyers are the larvae, then what are the eggs? or does the analogy break down at that point?

Or maybe lawyers are the eggs and politicians are larvae. That would fit with politicians being maggots.

Blogger Nate October 04, 2012 12:11 PM  

Lawyers exist to disrupt. They are here to screw things up. The more of them there are... the worse things get screwed up.

Kill them all.

Anonymous Azimus October 04, 2012 12:12 PM  

robh October 04, 2012 12:07 PM If lawyers are the larvae, then what are the eggs?

Poli Sci majors.

Anonymous TheExpat October 04, 2012 12:16 PM  

robh October 04, 2012 12:07 PM If lawyers are the larvae, then what are the eggs?

Poli Sci majors.


Which must make debate team members and Boys/Girls State participants the twinkles in the vermin's eyes.

Blogger Joshua_D October 04, 2012 12:22 PM  

You must strike at the root of the tree.

Blogger Joshua_D October 04, 2012 12:23 PM  

Oh, and ... But, NOT ALL LAWYERS ARE LIKE THAT!

Anonymous Feh October 04, 2012 12:28 PM  

Add my name to the "let's kill them all" list...

Blogger CJ October 04, 2012 12:30 PM  

"the in-house counsel, can be all right"

Thanks, Vox. I love the smell of faint praise in the afternoon. For the record, we try like hell to avoid hiring outside counsel. They are very rarely any better than we are except on some truly obscure, boutique issues.

Anonymous kh123 October 04, 2012 12:31 PM  

The dad always said: If you ever need evidence of how corrupt our legal system is, just thumb through the phone book's yellow pages: Lawyers outnumber any other profession - including medical - upwards of 3 to 1 or more.

Blogger ajw308 October 04, 2012 12:31 PM  

The eggs are the law schools from whence they crawl.

Look in the yellow pages, occasionally the escort section will be thicker than the lawyer section, but only rarely. The media portrays lawyering as a high dollar glamorous job. The reality is the big dollar customers are limited and the existing law firms have that market sewn up tight and don't let in competition.

Down the block I have a lawyer couple who live next to a friend of my wife. They share a duplex and my wife's friend doesn't share stories of a happy or successful couple.

Long time ago I had a lawyer on my hockey team. Since I do some engineering work on the side, product design, product development I figure there's little legal liability (I've also done some aircraft certification work but since the FAA approved my reports and signed off on them I figure I'm safe there also) but the lawyer tried to get me to pay him to set me up as a corporation. As annoying as friends are who sell Amway, at least they are trying to sell you something you need.

Blogger ajw308 October 04, 2012 12:32 PM  

kh123, in Anchorage, the escort section is thicker than the lawyer section. But that's very rare.

Anonymous Stingray October 04, 2012 12:33 PM  

lawyers are the larval form of politicians.

Anyone in the bumper sticker business?

Anonymous Anonymous October 04, 2012 12:35 PM  

Women don't care how men earn money, just that they earn it. Are all those mob bosses not super sexy.

Blogger ajw308 October 04, 2012 12:36 PM  

But how is that proof the profession is corrupt? I'm not argueing that it's not, I just don't see the logic.

As for in-house counsel, I've always liked Tom Hagen's character.

Anonymous daddynichol October 04, 2012 12:37 PM  

Lawyers developed the circular income generating profession. They write the laws and regulations that require a citizen to hire another lawyer to guide them thru the legal maze. If your lawyer is bad at navigation, oh well, tough noogies. Pay the penalty or you'll need another lawyer to represent you in court. If he sucks and you go to jail, you will need to find another lawyer to file an appeal! If that doesn't work.....WE NEED A LAW TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICE! Thus, another lawyer writes and new piece of legislation or regulation and the whole thing starts over again.

Blogger Nate October 04, 2012 12:42 PM  

"Add my name to the "let's kill them all" list.."

That's me... Feh... and Shakespeare.

Anonymous Paul S October 04, 2012 12:42 PM  

I don't care for lawyers at all but my dealings with real estate lawyers have, so far, been alright.
They are upfront about their costs, if it is more that explain in great detail.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 12:45 PM  

Bravo Vox. I am still amazed that we as a people haven't lynched them out of this country altogether. They do nothing but make our lives less fun, more expensive, and worse off morally and socially simply so that they can play professional while openly lying and destroying the fabric of our societies. They breed a culture of us vs. them and then exploit the retarded jury system for their primary benefit under the banner of helping the helpless. Quick happenstance if I may that helps illustrate your point of falsehoods and billable hours...(I'll be brief)

A prominent chain restaurant my wife and I were eating at during our honeymoon is being sued by a fat lady who slipped and fell right in front of us. Long story short, the restaurant was near closing and there weren't too many people left. The "lady" hemmed and hawed before gently fake falling on her butt and throwing a cup of water that she was carrying onto the floor next to her. I immediately asked if she was ok but she said that she had to wait for her husband before getting up. She sits there for 5 minutes in no pain while a crowd gathers in front of our table. Her husband and son magically come running from outside the place and ask me for my number to be a witness. They then yell at the manager in a way that would have gotten all of their teeth knocked out if it were me. Silliness ensues and I will spare you the rest.

The part that pertains to this column is that the lawyers have had our written statements forever, the opposition lawyers have spoken to us thinking we were on their side (of course they never called back), the restaurant itself treated us to dinner and has our two page written statement, yet we are just now getting around to depositions next week. The lawyers for the restaurant call us out of the blue every six months or so with the same questions or to meet, even saying they need billable hours so they are in no rush to get this settled or completed. One of the lawyers told me point blank they have to make some money before asking for the case to be dropped.

Guess they don't consider that giving up my time to go over the same crap is any big deal. It's hard for me not to kill one of them when their smug candy asses come visit my home, then simply not contact me for half a year until they actually need me. Meanwhile the lady is still seeing doctors on what I am sure is state funded healthcare etc....

I've thought about just writting the chain directly to tell them what is going on, but I realize they are probably stuck going through this game with half a dozen people at any given time and if they jettison one lawyer the same crap would happen with another or they would lose a ridiculous case. It could also be an insurance mandate. In any case, is it any wonder you have to be a huge chain to run a restaurant? The insurance/liability alone would bankrupt most mom and pops. Most people would think that since the smoking gun was provided from the start, the lady would simply bugger off and the chain would be out only a nice meal for me and my wife, but you would be depriving a half dozen lawyer-roaches their meal for years.

Oh and we got married in May of 2009.

Anonymous Azimus October 04, 2012 12:50 PM  

kh123 October 04, 2012 12:31 PM The dad always said: If you ever need evidence of how corrupt our legal system is, just thumb through the phone book's yellow pages: Lawyers outnumber any other profession - including medical - upwards of 3 to 1 or more.

An interesting thought... however lawyers cast a very wide net in terms of territory they are willing to travel for the juicy cases... hence the "One Call, That's All" fishing. So the net effect is you could be getting anyone who has passed the bar in your state advertising in the yellow pages. Also, since there are SO MANY MORE lawyers than the market can actually support, the biz is pretty cut-throat (by their standards) and they probably advertise more and farther than they would otherwise.

Anonymous cannibal_animal October 04, 2012 12:53 PM  

If you want the legal profession to become more ethical, one of the very first things that needs to be done is cutting down on the supply of lawyers. This kills off some of those larvae (good), and leaves business split up enough among the existing lawyers that they don't have as much of a need to do shady or wasteful things. If you're $150k in law school debt after you discovered as a 3L after striking out at OCI and failing to line up good summer work (many do) that the legal market sucks, but you can't discharge the debt in bankruptcy, you're going to do every stupid shady ambulance-chasing thing imaginable to pay student loans and keep food on the table. Close the bottom hundred law schools and you'll probably watch the profession improve enormously.

I feel sorry for most lawyers, truthfully. They do scummy things, but my suspicion is that most people would do scummy things with that kind of debt noose hanging around their necks, especially as young people. For all the Sandra Flukes out there who are using law as a vehicle to advance their SWPL bien-pensant street cred, there are many more who are just regular people.

Anonymous Fatso McGraw October 04, 2012 1:04 PM  

I don't feel sorry for them. They should know better than to enter the profession in the first place (supply/demand thing), but even if they stumble into law school the first semester should disabuse them of a Perry Mason type career. Any so-called advanced carrer that has as its most common foundation a liberal arts degree is almost certainly a scam.

Anonymous Stickwick October 04, 2012 1:07 PM  

There are countless reasons to detest lawyers. Here's my latest: In Dan Gardner's excellent book, The Science of Fear, he describes the mass hysteria that was ginned up over silicone breast implants in the early 1990s. Even the FDA was skeptical that they were dangerous, since coincidence alone could easily explain the number of women who got implants and were also ill. Now, no epidemiological studies had been done to link any illnesses to these implants, and yet a bunch of lawyers went ahead and pursued a class-action lawsuit against Dow-Corning. There was no evidence whatsoever that Dow-Corning was liable, but the lawyers managed to win a huge settlement for the "victims" that put Dow-Corning into bankruptcy for a decade. The settlement, which was in the billions, was supposed to compensate all these women for their suffering, but it really amounted to pocket change on an individual level -- the lawyers got $1 billion out of it. Later, when proper epidemiological studies were done, no link was found between the implants and any illnesses. The whole thing was a travesty, and the only people who got anything out of it were the lawyers. If there was any justice, the lawyers should have been forced to compensate Dow-Corning for every penny they lost over this.

Anonymous Axe Head October 04, 2012 1:07 PM  

When a lawyer reads the bible he reads it like a lawyer, that is, just like a Pharisee. That is what is wrong with lawyers.

Blogger Nate October 04, 2012 1:10 PM  

One of the greatest advancements of civilization... is that of Written Law. Lawyers, by definition, destroy that advancement.

They claim the written law is written in some magic language that only they can understand... which means... its no longer a law of the people... its the law of the lawyers.

Blogger Giraffe October 04, 2012 1:10 PM  

@ Feh
Add my name to the "let's kill them all" list...

Are you saying you are a lawyer or that you want to kill all lawyers.

Anonymous Stingray October 04, 2012 1:13 PM  

As Derb voices his opinion of lawyers on the second page, this is not completely off topic. His "Anniversary of a Defenestration"

Anonymous PC Geek October 04, 2012 1:14 PM  

striking out at OCI

@Cannibal_animal

May I ask Whta OCI is?

Anonymous Salt October 04, 2012 1:15 PM  

I know one honorable lawyer. Just one. He remains outside the sewer by the type of law he does. When I had to slosh about in the mosh pits with the scum lawyers he could not help, but he did let me use his library.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 1:16 PM  

cannibal, you couldn't be more wrong and over-generalizing.

Lot's of people have a ton of student loan debt, me included still, that do not do scummy things as you say. Some of them are engineers, or in medical school, or working at who knows where. Some of them have payment arrangements or simply do not pay them and take their medicine for it. Only a lawyer or a lawyer apologist would say without a hint of irony that most people with debt commit crime or do scummy things so the fact that we do scummy things is rational. Are you currently squatting on Wall Street too?

As for your intelligent economic answer to the "lawyer problem", where to begin? If the "law" allows for roaches to go after every bit of crumbs they can find, and failing any real crumbs left, can create morsels to sue out of thin air, the market will find lawyers regardless of whether they are "ethical" or not to do the pillaging. This is assuming, by your logic, that the closing of law schools and the shrinking pool of lawyers will magically make them more ethical. In reality, you could even argue that with less spots available, only the connected or minority-entitled (read - Jew, feminist, black national) would be able to become lawyers in the first place. Surely this would be better right???? Surely no ethical lawyer would go after the highly lucrative forbidden "scummy" fruit that the law totally allows them to do, because they would be so busy killing mockingbirds???

Yikes. Nate please sign me up for your list.

Anonymous PC Geek October 04, 2012 1:17 PM  

If there was any justice, the lawyers should have been forced to compensate Dow-Corning for every penny they lost over this.


I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the amount of compensation that Dow-Corning received was somewhere in the neighborhood of $0 and 'oops sorry about that!'

Anonymous Azimus October 04, 2012 1:21 PM  

She sits there for 5 minutes in no pain while a crowd gathers in front of our table. Her husband and son magically come running from outside the place and ask me for my number to be a witness. They then yell at the manager in a way that would have gotten all of their teeth knocked out if it were me.

I wonder what it would have been worth to you if you had videotaped her sitting there with your smart phone?

Anonymous Stilicho October 04, 2012 1:26 PM  

For the record, we try like hell to avoid hiring outside counsel. They are very rarely any better than we are except on some truly obscure, boutique issues.

NAIHCALT? If in-house could or would do the work, there'd be more of them and fewer law firms. Speaking for the outhouse counsel, I defend businesses from the depredations of their peers and the so-called little guy.

In a reasonable and just legal system, my services would not be necessary and I would happily give up the latter in return for the former.

As for billable hours, no lawyer who is not trying to churn his bills is a fan of them. Problem is, I would happily work on a contingency basis, but it's difficult for a client to quantify: how do you pay me? Money saved? Based on what metric? Your opponent's demands? Estimated fair value of a claim? Loss reserve? If we can get to that point, we can negotiate a percentage.

Anonymous TLM October 04, 2012 1:34 PM  

Super Un-Politically Correct Comment Alert!!!! Thin-skinned folks be advised.

Lawyers are like ni%%ers, they ruin everything.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 1:36 PM  

Azimus, I'm pretty sure that in this system of ours I wouldn't get anything but the subpeona (sp.?) that I received anyway. Thought it was illegal for one side to pay me to tell the truth unless I am an "expert". I know they can pay for my hotel and travel expenses since we were away on our honeymoon and any court date would be there I am assuming, but I can't be paid an incentive to testify. The sad thing of it all is that the only way I could make money if I was "scummy" is by secretly going to the lady behind the scenes and telling her I will forget everything for 20K. We live in an unreal system.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 1:37 PM  

TLM, that's not politically correct??

Blogger RobertT October 04, 2012 1:44 PM  

"No one who works in an industry based on “billable hours” and charges fees based on the time they’ve supposedly put in rather than concrete results delivered can claim to be even remotely honest."

So anyone who has ever worked for wages at an hourly wage is inherently dishonest? That makes sense. How else do people get paid, except for their time? That concept is as old as time itself. Service businesses aren't selling a product, they're selling their time. And they generally get a contract before doing anything just to make sure there are no misunderstandings. This is how I work and my clients worship the ground I walk on.

I don't think much of attorneys either as a group, but maybe this is a little bit over the top.

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 1:47 PM  

This is really weird. I tried to calculate Finnish lawyers per capita number and got almost exactly the same figure as what is claimed to be US attorneys per capita. But this is not a litigatious society.

Wikipedia says that the attorney's union consists of 1 800 attorneys, which is about 10% of all attorneys. Total population is 5.4 million. So, there are about 18 000 attorneys in total.

Let's have someone do the math on USA. I'm slightly drunk so it is entirely possible that I'm off by order of magnitude.

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 1:50 PM  

The rule of thumb in physics was that if you are only off by one order of magnitude, you already have the calculations almost right...

Anonymous Noah B. October 04, 2012 1:51 PM  

I agree more with the issues you've raised regarding the legal system and the undeserved priority that is given to case law. They should put control engineers in charge of the legal system so they can design a closed loop system instead of an open loop, which has quite predictably had disastrous results.

Unfortunately, your complaints about lawyers could apply to most "professionals" in general. I could go on ad nauseum about horrible experiences I've had with general contractors, plumbers, electricians, accountants, etc. The sad fact seems to be that most people are not very good at what they do.

But regarding billable hours, I do have to take some exception to the blanket statement that no one using that system can claim to be honest. Most definitely, hourly billing is a situation that encourages and rewards dishonesty. And I can and do understand when a client of mine is wary of entering into such an arrangement. However, as Stilicho has pointed out, it's often difficult or impossible to come up with another logical arrangement. In my line of work, engineering, I typically propose a lump sum contract to a client when the amount and type of work can readily be defined.

Sometimes, that just isn't possible. A client may literally want to change a site plan 20 times before they settle on a final version. Usually this is a problem with the client not having delivered their design requirements at the beginning of the project, and instead delivering them to me piecemeal, or with the client being somewhat indecisive about the project to begin with. I can't realistically charge that client the same as I would charge another one who accepts the first working version and is ready to move on to something else. Other times, a client will insist that I spent a great deal of time pursuing an approach that I know in advance won't work, despite my warnings to the contrary.

I'd love to have some other way to deal with these issues than billing hourly, but I just don't see it.

Anonymous Paradisum October 04, 2012 1:52 PM  

If lawyers are the larval stage of politicians what does that make the cops who enforce them?

Anonymous jack October 04, 2012 1:52 PM  

Vox:
Finally, lawyers are the larval form of politicians.

Attribution noted; Now, my I please use this sentence whenever I can work it into a conversation?

Please....

Anonymous Stilicho October 04, 2012 1:54 PM  

They claim the written law is written in some magic language that only they can understand... which means... its no longer a law of the people... its the law of the lawyers.

True enough. Any law that cannot be read and understood by a citizen of average intelligence should be void. Of course, the reality is that, like Vox indicated, the law is whatever some clown in a black robe says it is on any given day.

Anonymous Ferd October 04, 2012 1:56 PM  


"Lawyers are the larval form of politicians."


I do love this!! How true! What a great bumper sticker!

Anonymous Noah B. October 04, 2012 1:56 PM  

Oops, that should have read: "Other times, a client will insist that I spend a great deal of time pursuing an approach that I know in advance won't work, despite my warnings to the contrary."

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 1:58 PM  

All my software engineering contracts ever, except for Vox, have been by the hour. I suspect this is really about the general level of honesty in the society.

Anonymous Stilicho October 04, 2012 2:03 PM  

It seems to me that much of the criticism directed at lawyers as a class is similar in its origins to the criticism directed at cops: failure to police their own ranks. I cannot and will not defend the failure of the judiciary or grievance committees to hold attorneys to account for bad behavior. Indeed, the times when I have pointed out inappropriate behavior of other counsel to a judge, it has invariably been ignored, glossed over, or rationalized away. Mostly ignored though.

Blogger WATYF October 04, 2012 2:05 PM  

OT... no doubt Vox will have a thing or two to say about this. :Op

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/study-fraud-growing-scientific-research-papers

WATYF

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 2:07 PM  

Oh, I see. I was indeed an order of magnitude wrong. Only members of the union can function as lawyers. This is 10% of the people who have the necessary education to do so.

So, the Finnish lawyers per capita figure is one tenth of USA.

Anonymous Kriston October 04, 2012 2:17 PM  

When two lawyers get together and produce children you get people like Bill Gates. A fair to poor engineer who won't hesitate to use Mafia tactics to push crappy software on all customers for inflated prices.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 2:28 PM  

Kriston, still better than another lawyer...

Anonymous Noah B. October 04, 2012 2:31 PM  

"When two lawyers get together and produce children you get people like Bill Gates."

But just look at all the money he promises to give to the poor starving sick children someday!

Anonymous Rock Throwing Peasant October 04, 2012 2:39 PM  

Family lawyer's first meeting with a client:

There, there. You victim. I'll protect you.

Let's go over the assets.

Wish that was hyperbole.

Anonymous Bibimbap October 04, 2012 2:47 PM  

".....in Anchorage, the escort section is thicker than the lawyer section..."

I bet there's some overlap there

Anonymous willneverpostagain October 04, 2012 2:56 PM  

Law is a system invented by lawyers, for the benefit of lawyers, to the exclusion of everyone else. Legislators are lawyers, prosecutors, defenders, judges, they are all lawyers. This is not to be confused, ever, with justice. That is another thing entirely.

I believe this is why Jesus advised those with an argument to settle on the way to the court, and why Paul blanched at Christians who took their disagreements to a pagan court.

Anonymous kaflick October 04, 2012 3:01 PM  

I only know two lawyers whose opinions I care about and both of them consider lawyers to be scum. One even wears a badge on her "court suit" that reads "Lawyers eat their young". The badge is hidden of course.

Anonymous alexamenos October 04, 2012 3:02 PM  

I think I'd rather have my eyes gouged out and my testicles stomped than to deal with lawyer. One lawyer on billable hours can turn a 2 hour project into 4 months of crap.

Anonymous Vic October 04, 2012 3:18 PM  

A lawyer and a skunk lie dead in the road. The difference in the scene is there are skid marks in front of the skunk!

Anonymous Vitus_Bering October 04, 2012 3:21 PM  

My friend used to say, "Without lawyers, toothpaste would cost 12 cents a tube."
I think he was correct.

Anonymous tspoon October 04, 2012 3:26 PM  

Actually, of the kinds of organisms inhabiting a host (society), lawyers would perhaps more accurately be described, not as symbiotic (most people) or parasitic (an increasing number of people) but as cancerous.

Anonymous Josh October 04, 2012 3:33 PM  

Even the in house counsel at my employer take forever to get anything done. Even if it's just changing one paragraph in a contract.

Anonymous DT October 04, 2012 3:33 PM  

Unfortunately, your complaints about lawyers could apply to most "professionals" in general. I could go on ad nauseum about horrible experiences I've had with general contractors, plumbers, electricians, accountants, etc. The sad fact seems to be that most people are not very good at what they do.

That's because the vast majority of people waste 12 years in public school doing everything except mastering things they will need to do in order to earn a living as an adult. And a good percentage of those tack on another 4-8 years of college, where they waste more time doing things that have no relevance to the real world.

Imagine how good people would be at their jobs if they started as apprentices around 11 or 12. Imagine how far ahead they would be financially if they started earning a wage at the same time. How confident they would be knowing that they are already contributing something useful to the world. (Most students realize they are wasting time by junior high.)

But then where oh where would we find time for minority studies, government lunches, and prom?

Anonymous Lysander Spooner October 04, 2012 3:36 PM  



Dickens, "The Law is an Ass".


Shakespeare, "First let's kill all the Lawyers", Dick The Butcher.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) October 04, 2012 3:38 PM  

Vox, do you have the same opinion of accountants?

Blogger ajw308 October 04, 2012 3:39 PM  

".....in Anchorage, the escort section is thicker than the lawyer section..."

I bet there's some overlap there

I don't know, but we had a well known brothel, The Chateau, here in town and the owner was on record has having stated that she saw a boon in business when the state legislature ended session in Juneau and the politicians returned to town.

In a town where there was recently a police satellite station next to another brothel, it was just business as usual till The Chateau started taking credit cards. That was when the FBI raided them under some interstate law since they now were doing electronic cash transfers with banks in other states.

No charges were pressed, but everyone wonders what the Feds did with all that potentially damaging information on the clients were. I'm sure no pressure was applied to anyone...

Discussing hookers on a lawyer post isn't off topic either...

Also notice how the surgeries that aren't covered by insurance like LASIK and breast implants are affordable while surgeries like repairing an ACL is over $50K while the same surgery on a dog is $1.2K.

My uncle was a surgeon who broke his back in a traffic accident (a teen ran a stop sign and he was on a motorcycle). He couldn't stand for more than 5-10 min at a time so he ended up managing an ER. He never touched a patient. He didn't even see them. He was a beaurocrat and his malpractice insurance was 3 times my entry level engineering salary.

We need tort reform to make life affordable, however as the Ilk are pointing out, the parasites who drive up the costs are also the ones that make the laws.

Anonymous DT October 04, 2012 3:39 PM  

I believe this is why Jesus advised those with an argument to settle on the way to the court, and why Paul blanched at Christians who took their disagreements to a pagan court.

As much as I agree with Vox and despise lawyers, the entire legal system exists because people refuse to settle their own problems. If everyone in the world would heed Christ's words to love thy neighbor as thyself, we wouldn't need lawyers and probably wouldn't need much in the way of laws beyond simple rules to organize group behavior, such as traffic laws.

Anonymous T14 October 04, 2012 3:43 PM  

"I know it's crooked, but it's the only game in town." - Canada Bill Jones

Anonymous DT October 04, 2012 3:43 PM  

Discussing hookers on a lawyer post isn't off topic either...

I have more respect for hookers.

Blogger Susan Walsh October 04, 2012 3:45 PM  

Thanks for the ink, Vox, your comment was amusing and more than a little true.

I enjoyed the reference to Tom Hagen - there are some great lawyer characters in films. My recent favorite is Saul Goodman in Breaking Bad.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

Anonymous Anonymous October 04, 2012 3:46 PM  

There's an ongoing legal precedent being set in the 5th Circuit that affects us all: check out LawInjustice for the details.

Anonymous carnaby October 04, 2012 4:06 PM  

"Lawyers are among the most useless, parasitical, and unethical scum on the planet. "

Yep.

Anonymous Orion October 04, 2012 4:06 PM  

If some of the burden for the frivolous law suits was shifted to the lawyers, we might get rid of some of the carp like the story above. I don't see it happening within the current system however. It is too far down the road of good intentions.

Anonymous Stickwick October 04, 2012 4:09 PM  

...there are some great lawyer characters in films.

The best was Al Pacino's in The Devil's Advocate. When asked why he, Satan, chose the law and lawyers as the means to take over the world and overthrow God, he replied, "Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass. It's the new priesthood, baby." You better believe it.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 04, 2012 4:31 PM  

Also, lawyers don't bath.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 4:33 PM  

In order to understand just how far outside his area of familiarity VD goes with this post, all you have to do is read this completely ignorant statement:

"No one who works in an industry based on “billable hours” and charges fees based on the time they’ve supposedly put in rather than concrete results delivered can claim to be even remotely honest."

This claim can't be backed up by anything other than fantasy.

Without lawyers you'd have no civil rights movement, for example. We would have been located in the world of "separate but equal" for far too long. And we no what kind of fantasy that idea was.

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

It's a childish disposition. VD should stick to something he some familiarity with.

Anonymous WaterBoy October 04, 2012 4:38 PM  

George, your determination is admirable.

Your choice of battlegrounds, not so much.

Anonymous Tom B October 04, 2012 4:39 PM  

Now c'mon Vox, tell us what you REALLY think?

Anonymous Kriston October 04, 2012 4:40 PM  

Noah B. October 04, 2012 2:31 PM

"When two lawyers get together and produce children you get people like Bill Gates."


But just look at all the money he promises to give to the poor starving sick children someday!

I have. The problem is he wants to give away my money.

Anonymous Josh October 04, 2012 4:50 PM  

Without lawyers you'd have no civil rights movement, for example. We would have been located in the world of "separate but equal" for far too long. And we no what kind of fantasy that idea was.

You're the type of person who thinks that the civil rights movement was a good thing...

Retard.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 4:54 PM  

Josh, he doesn't think it at all. He was told to think it over the years and it is ingrained in his ego. He probably couldn't even give you an 8 year old's explanation of what it is and how it came about or if it has had any negative impacts and why. It's just more gooder than what was before, you know when the tv was black and white.

Anonymous castricv October 04, 2012 4:56 PM  

However, he is right that Vox needs to clear up the mess of that sentence about hourly work. I know what he meant, but dullards could take it to mean that all hourly work is dishonest work.

Blogger ajw308 October 04, 2012 5:08 PM  

Islam is more of a legal system then anything else. Rules upon rules, interpreted by Imam's and Mullah's, declaring Fatwah's, their interpretation of the law,usually from a perspective that suits them.

It's all about exercising power and accumulating more.

Anonymous Stilicho October 04, 2012 5:12 PM  

However, he is right that Vox needs to clear up the mess of that sentence about hourly work. I know what he meant, but dullards could take it to mean that all hourly work is dishonest work.

Noah B. already cleared it up. So did Robert T.

Anonymous Josh October 04, 2012 5:14 PM  

I know what he meant, but dullards could take it to mean that all hourly work is dishonest work.

No point in dumbing down things for the idiots.

Anonymous Paradisum October 04, 2012 5:15 PM  

George: "Without lawyers you'd have no civil rights movement, for example. We would have been located in the world of "separate but equal" for far too long. And we no what kind of fantasy that idea was."

. . And yet it was lawyers that created the segregation laws that required more laws from lawyers to end it. And you question Vox's analytical skills?

Anonymous bethyada October 04, 2012 5:21 PM  

Arthur Conan Doyle c.1883

Who ever heard of a congress of lawyers for the purpose of simplifying the law and discouraging litigation? Unhealthy times mean good times for the medics. If they were to follow no higher dictates than those of their own interests, we should have the British Medical Association setting a fund on foot for the impeding of drainage and stopping up of sewers. Of the 30 000 physicians and surgeons of the British Islands, the vast majority are practical philanthropists of the highest order.

Anonymous Paradisum October 04, 2012 5:23 PM  

It's correct that "legal" has nothing to do with justice, never mind right and wrong. This is why a miscarriage of justice can still be legal in a court of "law".

Anonymous Yorzhik October 04, 2012 5:50 PM  

And the correct answer to fix the problem is this: the law needs to be based on principle and not precedent. The entire law could then be written in a booklet. People would be required to defend themselves and no representation would be allowed in court. Judges would not be allowed to be paid because that would encourage them to make law breaking more prevalent.

One consequence of this system would be that more judges would be appointed since they would be required to adjudicate in their spare time, and thus would favor older retired/semi-retired gentlemen.

This would also mean that lawyers would be largely out of business. If a person feels they were wronged, they would go to the local judge and argue their case directly. It would be passed up to a higher judge only if the judge felt he could not handle it, or if the person wronged felt the judge wronged them in his decision. All cases would be one person against another, as corporations cannot represent themselves.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic October 04, 2012 5:52 PM  

George: In case you haven't figured it out, there's lots of us reading this blog who want to bring back "separate but equal" before a race war or genocide forces it upon us.

Anonymous DT October 04, 2012 6:15 PM  

There's an ongoing legal precedent being set in the 5th Circuit that affects us all: check out LawInjustice for the details.

Is this for real? If I were a millionaire and this happened to me there would be one dead judge, several dead lawyers, and I would be out of the U.S. before anyone could say "contempt".

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim October 04, 2012 6:43 PM  

I would post something scathing, but I think the reaction would be a mix of "cantcha take a joke, darlin'", "we mean all of them but you", and "it's just a generalization, even if we said 'kill them all' and 'no one'". Oh, and just for ducks, I'll predict at least one "yes, we mean you, you walking filth".

But thanks for making me feel like one of you life-worthy individuals, fellas. No, really. I almost forgot I'm a parasitic maggot for a while.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim October 04, 2012 6:45 PM  

Oh, and I forgot to include that I predict at least one use of the word "snowflake" in any response to what I just posted.

Anonymous RC October 04, 2012 6:46 PM  

Is this for real? If I were a millionaire and this happened to me there would be one dead judge, several dead lawyers, and I would be out of the U.S. before anyone could say "contempt".

I have lived a very similar disaster in real life. There is no bounds to their power. People believe there is an appeal process but a federal judge can make it financially impossible to appeal. In federal court, to appeal you must post a bond equal to 125% of any verdict or a lesser amount at the judge's discretion. And, I might add, it's almost impossible to sue an attorney for malpractice. If the medical profession had the same safeguards, malpractice insurance would cost a pittance.

Seeing blatant disregard for Black Letter Law in court might be the final red pill needed to obtain true freedom, knowing the Matrix actually exists.

Anonymous Stilicho October 04, 2012 7:14 PM  

Oh, and I forgot to include that I predict at least one use of the word "snowflake" in any response to what I just posted.

Well, I don't know about you, but I am a precious, unique snowflake...

Blogger JACIII October 04, 2012 7:32 PM  

There is not need to head off the snowflake comments MrsPilgrim as solipsism is an inherent female trait.

The ilk love you, anyway.

Anonymous kh123 October 04, 2012 7:34 PM  

"Wikipedia says that the attorney's union consists of 1 800 attorneys,"

The problem being that the number's not a sum, it's a toll-free hotline to the 8th circle of Hell, ext.08.

Anonymous DT October 04, 2012 7:50 PM  

I have lived a very similar disaster in real life. There is no bounds to their power.

Oh, there's a boundary on their power. You just have to be willing to live somewhere else for the rest of your life after personally showing them that boundary.

Anonymous carnaby October 04, 2012 7:57 PM  

The problem being that the number's not a sum, it's a toll-free hotline to the 8th circle of Hell, ext.08.

That's the lame circle of hell for all the attorneys who are still assisting in their first positions. You don't get to the real circles of hell (past 10) until you've become a partner.

Anonymous kh123 October 04, 2012 8:03 PM  

Hence why it's toll-free.

Anonymous Cat McClusky October 04, 2012 8:35 PM  

"John Edwards".

Case closed.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 8:46 PM  

"Without lawyers you'd have no civil rights movement, for example."

And the problem with this is what, exactly?

Anonymous zen0 October 04, 2012 8:54 PM  

But thanks for making me feel like one of you life-worthy individuals, fellas. No, really. I almost forgot I'm a parasitic maggot for a while.

Mrs. Pilgrim

Well, Ms. P, as a lawryin' type you could explain to us why the flags in court have gold fringes, and why your name on your driver's license is all capitals?

Surely that was in lawrin' 101.

Anonymous Boogeyman October 04, 2012 9:18 PM  

Lawyers are essentially mercenaries, proffiting from the misery they help to create. No one likes or trusts mercenaries.

Anonymous T14 October 04, 2012 9:29 PM  

If "parasitic maggot" is the worst thing you've been called all day, I worry about your clients.

The outrage the profession inspires in the Honey Boo Boo crowd is just an added bonus.

*I will say this, the profession would do well to do away with all but the top 25 law schools. Maybe leave a few state and regional ones.

Blogger Logos October 04, 2012 9:54 PM  

I'm a lawyer, and I admit that I hate just about every lawyer I've come into contact with. I'm still naive enough to try to make good arguments and win cases, but lawyers I work with abhor the possibility of closing a matter early or letting me get credit for winning it (I even have to fight to sign my name on my own work product, which is damn good). It makes me sad because we are supposed to be in a noble profession that fights for the rule of law against all who would threaten it, especially government. But lawyers are nothing but tradesmen now; they want to rake in as much money as possible, so they dog it on the job and push for more regulations that generate more work. Easily 90% of lawyers today are statists who think the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says, thus making government superior to the law. It's disgusting.

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 10:07 PM  

I'll predict at least one "yes, we mean you, you walking filth".

I do think of you, walking filth.

Nevertheless, feel free to defend to defend yourself if you feel so inclined.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:12 PM  

"You're the type of person who thinks that the civil rights movement was a good thing...Retard."

Indeed I am. What, you think separate laws for the races is a good thing? Why?

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:15 PM  

Castricv said:

"Josh, he doesn't think it at all. He was told to think it over the years and it is ingrained in his ego. He probably couldn't even give you an 8 year old's explanation of what it is and how it came about or if it has had any negative impacts and why. It's just more gooder than what was before, you know when the tv was black and white."

You make too many assumptions. However, you are correct that it's certainly gooder now for a whole lot of people. What, are you like josh and think discrimination against and separate laws for blacks is good thing. This is probably the only place you can sell that. But knock yourself out.

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 10:18 PM  

I'll predict at least one "yes, we mean you, you walking filth".

I do think of you, walking filth.

Nevertheless, feel free to defend to defend yourself if you feel so inclined.

Anonymous zen0 October 04, 2012 10:19 PM  

Notary Publics all seem to be very nice and helpful, however, and all their fees are fixed up front.

I even had one say "I am not supposed to give advice, but..." , and it was good advice and I did not have to pay extra.

Just sayin...

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:20 PM  

Johnny said:

"George: In case you haven't figured it out, there's lots of us reading this blog who want to bring back "separate but equal" before a race war or genocide forces it upon us."

In case you haven't figured it out, Johnny, your dream of segregating blacks and passing laws that prohibit them from doing what white folks do, and passing law that prohibit blacks from fraternizing with whites is just a dream and it's best for you to not hold your breath. Then again...

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:25 PM  

Scoubius said:

""Without lawyers you'd have no civil rights movement, for example."

"And the problem with this is what, exactly?"

The problem is obvious to anyone with a moral and ethical sense about them. To those who who think otherwise, well it's best to just cross the street when you see them coming because equally likely they'll spit on your wife and knock your kids down for no good reason. What side of street do you tend to walk on. I need to tell my family to find the other side.

Blogger Markku October 04, 2012 10:25 PM  

NB: I could imagine myself persuaded that there is at least one lawyer in the world who isn't Satan-spawn, although I don't know what the argument would be.

Anonymous zen0 October 04, 2012 10:26 PM  

passing laws that prohibit them from doing what white folks do,

Now that would not be equal, would it George? So you are criticizing your own interpretation instead of what was said.

That is a feminine trait. Your last name is not Sand, by any chance?

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:29 PM  

zeno said:

"Now that would not be equal, would it George? So you are criticizing your own interpretation instead of what was said."

You and I both know those folks that desire to go back to "separate but equal" would also prefer to go back to lacing black folks in chains. Folks who want separate but equal back are really without any morals and ethics and can't be trusted.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:31 PM  

zeno:

I just noticed you attempted to demean me by suggesting I was a woman.

How quaint.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 10:32 PM  

"The problem is obvious to anyone with a moral and ethical sense about them."

But yet, you didn't state it. You say it's obvious, but to me of course it is not obvious. So please state it, overtly, and aloud, so I can find out what I'm missing. Please be direct and explicit, and refrain from hints and innuendo. I have a peculiar fault, in that I am deaf to that sort of thing. So please be blindingly obvious, so that even an apparent moral derelict like myself can understand your point.





Anonymous zen0 October 04, 2012 10:38 PM  

The problem is obvious to anyone with a moral and ethical sense about them.

You are exhibiting a phobia for moral or ethical codes other than your own personal one, George. That is not very relativist, and therefore unprogressive.

Don't be a hater, George.

Anonymous Bruno October 04, 2012 10:38 PM  

I'm a lawyer. The firm is overall honest and I try to be as good a person as I can be. Yet, working with finance and structured operations may seem clean but its what got us in the mess we are today.

It could be worse though. We are somewhat naively helping to misprice risk, but it is still a better profession than marketing. They, at least, cant lie to themselves as theyre clearly misleading people.

If only I knew how to do something else..

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:41 PM  

Scoobious wrote:

""The problem is obvious to anyone with a moral and ethical sense about them."

"But yet, you didn't state it. You say it's obvious, but to me of course it is not obvious."

That's because you lack any sense of morals or ethics.

Anonymous zen0 October 04, 2012 10:43 PM  

How quaint.

Well, la-de-dah.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 10:46 PM  

Zeno wrote:

"You are exhibiting a phobia for moral or ethical codes other than your own personal one, George. That is not very relativist, and therefore unprogressive."

Blah Blah Blah.

If you don't know by now that it is wholly unethical to treat other people differently because they have a different skin color, then it can't be taught and you find yourself relegated to the ring of ignorance. It would be nice if folks like you wore bright orange shirts. At least that way the other 99.9% could identify you and cross the street to avoid you and the likely circumstance that you'll attempt to hurt someone just for sport.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 10:50 PM  

"That's because you lack any sense of morals or ethics."

You have not demonstrated this in a manner persuasive to anyone except yourself. In fact you have not even opened an honest enquiry on that subject, but have merely pronounced your myopic and pre-emptive verdict. It's also true that the issue you raise is not germane to my question.

Now please be a good duffer, and answer the original question directly. I am confident, and you should be as well, that your clear and forthright answer will demonstrate without a doubt your moral and ethical superiority to little old moi.

So what are you waiting for?



Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 10:57 PM  

I mean, it's not like you'd be walking into a trap or anything, right? You have nothing to fear: you are good, and moral, and noble, and ethical, and upright, and just... and your family even walks on the right side of the street. And I am the very opposite of all those things, as you've proclaimed, in a somewhat snotty and charmless fashion.

You have nothing to fear! You're better than me! Everyone knows it! It's obvious to all!

So answer the question.

Anonymous Azimus October 04, 2012 11:04 PM  

...It would be nice if folks like you wore bright orange shirts...

So you could be separate from them, but equal? Ha ha ha George, you simply have no idea how much you are the man you purport to hate...

Anonymous III October 04, 2012 11:06 PM  

It's correct that "legal" has nothing to do with justice, never mind right and wrong. This is why a miscarriage of justice can still be legal in a court of "law".

Malum prohibitum

"Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905)."

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 11:07 PM  

Logos wrote:

"Easily 90% of lawyers today are statists who think the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says, thus making government superior to the law. It's disgusting."

I'm wondering what you believe is the obvious source of the meaning of the various parts of the Constitution. For example, can you show me where in the constitution "Speech" is defined and can you show me where in the constitution any potential limits on speech reside?

Anonymous III October 04, 2012 11:08 PM  

If only I knew how to do something else.

Take a pay cut.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 11:09 PM  

Scoobious:

There must be black family somewhere near you that you can try to shove in a hovel of your own making. Go find them and work your will. It is apparently what you dream of. But please, in the future do identify yourself as an ugly racist in some way so the rest of us can avoid. you.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 11:13 PM  

George bails.

George folds.

George is a coward.

Eh, so what else is new.

Anonymous George October 04, 2012 11:13 PM  

Azimus said:

"So you could be separate from them, but equal? Ha ha ha George, you simply have no idea how much you are the man you purport to hate..."

You know what, Azimus, I'm positive that if you put your thinking cap on you can figure out the difference. If that fails, just talk to scoobious. He'll explain why folks with black skin should be separated from the rest of us. All Im asking is that he wear an orange shirt so the rest of us can tell he wants to hurt other people.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 11:15 PM  

I love liberals.

They always make that satisfying squishy-crunchy sound when you step on them.

Maybe it could be one of those kinky videos! Liberals LOVE those!!

Anonymous Azimus October 04, 2012 11:26 PM  

George you are proposing some strange combination of thought policing, the scarlet letter, and a one-way right of free association. Substitute a black man for scoobius wearing your orange shirt and you will understand my meaning. I hope.

Anonymous kh123 October 04, 2012 11:37 PM  

"There must be black family somewhere near you that you can try to shove in a hovel of your own making."

The righting-of-wrongs* Gov't already has a handle on that with Section 8 housing.

(*Translated as "whitey-is-wrong" when canvasing said areas.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 04, 2012 11:43 PM  

George the Bold, George the Conqueror, George the Shining Moral Guardian of the Worthless He-Apes, has gone mysteriously missing all of a sudden....

What's that all about, George? We already know, a priori, that you're a totally moral, noble, right-thinking kind of guy, whose principles nobody could unseat.

Why, you're even what we call a... bien-pensant.

With respect, George.

With nothing but the utmost respect.

Blogger James Dixon October 04, 2012 11:51 PM  

> Anyone in the bumper sticker business?

http://www.zazzle.com/custom/bumperstickers

Make you own and if anyone else likes them they can buy them.

> The sad fact seems to be that most people are not very good at what they do.

Bingo. Which is pretty much what you would expect.

> If lawyers are the larval stage of politicians what does that make the cops who enforce them?

I'd go for buzzards.

> However, he is right that Vox needs to clear up the mess of that sentence about hourly work.

What sentence about hourly work? Allow me to quote:

"No one who works in an industry based on “billable hours” and charges fees based on the time they’ve supposedly put in rather than concrete results delivered..."

"Billable hours" and "fees based on the time they've supposedly worked" do not hourly work make.

Oh, and every rule has at least one exception, Mrs. Pilgrim. There are lawyers who regard it as their duty to guide their clients through the legal morass. They're rarer than I would like, but they do exist.

> The problem is obvious to anyone with a moral and ethical sense about them.

But George, I thought that you argued that morals and ethics were entirely subjective. How can any such problem be obvious if that's the case?

> You and I both know those folks that desire to go back to "separate but equal" would also prefer to go back to lacing black folks in chains.

No, George. Only you "know" that. The rest of us know nothing of the kind.



Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:00 AM  

"I'm wondering what you believe is the obvious source of the meaning of the various parts of the Constitution. For example, can you show me where in the constitution "Speech" is defined and can you show me where in the constitution any potential limits on speech reside?"

It's not defined. Therefore, we must assume it means what the word "speech" means. Look it up. It involves speaking. It doesn't involve art.

There are no potential limits on speech in the Constitution. Therefore, the U.S. Congress has no authority to make any law abridging the freedom of speech. It's not that hard to understand, but the Supreme Court has made it hard to understand.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:10 AM  

Where to start...

I am a lawyer. I am also a Christian. Several of you would have me killed. Hmm...

Much of what has been said here is absolutely correct. For example:

"They are a shameless guild in the medieval sense that uses the government to erect artificial barriers to competition"

In general, I could not agree more. I advocate removing all licensing requirements, shutting down the law schools, shutting down the bar associations and allowing anyone who desires to represent another in Court to do so.

Of course, I also advocate removing licensing and schooling requirements for all professions and moving back to an apprenticeship system. Heck, I want driver's license requirements removed. I note that the doctor's guild in one state I practice in is FAR worse than the lawyer's guild when it comes to protecting the bad docs. Don't act like it's just the lawyers. Part of the reason medical malpractice insurance costs so much is that the boards of medicine refuse to pull the licenses of the 5% of docs who commit 80+% of the malpractice. Seriously. In the State I'm talking about, there are docs with more than 10 malpractice cases which required payouts of more than $100,000.00 in damages and those docs have had no discipline at all.

Now, Vox said something I find a bit ironic:

"if one doesn't know the difference between written law and case law, and understand how the latter trumps the former, it's not even possible to have an informed opinion on the issue."

Vox, if you're going to rant about something, at least get the terminology right, or YOU risk appearing as if it's not even possible for you to have an informed opinion about it.

By "written law", I assume you mean statutory law. However, that's not a normal/common way to say/describe it, because case law is also most certainly written. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning of "written law", but that's not my fault, as your term "written law" is not precise. Common law might be referred to as "unwritten law", but that's not case law, either.

And no, case law most certainly does NOT trump statutory law in any court in which I have practiced (2 states, 7 counties, District Court of Appeals, State Supreme Court, Federal District Court and Court of Appeals).

Do Courts of Appeals sometimes "reinterpret" statutory law from it's plain meaning? Yes. In that sense, case law trumps statutory law - and those are exceptions rather than rules. But only in that sense - and it's the badly written statutes (see tax code, for example) that lead to such reinterpretations. In other words, the statute didn't really have a plain meaning because it was badly written. Intermediate Courts of Appeals often make such rulings and such rulings are often overturned by Supreme Courts. Nevertheless, the statutes are the basis of most rulings and most case law complies with the statutory law.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:13 AM  

That said, the following statement you made is absolutely true: "Talk to a lawyer sometime about what "the law" truly is... and if you can catch one being honest for a change, he'll tell you "whatever a judge declares it to be"."

Most lawyers I work with freely admit that and I tell my clients that without fail when they ask me what is going to happen in their hearing. A trial court Judge can, indeed, pretty much do whatever he/she wants and the decision will stand unless/until a Court of Appeals holds otherwise. That is why I have an obscene amount of Appellate Court practice - the Judge in my county was one of those Judges who did whatever he wanted for 20 years.

However, I would note that the Judge I referred to no longer has a license to practice law - it eventually caught up with him when a complaint was finally filed with Disciplinary Counsel. Further, another local Judge who does whatever he wants caused me to be fired from my last job because I dared to challenge him when he violated my client's constitutional rights. That Judge now has a Complaint filed with disciplinary Counsel by the State Bar Association as a result of my grievance against him.

Regardless, the primary problem with such Judges is that appeals are time consuming and expensive. IMO, all such Judges should be removed from the bench.

In fact, most lawyers in my county are libertarians and, since we're in a rural region, the largest firms usually have 3 or 4 attorneys. Thus, you don't see a lot of the malfeasance you all complain of. Quit hiring big time attorneys from big firms in big cities and you'll likely get better (and less expensive) representation.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:18 AM  

As to this statement:

"No one who works in an industry based on “billable hours” and charges fees based on the time they’ve supposedly put in rather than concrete results delivered can claim to be even remotely honest."

Judge much, Vox? I completely agree that many attorneys overbill - sometimes to ridiculous extremes. I know one in particular who is terrible about it and I would not recommend that anyone go to him for representation.

In my case, I take cases by the hour, on contingent fees and on flat fees. You seem to prefer the idea of contingent fees.

However, guess which billing method draws the most complaints from clients?

Yep, contingent fees. The lawyer assumes all the risk (in most cases, the clients can't even afford to pay the costs if you lose the case), puts in a number of hours (50 to several hundred is not uncommon on a personal injury or medical malpractice case). If the lawyer is fortunate enough to have picked a good case and actually win it thru settlement or trial, then the lawyer takes his fee based on the percentage. That percentage is sometimes higher per hour than if the attorney charged his hourly rate - because of the risk involved in such a case. Clients often complain.

In one case, the best offer the insurance company ever made our client was $12,000 - even though it was a clear at fault accident caused by the Defendant and our client, the Plaintiff, had to have a total knee replacement as a result of the injuries. Her medical bills were $85,000.00.

Since the offer was so small, we worked the case up, took it to trial and won a $233,000.00 verdict plus prejudgment interest. Total of about $300,000.00. Our fee was obviously pretty large at 1/3, so the firm (of two attorneys) made about $100,000.00 on the case. The client complained of the amount of the fee (after turning down the opportunity to pay by the hour for the work and after having signed a contract for that percentage).

I agree it's a lot of money for the firm to take, but consider how much the client would have gotten if we had not represented her. The insurance company would not offer more than $12,000.00 because they did not believe the knee replacement was related to the accident. We convinced the jury that it was. As a result of our work, the client got $200,000.00 instead of $12,000.00. I'd assert that the client is better off - and we were as well.

And, of course, if we had lost the case, we would have lost a large amount of time spent, several thousand dollars in expenses, etc...

You want billing based on "concrete results". Nice thought. Also naive, given that we've already established that many Judges do what they want and often ignore the law. Since attorneys cannot guarantee results because the Judge does what he wants, how would you propose the attorney bill?

Fixed fee? That carries it's own issues. Let's say I offer to represent you on a fixed fee in a child custody case. Let's call it $1000.00. Let's say you had 5 days a month of visitation and I quickly obtain you 50/50 visitation. In my view, I've done my job, because the chances of getting more than 50/50 are slim unless you prove the other party murdered someone or abused the child. But what if you're not satisfied and want me to keep filing motions and appeals, etc... How long should I keep working for $1000.00? Since I cannot guarantee you an outcome, I can't really contract with you to terminate my representation upon achieving 50/50 custody because the Judge might not ever grant it and I would be your slave until the child turns 18. See the problem? Thus, most domestic cases are done on an hourly basis. There is simply no other reasonable way to do it. Some attorneys bill ethically and accurately and others don't. Find one that does.

I agree that the system is the problem - but that doesn't mean that all of us are in agreement with that system or not attempting to change it.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:19 AM  

Vox also stated:

"if you make the mistake of trying to hire a reputable, top-notch lawyer to actually do something, the first thing he usually tries to do is hire another lawyer to do the actual work for him."

Exactly. Which is where you made your mistake. Don't ever try to hire a "reputable, top-notch lawyer". "Reputable top-notch lawyers" typically work at large firms and - while they may have went to Yale or Harvard - their paperwork is often of lower quality than attorneys in small towns and small firms. I've seen work out of the big firms that wouldn't hire me because I didn't go to a "top tier" law school - and I've beaten them. Frankly, their work is not impressive as a rule. Probably because the low level associate who is doing the work is working 80 hours a week. It's no different than resident docs making mistakes because of the long hours.

And the guy you hire at the big firm in the big city likely charges an hourly rate that is about 3 times my hourly rate.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 05, 2012 12:21 AM  

[atmospheric bongos:]

George, George,
George of the Jungle,
Friend of You and Me!

Watch out for that tree!

Ya see, I'm counting coups, George. I'm riding right up to you, and slapping you right in your smug self-righteous liberal fact-denying cowardly face.

You know what "counting coup" means, George?

It's all, like, multicultural an' sheeit.

Buh-bye, George. Your time's up.

Blogger IM2L844 October 05, 2012 12:21 AM  

I just noticed you attempted to demean me by suggesting I was a woman.

George, why would you think it was inherently demeaning if someone thought you were a woman because of of what you've written so far?

Anonymous T14 October 05, 2012 12:34 AM  

"I've seen work out of the big firms that wouldn't hire me because I didn't go to a "top tier" law school - and I've beaten them."

Sometimes the facts simply aren't on your side.

The rule is most non-lawyers could do as good a job (if not better) than some third-tier toilet grad running a "Law Offices of" And if you are dealing in personal injury... well you are not going against top firms.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 12:35 AM  

"There was no evidence whatsoever that Dow-Corning was liable, but the lawyers managed to win a huge settlement for the "victims" that put Dow-Corning into bankruptcy for a decade. The settlement, which was in the billions, was supposed to compensate all these women for their suffering, but it really amounted to pocket change on an individual level -- the lawyers got $1 billion out of it."

Now wait just a minute. How did the lawyers "win a huge settlement"?

If, indeed, there was "no evidence whatsoever" that Dow-Corning was liable, then why the #$%^ did Dow-Corning agree to settle?

Settlements are NOT won and your statement that a settlement was won by the lawyers for the Plaintiffs is inaccurate. That's not how settlements work. Dow-Corning entered into a settlement because they feared losing the case. Period. If there was no evidence at all, then why did they fear losing the case? Perhaps it was because they feared that a jury would be so stupid as to be swayed by smoke and mirrors presented by the Plaintiff's attorneys (assuming there was no evidence at all).

If that was the case, then your complaint is about the potential stupidity of jurors, not about the Plaintiff's attorneys.

I note that after losing the initial case, Dow was so stupid as to keep manufacturing the implants and selling them - thereby inviting 12,000 more lawsuits. See here:

http://www.singerpubs.com/ethikos/html/dowcorning.html

Excerpt:

"The company had paid $1.5 million in punitive damages in a major 1984 lawsuit in which a federal district judge had found the company’s implants inherently defective. The judge had noted that the company’s own studies “cast considerable doubt on the safety of the product,” the results of which were not disclosed to patients. The judge called the company’s actions “highly reprehensible."

Sorry, but that's some evidence. Therefore, at the time the lawsuits were pending, there WAS evidence that Dow was liable. That evidence may have later been proven to be unreliable, but that evidence is also why they settled the case. Perhaps they should have had more studies done before releasing the product full scale. Certainly, they should have made sure the implants wouldn't have busted - which is what led to the suspicion that the implants caused disease - which is what led to the lawsuits.

Generally speaking Plaintiff's attorneys do not want to take a case with questionable liability because most cases are done on a contingent fee. Lose and the attorney gets nothing.

I have seen a grand total of 2 cases that I would call frivolous since I've been practicing. By frivolous, I mean without basis in law - I cannot be held responsible for ridiculous laws - I didn't write them.

There just aren't that many frivolous cases. You need to compare the number of cases you hear about that might be frivolous with the number of cases that are filed in the court system. It's a very small number and a large percentage of them are tossed on summary judgment.

Anonymous George October 05, 2012 1:00 AM  

RobwBright wrote:

"Frankly, their work is not impressive as a rule. Probably because the low level associate who is doing the work is working 80 hours a week. It's no different than resident docs making mistakes because of the long hours."

I've worked with some fantastic lawyers that have saved my ass and my money. But I will say this about "top notch" laywers. In my experience, once you get to the circuit courts, and particularly in cases where principles of Constitutional law are at stake, the briefs that come out the "Top Notch" firms with serious appellate divisions and experience tend to deliver the goods.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 1:05 AM  

"Sometimes the facts simply aren't on your side."

You are ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're an attorney working for the Defense and the facts aren't on your side, then you're an idiot for not settling the case. That's just a fact. It's no different than a prosecutor bragging of a 98% conviction rate. That's not at all impressive, as all it shows is that the prosecutor didn't plea 2% of the cases that he should have. A prosecutor should never lose a trial as he's entirely in control of the process of negotiating the plea. And if you're a Plaintiff's attorney and the facts aren't on your side, then you shouldn't have taken the case in the first place or you should have gotten out. There are occasionally "close call" cases in which the facts are not clearly on one side or the other - but then the facts aren't why one side wins or loses.

"The rule is most non-lawyers could do as good a job (if not better) than some third-tier toilet grad running a "Law Offices of" And if you are dealing in personal injury... well you are not going against top firms."

You are ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about. If that's true, then why do all these attorneys around here - none of which went to top tier schools - seem to have all of this work? Hmmm? We're not forcing people to hire us.

As far as the abilities of myself and other "toilet grads" in this area, I say this (I'm assuming you aren't a lawyer, as you clearly don't understand how things actually work):

Come on down and do it, then. Let me know when you want to come down here and handle a case from filing to trial and I'll see if we can get you admitted for just that one case (sadly, not going to happen, I know - licensing and all). Or perhaps we can find a person who'd be willing to hire you to rep them. Oops - can't do it as you'd get prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law. Wish that weren't the case, though, as I'd love to see you do it (DISCLOSURE: I agree that most persons with a slightly above average IQ could be attorneys and do the work. However, they cannot simply walk in off the street and do it.).

BTW, I just tried a personal injury case two weeks ago against the biggest defense firm in the State - and the partner with the first name on the letterhead was lead Counsel for the defense (awaiting a decision from the Judge).

When you work in a small town, you handle pretty much everything. Personal injury, medical malpractice, termination of physician privileges, domestic cases, wills and estates, child abuse and neglect, criminal law, you name it.

Oh yeah - in the physician privileges case the defense firm consisted of 475 attorneys with offices in 4 states and D.C. One medical malpractice trial was in the State Capital against the premier med mal defense attorney in the state (and I freely admit we lost that one - the facts were, indeed, against us and we should have gotten out of the case.). Then there's the medical malpractice case that went to the State Supreme Court against the 2nd largest defense firm in the state. Won that one.

I'm sure not going against the top firms, am I? Man, I just have no idea what the work product from those firms looks like, do I?

People just can't comprehend how a small town attorney might actually be able to spend more time and attention on their case than the big firm associate who is working 80 hours a week.

It's obvious, but people don't want to believe it - until they actually deal with the big firm and see how large their bill is.

Anonymous T14 October 05, 2012 1:11 AM  

I will fully admit to being ignorant of the podunk law practiced by people who couldn't break a 150 on the LSAT.

I can tell instantly you are a plaintiff's attorney. Why use 10 words when 1000 will do?

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 1:41 AM  

"In my experience, once you get to the circuit courts, and particularly in cases where principles of Constitutional law are at stake, the briefs that come out the "Top Notch" firms with serious appellate divisions and experience tend to deliver the goods."

There are undoubtedly excellent attorneys at large firms - but as Vox said, the first thing they do is pawn most of the work off on the associate who is making an average of about $20 an hour working 70-80 hours a week. In the recent trial, the associate handled almost the entire case up to trial, then the partner took over a lot of the work at trial. Didn't see or even hear from the partner at all until trial.

In the Supreme Court appeal on the med mal case (physician suing another physician for malpractice for breaking his penis in a urological procedure), the lower level partner worked up the case and won against the Plaintiff physician (who didn't have an attorney at the time). The unrepresented Plaintiff physician then hired me for the appeal to the Supremes (no intermediate court of appeals in that state). The large defense firm then did one of the dumbest things I've seen in the practice of law - they trotted out a high level partner who hadn't really worked on the case to do the oral argument in front of the Supremes. Big shot partner didn't really know the case that well and it showed (he was so uninvolved in the case that I hadn't even met the guy before the oral argument). Geez, I had only had a license for a year and he had been in front of the Supremes about 20 times. In the opinion of my client, my boss and other observers, I waxed the floor with the guy (although I was so nervous I forgot to introduce myself). He even came over and congratulated me on a good job and asked if that was really my first time in front of the Supremes (there was a lot of prayer prior to that argument and God was certainly involved in my performance). The Supremes reversed the decision of the trial court. We then settled the case.

At any rate, that particular case makes "T14" above look like an idiot. The unrepresented physician has a borderline genius IQ and couldn't get beyond an early dismissal of his case while representing himself. Apparently a Board Certified physician with a borderline genius IQ is not one of the "most non lawyers" T14 was referring to who could do a better job than a "toilet grad" small firm attorney who didn't go to a top tier law school. Perhaps the doc was just too smart to be able to prevent losing his own case. He's certainly smarter than I am, but he couldn't handle serious civil litigation.

As to brief writing, it varies. There are excellent researchers and writers in big firms and excellent researchers and writers in small firms. There are also bad ones in both environments. The briefs from the big defense firm in the broken penis case were not particularly impressive. I recall typos being a significant issue - which is just sad when you've got lots of staff available to review and correct.

In closing, there are several local attorneys in our rural area that I'd hire to handle my own case before I'd hire big shot partner "x", "y" or "z" at big firm in big city. I know the locals would do an effective job at trial, do it cheaper and pay more attention to me and my case.

And with that, I head to bed. Good night.

Anonymous castricv October 05, 2012 1:53 AM  

Rob I was with you for a while.....

You seem like a smart, good fellow, but if you ramble long enough you sometimes prove the other guy's point.

Blogger robwbright October 05, 2012 2:00 AM  

Well, have to respond to this one.

"I will fully admit to being ignorant of the podunk law practiced by people who couldn't break a 150 on the LSAT. I can tell instantly you are a plaintiff's attorney. Why use 10 words when 1000 will do?"

Well, as your 10 words quite effectively reveal your ignorance, those 10 will certainly do.

FYI, my LSAT was 161. Hardly a 1%'er, but I'm apparently no dummy, either - and that's approximately 42 percentile higher than you estimated my score to be at "couldn't break 150 on the LSAT". Rather significant difference, don't you think?

Of course, LSAT and bar exam scores reveal NOTHING about the ability to actually practice law.

What was your LSAT score? Hmm? Oh wait, as I've not seen you state that you're an attorney, you apparently didn't take it.

Anonymous T14 October 05, 2012 2:00 AM  

"physician suing another physician for malpractice for breaking his penis in a urological procedure"

Dude, THIS is what you lead with!

p.s. The state matters. Cali? NY? Wyoming...

Blogger Spacebunny October 05, 2012 2:20 AM  

Is it possible for one precious snowflake to create a blizzard all by himself? Apparently if he is a lawyer...

Anonymous T14 October 05, 2012 3:33 AM  

I didn't even know penises (penes?) could be broken? This might be worse than the time I google imaged "degloving"

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate Imperion October 05, 2012 7:08 AM  

Everyone here seems convinced the problem is the lawyers and judges. The reason why we have unreliable law practice and enforcement lies not so much in the schools [1], but in the fact that evidence suggests that there is a problem, a serious problem (nay say grave) with monetary policy. Specifically speaking, "sound money and banking." For amplification, see Roger Sherman.

"For the Love of Money is the ROOT of all kinds of evils."



-------------
[1] Not withstanding Gatto's perspective.

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate October 05, 2012 7:19 AM  

If the schools (Schoolmasters) can start two world wars, then what is impossible for them? Difficult to engender a crop of lawyers without the Schoolmasters. Also difficult to have schools without finance (money). Gee, are the Schoolmasters and the Moneymasters the same? Could be...

Ref. University of Chicago for only a microcosmic example. What was UofC before it was purchased, and WHO did the purchasing?

Ok, we may be going too deep into the rabbit hole here for some...

Anonymous FrankNorman October 05, 2012 7:56 AM  

robwbright October 05, 2012 1:05 AM

"Sometimes the facts simply aren't on your side."

You are ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're an attorney working for the Defense and the facts aren't on your side, then you're an idiot for not settling the case. That's just a fact. It's no different than a prosecutor bragging of a 98% conviction rate. That's not at all impressive, as all it shows is that the prosecutor didn't plea 2% of the cases that he should have. A prosecutor should never lose a trial as he's entirely in control of the process of negotiating the plea. And if you're a Plaintiff's attorney and the facts aren't on your side, then you shouldn't have taken the case in the first place or you should have gotten out. There are occasionally "close call" cases in which the facts are not clearly on one side or the other - but then the facts aren't why one side wins or loses.


Rob, I was sympathetic, until I saw the bit I've put in bold there.

How about if the accused person is actually innocent?

Anonymous FrankNorman October 05, 2012 8:08 AM  

Meanwhile...
Most other countries do not have the kind of "litigation culture" the USA seems to have. The loathing you people have for "lawyers" is a reflection of the growing legalism of your society, and of bringing the government into every interaction between people.

Here in South Africa, we have a distinction between Attorneys and Advocates. The latter do the court-case stuff, the former do everything else. Most of the work a "lawyer" does seldom if ever involves appearing in a courtroom.

If you were drawing up your will, or going to sign a contract, wouldn't you want to have someone who knew the law examine it carefully for you and warn you if any of the wording was ambiguous or meant something that was probably not what you wanted?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein October 05, 2012 8:40 AM  

NWA WAS WRONG!

The dirty cops get away with it because of lawyers.


To the poster that compared lawyers to um..black folks, by saying both ruin everything. Not true, bubba!
Every Saturday there are some black folks (football players), that make me very proud of my alma mater. When I hear a lawyer claim to have attended, I usually cringe.......

Anonymous YIH October 05, 2012 9:23 AM  

George, the point you don't have the balls to deal with is the fact that wherever they are Blacks and Whites are not equal and inherently can not be equal despite your claims of ''moral superiority''.
Examples abound worldwide: I've seen a satellite photo of the Haiti/Dominican border. It's very stark and it's not ''just a line on a map''. The western side (Haiti) is almost completely denuded of plant life while the eastern side (Dominican Republic) is lush with plant life. Why would that be ''George''? Why when it was called Rhodesia it was also known as ''the breadbasket of Africa'' and was a major exporter of food. But today it is called Zimbabwe and it's a outright hellhole and depends on the rest of the world for food aid.
Another example: Take Detroit (please, someone do) the city that went from ''the Paris of the midwest'' to a violent, bankrupt hellhole (don't take my word for it just google ''ruins of Detriot'').
Now what do all these locations have in common? Anyone? Anyone? George?

Anonymous HeligKo October 05, 2012 9:50 AM  

Not proud of this, but I got a DUI in June. It has taught me a number of things about the system though. One is that not ever lawyer wants to gouge you, but all lawyers are a part of the system not merely your advocate as they may portray themselves.

In a DUI you typically have to cases. There is the civil case with the state for the drivers license, and this is carried out by an administrative judge. That judge is appointed for the day by the state prosecutors office from the pool of state prosecutors in my state. The conflict of interest is not considered a problem here. The separation of powers issue is not considered a problem either. I was told from the start that I could expect to get no leniancy and that arguments that the machines weren't managed properly(they weren't) would probably fall on deaf ears, since these prosecutors can't afford to have things go sideways in their criminal cases that use these machines.

The second part of the case is the criminal case. My lawyer was pointing out different lawyers around the courthouse. That one is also a judge in this county, and that one over there is a prosecutor in another county. Pretty much every lawyer with a reputation in the room was also a prosecutor for some jurisdiction and a judge in another jurisdiction. So all of these lawyers have to play really nice with each other, because they might sit across the table from each other or be on the other end of the gavel from each other. The system pretty much works through personalities, not by law.

So my lawyer walks in to deal with the plea bargain with the city prosecutors office. He comes out, and says that we were lucky. The city prosecutor was actually there, he never deals with the cases directly. He was also a classmate of my lawyer, so he gave us the best plea deal.

Anonymous HeligKo October 05, 2012 9:51 AM  

Ugh, sorry for the spelling errors. I had a couple distractions

Anonymous YIH October 05, 2012 9:51 AM  

@T14: Fracture of the penis? Yes, and it's quite serious. Caution on clicking the link, you may regret it.

Blogger Logos October 05, 2012 11:31 AM  

Delayed response to George's question about how to find meaning in some of the Constitution's vagaries. Unless I'm mistaken, the gist of his question is that it only makes sense to rely on the Supreme Court to iron these wrinkles out, a notion I completely reject.

First, the Supreme Court's role is simply to decide cases and controversies. Sometimes the Court must intepret the Consitution to perform this function, but those interpretations are binding solely on the litigating parties and the lower courts -- they do not bind anyone else. Every branch of the United States has a duty to uphold the Constitution, so if the Court issues a cockeyed pronouncement, the other branches can and MUST disregard it. So should the States, according to none other than Thomas Jefferson and the very "father" of the Constitution, James Madison. To believe otherwise is to believe that the federal government is the final arbiter of its own powers, which is the quintessence of tyranny.

Second, the Supreme Court has gone beyond its function of "judicial review" (i.e., constitutional enforcement) and claims the right to update the Constitution to fit modern times (i.e., constitutional amendment). This is a grotesque usurpation, for the amendment process is spelled out in Article V of the Constitution and requires legislative supermajorities among the States and Congress. Once again, to propose that a simple majority of five lawyers out of nine may amend the Constitution is tyrannical in the extreme.

And third, as to the meaning of "speech" in the First Amendment, it's important to recall that the Bill of Rights was drafted to apply solely to the federal government, as John Marshall held in Barron v. Baltimore. The Supreme Court has twisted the 14th Amendment (which was illegally passed, by the way) to mean that the federal government may apply the Bill of Rights -- and "penumbras" and "emanations" thereof -- to States and thus perpetually censor their laws, which inverts the constitutional order and makes the federal government master rather than servant. There is no need to tie ourselves in knots over what "speech" means. The answer is simple. A State law is presumptively valid and falls within the vast reservoir of power that the States kept via the 10th Amendment -- unless the law violates one of the few prohibitions on the States such as ex post facto, bill of attainder, or impairment of contract, it survives. A federal law is presumptively invalid because 1) the federal government has only enumerated powers, so the law must point to its constitutional source, and 2) even those enumerated powers it has must not violate the Bill of Rights, which is really just a redundant safety device. As to Citizens United (which I assume you're driving at), that was a federal law restricting how corporations could spend their own money with regard to political messages. Even if there is no "speech" in this equation, such a law has no constitutional basis anyway. But the regulation was directly tethered to the type of spending, and that type was political speech, so it was doubly invalid.

Anonymous T14 October 05, 2012 12:08 PM  

YIH: Well you did answer my question. Why I clicked remains a mystery. That's enough internet for me...

Anonymous Kevin October 05, 2012 12:26 PM  

Fact: did you know that if you took all the lawyers of the world and lined them up side by side around the earth's equator...you should just leave them there.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more lawyer jokes

Blogger james wilson October 05, 2012 12:30 PM  

The first clue that something is rotten in lawyering is that it is the only industry where a vast, crushing oversupply of product does not result in low wages, but only in unemployed lawyers. Two-thirds of JD graduates are not working the profession in six years. The entire judicial system is, essentially, a monopoly which exist to protect itself.

Anonymous Anonymous October 06, 2012 11:21 PM  

Lawyers itemize their bills to make you think you are getting your money's worth. I once had a lawyer who would charge me whenever she attempted to contact me. Even if she could not get me on the phone, she would still charge me for the attempt. (This was before email and voice mail). She was the first to sour me on their "profession". She let my abusive husband know that my kids and I were changing locations in an RV to get away from him - something I definitely did not want him to know, for our safety's sake. I have a severely handicapped son for whom I needed to obtain guardianship over in order to get him a passport. Medical care is much cheaper in other countries (thanks to our lawyers here). My lawyer said that my abusive ex would not have to be involved. We got to court and they insisted they had to get his permission. I tried to withdraw my request, but they would not let me. My son's ad litem lawyer apparently needed more money from me. so I had to continue to pay him and my lawyer for a course of action I no longer wanted and which put our lives in danger. I cannot get a medical power of attorney here for him for the same reason- the "necessary" involvement of my ex-husband. This makes for some problems getting him medical care - again due to the intrusion of LAWYERS. Why do they wish to be called "attorneys" instead of "lawyers"? Also never have a lawyer engage you for goods or services. They will be the last to pay you and if they do not pay you, you have no recourse - none, for they own the system.

Anonymous Randy October 15, 2012 9:50 PM  

Lawyers are NOT human. Their humanity gets stripped away in law school.
I wrote a post about it a while ago - at http://capitalggeek.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/why-lawyers-arent-really-human/

It relates the story of two lawyers who let an innocent man rot in jail for 26 years to protect their guilty client. It is from CBS, and can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

Blogger Daniel Hirsch October 19, 2012 3:53 AM  

Thanks for your great information. We all appreciate your information. Keep posting these kind of nice blogs.
Conveyancing Northern Beaches



Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts