[Jim March]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61936

I couldn't let the "Why I Hate Lawyers" thread go unanswered. Consider the above thread "why I don't speak in overly broad generalities"...

[Henry Bowman]

Uh... Not sure of your point. But from El Tejon and me, thanks (I think). :confused:

Edited to add: Never mind. I see the thread now. :uhoh:



Send lawyers, guns and money.
Dad, get me out of this!

[geekWithA.45]

Like guns, the law is a tool.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Like any tool, its use is subject to abuse, and it comes down to the character of the man with the gun or the law in his hands.

[Mulliga]

Well, I'm going to try to go to law school, and be a lawyer (patent attorney). You can be a decent person, or a slimeball - same with any profession. There are cops on the take, but the majority are not. There are some horrible used car salesman, but many just want to make a fair profit and sell cars for a living.

[Bill Hook]

I think most folks dislike lawyers, besides the incidences of malfeasance that seem to come up all too frequently and with little unfavorable consequence to the perpetrators, for the reason that it is a self-perpetuating profession. The laws are mainly written by lawyers, and written in a jargon that makes it difficult for the general public to understand, such that you need a lawyer. Many legal proceedings are only open to lawyers, such that you must retain one to take part.

Instead of being professionals who are noted for their knowledge of how the law is applied, they mainly seem to be hucksters out to convince other lawyers (judges) or 12 people too dumb to avoid jury duty to accept excuses for their client, or translators to decipher the recondite language of legal codes.

It is nice to point out how lawyers have helped defend our rights and right wrongs, but one should also point out that those trying to usurp our rights and perpetrate wrongs are either lawyers themselves or lawyers representing those wishing to afflict us.

I should note that an over-abundence of lawyers probably precipitates a good number of the problems we see in the legal profession, as there is always someone willing to stoop to a new low to get his fee and outcompete his fellow attorneys.

[Mike Irwin]

I've seen several references to Shakespeare's "First... kill all the lawyers," in these threads, and just want to point out one thing...

Most people are taking this quote badly out of context. Shakespeare wasn't dissing lawyers, he was commending them and pointing out their vital importance in a functioning, representatitive society.

The line is spoken by one of the play's (Henry VI) villains, who wishes, along with this fellows, to completely overthrow the government.

In discussing how to do this, he says "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." By removing the lawyers, you have removed an element vital to the continued success of the system.

[Balog]

Mike Irwin: I believe that at the time Shakespeare wrote the line, "lawyer" was used for the people who made the laws ie politicians.

[Mike Irwin]

Balog,

I don't think that's correct.

The term is from Middle English, probably the 1380s through early 1400s. I've got a friend looking in his OED to see how the term was used in Elizabethan times, but I'm pretty sure that by the time of Shakespeare the word lawyer meant, and was used, as it is today.

By as early as the 1200s the legal profession, men who were paid to argue in front of the King's Law Courts, was well on its way to being established.

In 1362 Parliament passed a law to make English (as opposed to the Norman French) the official language of all pleadings in all courts.

Resistance from the legal profession caused Parliament to, in part, back down.

There's also a passage in Hamlet, which is a lot less complimentary to lawyers, that is talking specifically about those who argue law in courts, not those who make law in Parliament.

Another passage in King Lear also makes the same case.

[Calmwater]

An interesting take on the original intent of the author: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

[c_yeager]

Then why do the English today use the term "Solicitor" instead of lawyer? I wonder what happened to cause the change.

edited to add: i think the untimely death of a good man is a poor time to make a political point.

[Mike Irwin]

The British actually use a number of terms to describe members of the legal profession.

Lawyer, attorney, barrister and solicitor, and possibly others.

Lawyer and attorney both have their roots in Middle English (attorney is older, from Norman French), and are more general, while barrister and solicitor have rather specific meanings in the legal profession in Britain.

A barrister is admitted to the bar to plead in superior courts, while a solicitor is not admitted to the bar and can plead only in the lower courts.

[Mike Irwin]

Calmwater,

Yep, familiar with that, too, and a very good read.

I think, though, in the context of Henry VI Shakespeare's lines are a tribute to attorneys in that particular case.

British government had been undergoing enormous changes in the 1500s and 1600s, and the courts were well on their way to becoming separate, independent (independent from the crown) organs in their own right.

It wasn't an easy process, and was tightly tied up in the entire question of the role of the Monarch vs the role of Parliment in both government and society.

It's clear, though, that Shakespeare, as a social satirist, shot barbs at just about anyone who deserved it, even the Monarchy in the form of Elizabeth I and James I in a number of his plays.

In "A Midsummer Night's Dream" Shakespeare even included, in Puck's last lines in the play, what some believe to be an apology to James I if some of the barbs came a little too close to home.

[Jim March]

Believe me, John would have approved of citing his life as proof not all lawyers are screwballs. And he'd have thrown a bad joke into the mix while he was at it.

[Mulliga]

I think most folks dislike lawyers, besides the incidences of malfeasance that seem to come up all too frequently and with little unfavorable consequence to the perpetrators, for the reason that it is a self-perpetuating profession. The laws are mainly written by lawyers, and written in a jargon that makes it difficult for the general public to understand, such that you need a lawyer. Many legal proceedings are only open to lawyers, such that you must retain one to take part.


This is true. But note that even in a time of less government (say Revolutionary America), there were still lawyers.

I dream of being a Supreme Court Justice and restoring the BoR...no more restricted political ads, no more gun bans, no more Patriot Act looking into what we check out at the library, no more federal meddling in the schools and streets, etc. The only way to do so is to become a lawyer.

[webley455]

IMHO it was allowing lawyers to be able to advertise that led to the down fall of the profession. :(

[Mike Irwin]

"But note that even in a time of less government (say Revolutionary America), there were still lawyers."

Many of the Founders and Framers were lawyers.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, James Wilson (one of the most respected legal minds in early America), James Madison, George Read, Thomas McKean, Stephen Hopkins, and even Roger Sherman, the simpler cobbler from Connecticut.

Edward Rutledge apparently didn't practice law in the United States, but was admitted to the English Bar.

Others, such as John Morton, Josiah Bartlett, Richard Henry Lee, and Cesar Rodney, weren't attorneys, but were justices of the peace or judges.

[Braz]

Went to my sister in law's birthday party not long ago,

There was a cooperate lawyer from across the street who came over. As we got toasted, he began to brag about his day. He crowed about saving his client many tens of thousands of dollars in a personal injury suit. Seems a Vietnamese man was walking by a vet's house who had been drinking. The vet opened his door and released his pit bull on the poor little guy.

His right arm was ruined for life, the lawyer said. But then he bragged about getting a settlement for $3000 and medical expenses. He said he was surely in for a raise for saving the insurance company up to six figures. When I expressed my disgust, he suddenly realized he could be in trouble if I reported this to the other side's attorney, he became contrite and soon left. This was a lawyer doing his job. He stands to make a bonus for this fine work. There are valid reasons why many folks are disgusted by lawyers who are just doing their jobs. Decent lawyers (and I know one), must do more than shake their heads if they want respect, imo.

[Art Eatman]

Aw, it's the usual deal. I know lawyers that I'd be proud to have to my house for dinner. I know others for whom I'd provide gift certificates for a home visit from Dr. Kevorkian...

Trouble is, there are just enough of this latter group such that lawyer jokes will always be with us...

Art

[schromf]

I worked in a law firm several years ago, my son still works for a law firm. The best lawyer jokes I have ever heard were while I was working there. I knew several attornies that had lawyer joke books in their offices, and were always up for a new lawyer joke. They had the ability to laugh at their proffesion, and didn't have their panties in a wad.

The lawyers in the firm were a mixed bag, from the very greedy and arogant on the bad side, to honest hardworking people with sense of humor on the good, the good ones did a lot of pro bono law and set aside a percentage of their time to help others less fornunate than themselves.

They are people like all the rest of us, there a some very good ones, some very bad ones, and a fair amount in the in between.

[Idaho]

I think another part of the reason that lawyers are disliked is that people tend to encounter them in association with bad things happening. Whether the lawyer represents you as a plaintiff or a defendant, it is usually because there is a problem.

[Mike Irwin]

Yes, just about every profession has derogatory jokes associated with it.

My Father's a civil engineer. You should hear some of the jokes...

For example...

"Why did the engineers at XYC Company go on strike?"

"The company cut their pocket protector allowance."

[MeekandMild]

I think this goes a long way back, much further than one would guess with just reading current news.

The Brits had a major cultural revolution during the late 1500s through late 1800s which involved four major concurrent changes. These were the industrial revolution which stripped commoners of traditional vocations, the "clearings" of all the commoners from large land holdings, urbanization which concentrated them in working class ghettos, and the legal revolution with English Common Law being replaced by compiled laws.

Basically this involved a whole lot of people being screwed by rich folk and rich folks' lawyers for 15 generations. This carried over to the people who either fled or were transported in chains to America. That is a whole lot of ill will for a long time. Goes double for Scots-Americans, Welsh-Americans and Irish-Americans.

Maybe one of the lawyers or historians could comment further about this phenomenom.

[jimpeel]

Here is a site for lawyer jokes and cartoons.

http://www.lawyer-jokes.us/

[bjengs]

There are lawyers who still pursue justice in the world. Those are your criminal lawyers and your constitutional law scholars. Obviously, John Brophy was one of these types. I think it goes without saying (well, from this thread's existence, maybe Jim doesn't think so) that Brophy was the kind of lawyer you could be proud of, who you would want to know, who you never would tar with the adjective "slimy." This I say not from knowing the man (I didn't) but from knowing what were his beliefs in his practice of the law.

But a tax attorney is another matter. His arena is the tax court system, and I see no provision for tax courts in the Constitution. And all of the other types of attorneys who deal in exploiting the bad laws of this country for their own gain, who use their collective power to keep bad lawmakers in power, and who bring honest industry to its knees with frivolous lawsuits whose cost is borne by the consumer, but whose massive payouts line their own pockets.

Think of four out of five people you know who went off to law school for something besides criminal justice or con law and call to mind what their true motivating factor was. They definitely aren't there to FIX the system! These are the people we think of when someone says "I hate lawyers."

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Think of four out of five people you know who went off to law school for something besides criminal justice or con law and call to mind what their true motivating factor was. They definitely aren't there to FIX the system! These are the people we think of when someone says "I hate lawyers."


I don't think it's accurate to say that the only legitimate Lawyers are those practicing in the fields of criminal or constitutional law. For example, an earlier poster mentioned an interest in becoming a patent attorney with an eye towards practice in the patent bar before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is another area of the law specifically mentioned in the constitution and is a legal speciality widely considered to be extremely beneficial to economic growth in the US over the centuries. In addition each of the amendments comprising Bill of Rights practically defines a seperate and wholly legitimate area of law.

[Jim March]

The tax attorneys that try desperately to rein in IRS abuses are some of the BEST people in the legal profession.

Let's go back to John Brophy a sec.

His main type of lawyering was criminal defense. He represented people in jail, he represented real criminals all the time. One of his most common statements about that was "I defend their rights, not their wrongs".

The type of lawyering he enjoyed the MOST was RKBA-related...but there's never all that much of same going on.

Knowing what you know now, that he represented criminals, do you think you have a right to judge him?

Yes, there are some lousy lawyers out there...total sharks, sleazebags, etc.

But it's been my pleasure to know a LOT of good ones. Not just John; Peter Mancus, Don Kilmer, Don B. Kates, Chuck Michel, Gary Gorski, David Beauvais, Lowell Finley and others...all of 'em people who believe in justice. (Look up who that last one is, you'll be shocked...cross reference against "Schwarzenegger").

[VNgo]

I think that one of the main reasons lawyers tend to be resented and disliked by many people is that they're often viewed as not being productive members of society, in the sense that they don't produce anything.

[Art Eatman]

VNgo, I don't think it's that philosophical.

For instance, think about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. How could a mature adult go into a courtroom and keep a straight face while claiming his client had been damaged by McDonald's and through no fault of her own?

How can somebody be serious that the design of a 50-year-old airplane should now be the tort responsibility of the company, if an inexperienced pilot crashes the airplane? After all, the FAA certified it as airworthy, and every flight manual ever written advises pilots to study and learn the characteristics of whatever they plan to fly.

IOW, when folks show up with such frivolous nonsense in a demand to sue, why would any attorney take the case--other than ignorance, crookedness or raw greed? But, again, I believe these sorts of cases are in the minority; the glare of publicity makes them memorable.

Art

[Idaho]

To paraphrase, "first thing we do, lets kill all the JURORS."

Art, I don't disagree that those cases are ridiculous. But let's not forget that 6 or 12 of your "peers" decided that that giving money to the coffee spiller was a good idea.

[Mike Irwin]

"Think of four out of five people you know who went off to law school for something besides criminal justice or con law and call to mind what their true motivating factor was."

And I didn't go into the writing/editing profession to stamp out illiteracy in America as we know it, nor did any of the other people I know in that profession.

We went in to make a living.

It's no different with attorneys. Just because you want to be an attorney doesn't immediately mean that you have to have a flag up the butt and a burning desire to see absolute justice done absolutely.

I'm sure that my real estate attorney would be very amused by that image...

[Jim March]

Yo Art?

Ever studied the *details* in the "infamous McDonald's coffee jury award"?

It wasn't so crazy. McD's knew the coffee was WAY past the temps the human body could tolerate, there'd been numerous previous accidents, and this lady had suffered 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for a week while they did skin grafts.

To her vagina :eek:.

They handed her something that was basically toxic, knowing she was in a car and could spill it.

:scrutiny:

That was the system working as it SHOULD.

[Jeeper]

Not only that Jim but she originally offered to settle for 1/3 of her medical costs which was like $8K. McD's say go screw yourself at she sued. She was being reasonable in the first place but like usual the corporations dont care if they do anything wrong. Everyone bitches about lawyers until they need one. I bet everyone here would think different if their mother was killed because firestone wasnt making their tires right. Of course no one here would sue anyone then, huh?

I always think it is funny that people bash lawyer because they might be dishonest. Tell me a profession that isnt! Every been to an honest car mechanic? How about any other salesman that isnt trying to con you nito buying something? My personal least favorite profession is anything that has to do with loans and buying houses. Some of those people make crazy money and totally control what the customer gets. The money they make based on what they do and their education is ridiculous. Is is also a complete monopoly in that you basically have to use a realtor to sell your house. You want to talk about a dishonest profession.

[Art Eatman]

At the time of the McDonald's lawsuit, it was reported in the newspapers about testimony where the coffee was at 186 degrees Fahrenheit. Was that incorrect?

The reason I've believed the suit was phoney is that our coffeemaker here at home makes coffee at 186 degrees Fahrenheit. I forget the brand, but there are umpteen gazillion of the critters in homes around the country.

I used a meat thermometer, first testing the coffee as it was made. I then poured a cup and stirred in sugar. 175-ish. I carried the cup to the living room and set it down after taking a sip. 165-ish. Elapsed time of two minutes or maybe a tad less.

Art

[Jim March]

Art, when you make coffee at home, you KNOW how long out of the coffee maker it's been before you take it in the CAR with a $.04 dirt-cheap container and lid.

Phrased another way: would you set up that coffeemaker right next to the door, pour coffee from it into the cheapest mass-produced container you could find, take that straight to a car and drive away?

I sure as hell wouldn't...unsafe. The exact same unsafe situation McD's set up.

[bjengs]

Jim saidThe tax attorneys that try desperately to rein in IRS abuses are some of the BEST people in the legal profession.True, but en masse, the tax attorneys rely on a mountain of immoral and unjust tax laws to keep their coffers full. Their profession would not exist without the passage of the income tax amendment.

Jim saidLet's go back to John Brophy a sec.

His main type of lawyering was criminal defense. He represented people in jail, he represented real criminals all the time. One of his most common statements about that was "I defend their rights, not their wrongs".

The type of lawyering he enjoyed the MOST was RKBA-related...but there's never all that much of same going on.

Knowing what you know now, that he represented criminals, do you think you have a right to judge him?I, for one, pointed out that criminal defense attorneys are truly admirable. I have met many vigilantes who believe that someone is guilty before being given a fair trial. No matter how despicable the perpetrator ends up being, they deserve their day in court. Even the alleged terrorists at Guantanamo. Guys like Brophy earn my respect because sometimes their calling requires that they give some lowlifes the benefit of the doubt and the best of their legal abilities. And, sometimes, they set the record straight about some innocent people whom the public has declared "guilty." That is heroic.

Mike saidWe [writers and editors] went in to make a living.

It's no different with attorneys. Just because you want to be an attorney doesn't immediately mean that you have to have a flag up the butt and a burning desire to see absolute justice done absolutely.I'm not sure if you're overrating the writing/editing professions or underrating the legal profession. When your job is to directly determine the fate of people's fortunes and lives, you damned well better take it seriously! Most lawyers only take the money and status seriously.

Everyone can find exceptions, the world is not black and white. But these are my beliefs about the legal profession in general.

[Orthonym]

I think that some, wiser than I,have said that the reason our Anglo-American legal "system" works as well as it does, is that in a lot of cases, there have been good advocates on both sides of the question, and both sides asked, and got answered, hard questions of each other. Of course, it also helps if the judge knows what he's doing and the jury has an average IQ > 90.

Ain't that why every defendant is meant to have a lawyer? The system is based on argument! Not on justice, not on equity, but on argument! With good argument on both sides, cool-headed erudite fair-minded judges, and sensible juries, argument may arrive at some reasonably close approximation of truth and justice.


Edit; removed unnecessarily vulgar sentence which made no difference to the meaning of the post.

[Art Eatman]

Jim, "Life is a learning experience." I never had to stick my hand on a hot stove to figure out that I could get burned. I also was able to figure out that setting a cup of hot coffee in my lap was not the most secure action I could ever take. And when I'm driving a car, I give consideration to what I will have in that car and where I put it.

That woman made a sequence of bad-judgement mistakes, and I don't have one iota of sympathy beyond the normal regret that anybody should feel pain. McDonald's didn't make her spill that coffee; she did that all on her own.

The whole deal makes me think of another of my father's little homilies: "Hurrying won't hurt you, but it will make you hurt yourself."

Back to the thread: I've been on four juries, and was a witness in a murder trial. By and large, the defense attornies seemed more mature and professional than did the prosecutors. The difficulty for the average layman, I guess, is determining which attorneys are competent, and which are merely BS artists...

Art

[Ky Larry]

I think peple confuse law and lawyers. There are a lot of very bad laws. Lawyers have to work with the laws as they are written. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

[BigG]

Geekwitha45 said:Like guns, the law is a tool.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Like any tool, its use is subject to abuse, and it comes down to the character of the man with the gun or the law in his hands. Excuse me but I spewed all over my keyboard! That is taking it pretty much into the realm of fantasy.

Now there are an abundance of useless men in the world, including some in my own family, myself not included. ;) To quote President John Adams, "I have come to the conclusion that ONE useless man is called a Disgrace, that TWO are called a LAW FIRM and that THREE or MORE become a CONGRESS!" But he was only president, what did he know? YMMV

[powertoast]

And now, what each of you has been waiting for - my opinion!

I'm a lawyer, and I work for a 14-judge appellate court. I happen to be a swell guy. I teach Sunday School and carry a gun. Clarence Thomas is a lawyer and a judge, and I bet he's a swell guy too.

Some folks say that all guns are bad. Others say that all lawyers are bad.
Neither is right.

Judges and lawyers aren't the problem. The abandonment of decency, morality and responsibility are. It manifests itself in liberalism, and liberals
vote for leftist judges, or they vote for leftist politicians who appoint
leftist judges. Some leftists go to law school. They were lousy people
before they received a juris doctor. What makes them harmful to America is
not that they are lawyers or judges or politicians, but that they are
leftists.

cheers! :)

[BigG]

powetoast, and other good lawyers out there: I'll drink to that! It's just that the majority of lawyers give your profession a bad name. We could probably say that about every profession, but we expect someone who operates in the arcane areas like law and medicine to have a little mercy on us less informed. Cheers, y'all and keep up the good work!

[powertoast]

You mean minority, right? ;)

cheers!

[MeekandMild]

Welcome to THR powertoast. I hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us do, and may you ever find the shooting sports to be a good hobby. :D

I would wonder what you'd say about (from my previous post on this thread) the problem of the creeping loss of liberty not being a recent one but instead being one with hundreds of years of judicial mismanagement.

[bad_dad_brad]

As I seem to have started this recent debate about lawyers with my whining, I will add my final two cents with a few statements.

I work for the largest insurance company in the U.S. (the world actually). As such, I see litigation at it's most frivolous, and sometimes legitimate. We go to court hundreds of times a year. Most of the law suits are unjust. Limit the percentage of the award that goes to the plaintiff's lawyer, and you will see these suits dwindle.

I am a firm believer that Judges should not be lawyers. Of course, they must go to school, be educated in the law, but I think that practicing attorneys who become Judges have a conflict of interest as they side towards the lawyer, not the people or state represented by the lawyer. Just my opinion.

I won't vote for any politician that was a practicing attorney. If both candidates are such, I leave my vote blank. Remember - Bill and Hillary - lawyers of the most manipulative kind.

One of the finest individuals I ever knew was my attorney, before he was killed jogging one night by a drunk driver. Still, he had a cynicism about human nature that I always found disturbing.

That cynicism is what bothers me. I never knew a lawyer that did not answer a question but with another question. Even a friend or neighbor. It is in their nature and training.

I don't hate lawyers like the guy in that thread that I started, but we are over litigated, over lawyered, and they as a profession, I feel, have too much influence on American society.

[justice4all]

The problem, BigG, with showing mercy, at least to an opponent in an adversarial situation, is that this would be unethical conduct for an attorney, which might expose the attorney to a malpractice claim. An attorney is not paid to be impartial, but rather to advocate one side or the other to the best of his ability and within the confines of legal ethics. Perhaps that is where a lot of the hostility towards lawyers comes from, when people expect them to act according to altruistic ethics, not those which require near-absolute loyalty to one's client.

[benEzra]

The tort system drove off the market a drug that my 4-year-old son HAS to have in order to eat (thanks to a well-orchestrated PR campaign by the Nader empire). To this day, if you look up "propulsid" or "cisapride" on the web, you'll get mostly law firms repeating half-truths and trolling for clients. Currently, my son's health and well being hangs by a very slender thread--we were able to get cisapride on a clinical-trial basis, but at only half the dose he was thriving on before the hysteria, future access is uncertain, and he is subsisting on a liquid-only diet.

The modus operandi of the tort system seems to be that if something is the slightest bit hazardous if misused, then it should not exist, regardless of how many people will die or be injured due to its absence.