Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Yes.
TOO MANY LAWYERS?
- Thread starter johnny blaze
- Start date
- Status
Yes.
Lemme see here
In Japan, they have few lawyers and fewer legally owned firearms
In USA, too many guns and too many lawyers.
Yes, clearly lawyers are a threat to a free society, and we should do something about them.
Rabbit and Okie are correct. Lawyer is defined differently in different legal systems so the statistics are meaningless. Regardless, get in the way of a drunk driver, a politician or a vindictive ex and you may find that lawyers can be helpful.
I'd like to think that laws could be replaced by common sense, but I don't know of any system where that has worked, other than perhaps Spock's home planet.
In Japan, they have few lawyers and fewer legally owned firearms
In USA, too many guns and too many lawyers.
Yes, clearly lawyers are a threat to a free society, and we should do something about them.
Rabbit and Okie are correct. Lawyer is defined differently in different legal systems so the statistics are meaningless. Regardless, get in the way of a drunk driver, a politician or a vindictive ex and you may find that lawyers can be helpful.
I'd like to think that laws could be replaced by common sense, but I don't know of any system where that has worked, other than perhaps Spock's home planet.
Thain
Member
Lawyers, near as I can figure, are a lot like car salesmen in the public eye. I've sold cars, and I now work as support staff for a five lawyer firm. Everyone hates car salesmen... but they love their car salesman.
I got him such a deal, he loves his car, his wife loves hers... and now that little Sally is heading off to college, I sell him one for her, too.
People hate lawyers. But the client who just sent one of the partners a fruit basket and a pair of concert tickets for her birthday? Yeah, they love theit lawyer.
Auto mechanics, pumblers, realtors, salesmen and lawyers... everyone hates us until they need you.
I got him such a deal, he loves his car, his wife loves hers... and now that little Sally is heading off to college, I sell him one for her, too.
People hate lawyers. But the client who just sent one of the partners a fruit basket and a pair of concert tickets for her birthday? Yeah, they love theit lawyer.
Auto mechanics, pumblers, realtors, salesmen and lawyers... everyone hates us until they need you.
That is indeed one time you need a lawyer, there are other times as well. Lawyers have helped keep the company I work for from going under by assisting us with bankruptcy. Lawyers help us collect money from the dead beat customers we have that sign contacts and quit paying us owing us countless thousands of dollars (see bankrupt). Lawyers have helped us fight the big corporation that was working outside of the law to keep competition from us down. Lawyers help people battle legislation thats passed and is unconstitutional. Lawyers help protect people from bad police practices. Lawyers help a dad take custody of his child back from an abusive mother. I don't attempt my own oral surgery and I sure want a skilled competent expert in the law on my side if I ever need it. Ymmv, but lawyers do a lot more than screw the little guy to the wall.
Except tech support, customers need you but they still hate you
another okie
Member
I wrote:
You don't have to pass Anatomy and Physiology to be a lawyer, like you do to be a medical doctor.
A reply said:
"Are you implying that lawyers are not as smart as doctors, or that lawyers are generally stupid? Law school is not easy, and neither is the bar exam."
I was trying to be funny, which I guess is a mistake when there are lawyers around. Please don't sue me! Actually, I am a member of the bar in the state of Oklahoma.
That said, I honestly don't think law school is as hard as medical school or graduate school in some engineering or hard science discipline. It's hard, but it's not plasma physics or calculus three, either. It's where reasonably intelligent liberal arts graduates go who can't figure out what to do with their English or History degree. I mean, are you going to go door to door explaining Beowulf?
You don't have to pass Anatomy and Physiology to be a lawyer, like you do to be a medical doctor.
A reply said:
"Are you implying that lawyers are not as smart as doctors, or that lawyers are generally stupid? Law school is not easy, and neither is the bar exam."
I was trying to be funny, which I guess is a mistake when there are lawyers around. Please don't sue me! Actually, I am a member of the bar in the state of Oklahoma.
That said, I honestly don't think law school is as hard as medical school or graduate school in some engineering or hard science discipline. It's hard, but it's not plasma physics or calculus three, either. It's where reasonably intelligent liberal arts graduates go who can't figure out what to do with their English or History degree. I mean, are you going to go door to door explaining Beowulf?
LightningJoe
Member
The fact that the US has so many lawyers is undoubtedly symptomatic of something or other. That something is probably bad. The lawyers themselves vary. And, yes, I have the impression doctors typically smarter than lawyers.
Japan
Japan certainly can seem like a wonderland. And the Japanese certainly promote Japan as being so much better than everywhere else. If you stay a week or two, you will have the wonderland feeling.
A deeper and more honest examination * will reveal that Japan is a case of a collectively sick nation, a self-destructive country that is systematically destroying its environment, its culture and it’s economy by adherence to ideas and policies that are decades out of date.
Once admired for its spectacular economic successes, Japan is a land of ravaged mountains and rivers, endemic pollution, tenement cities, and skyrocketing debts. Why? Well, pretty much everything in Japan is geared towards conformity, and the Japanese are in many ways the ultimate “sheeple”. Japan is managed by an autonomous and corrupt government bureaucracy, driven by an ethos of economic growth at any cost and a mania for control. The bureaucratically controlled educational system emphasizes obedience above all else. Japan's natural beauty has been destroyed by useless and corrupt construction projects. Japan's banking system has failed, but no one really knows the extent of the damage, as the bureaucracy keeps accurate information hidden.
In my Constitutional Criminal Law course, I use Japan as a contrast to our constitutional form of government. There is a misconception that Japan became a democracy, as we use the concept, post WW II – not so.
If you want to push Japan as your ideal, consider – no 2nd Amendment, severely restricted access to firearms. I find this an odd attitude on this board.
OK - lets say you violate or are accused of violating a firearms statute?
A suspect drawn by arrest or invitation to meet with a Japanese prosecutor must be prepared to be questioned for the 23 days that he may be lawfully detained without the filing of a charge. There is no arraignment. You won’t get counsel until you are formally charged. Your attorney will not have the right to be present during any interrogation. Bail? Nope. When you do meet with counsel, when and where will be determined by the prosecutor.
The criminal defendant has no right to pre-trial discovery. The prosecutor is not required to disclose exculpatory evidence. In fact, the pre-charge interrogation is actually the “trial”, and the trial is a ritual, At the trial, the judge conducts the ritual by receiving evidence: a dossier, compiled and written by the prosecutor.
None of our constitutional safeguards against governmental power exist - Where was the jury? No juries, no grand juries, no preliminary hearings.
Oh yeah, they don’t have many lawyers, either.
Suggested reading on Japan
Karl Van Wolleran's "The Enigma of Japanese Power"
Alex Kerr’s “Dogs and Demons”
David Johnson’s “The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan (Studies on Law and Social Control)”
* disclaimer: I am: a lawyer who specializes in criminal trail work; a college professor who focuses on constitutional and criminal law; and a student for over 30 years of Japanese martial ways, culture and Zen.
Japan certainly can seem like a wonderland. And the Japanese certainly promote Japan as being so much better than everywhere else. If you stay a week or two, you will have the wonderland feeling.
A deeper and more honest examination * will reveal that Japan is a case of a collectively sick nation, a self-destructive country that is systematically destroying its environment, its culture and it’s economy by adherence to ideas and policies that are decades out of date.
Once admired for its spectacular economic successes, Japan is a land of ravaged mountains and rivers, endemic pollution, tenement cities, and skyrocketing debts. Why? Well, pretty much everything in Japan is geared towards conformity, and the Japanese are in many ways the ultimate “sheeple”. Japan is managed by an autonomous and corrupt government bureaucracy, driven by an ethos of economic growth at any cost and a mania for control. The bureaucratically controlled educational system emphasizes obedience above all else. Japan's natural beauty has been destroyed by useless and corrupt construction projects. Japan's banking system has failed, but no one really knows the extent of the damage, as the bureaucracy keeps accurate information hidden.
In my Constitutional Criminal Law course, I use Japan as a contrast to our constitutional form of government. There is a misconception that Japan became a democracy, as we use the concept, post WW II – not so.
If you want to push Japan as your ideal, consider – no 2nd Amendment, severely restricted access to firearms. I find this an odd attitude on this board.
OK - lets say you violate or are accused of violating a firearms statute?
A suspect drawn by arrest or invitation to meet with a Japanese prosecutor must be prepared to be questioned for the 23 days that he may be lawfully detained without the filing of a charge. There is no arraignment. You won’t get counsel until you are formally charged. Your attorney will not have the right to be present during any interrogation. Bail? Nope. When you do meet with counsel, when and where will be determined by the prosecutor.
The criminal defendant has no right to pre-trial discovery. The prosecutor is not required to disclose exculpatory evidence. In fact, the pre-charge interrogation is actually the “trial”, and the trial is a ritual, At the trial, the judge conducts the ritual by receiving evidence: a dossier, compiled and written by the prosecutor.
None of our constitutional safeguards against governmental power exist - Where was the jury? No juries, no grand juries, no preliminary hearings.
Oh yeah, they don’t have many lawyers, either. Suggested reading on Japan
Karl Van Wolleran's "The Enigma of Japanese Power"
Alex Kerr’s “Dogs and Demons”
David Johnson’s “The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan (Studies on Law and Social Control)”
* disclaimer: I am: a lawyer who specializes in criminal trail work; a college professor who focuses on constitutional and criminal law; and a student for over 30 years of Japanese martial ways, culture and Zen.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
I'm willing to overlook the fact that you took me too seriously; I get that a lot.
However, I'll indulge your remarks, 'cuz hey, why not.
Here's where the "vicar" thing comes from. We have vicars in the traditional sense because "common" folk don't have "access" to God(s). They have this guy who stands between them and the deity du jour, and he brokers the connection. They access their deity "vicariously" using the guy with the reversed collar as their interpreter. Stay with me here, there's only so much cheek a tongue can endure. We common folk don't have "access" to the law.
Now, the law is written in "English" in this country, but for some reason people with a high school or even college education in English can't penetrate the mysteries of legalese. Thus we need this "vicar" -- this interpreter -- to explain that "the party of the first part" means that guy over there, and that "whereas" means because, and so on. It could be alleged that the law is deliberately written in obfuscated English so that only the annointed can decipher it, thus creating job security for these "vicars of the law."
The "drafting a law that violates the constitution" thing was actually toned down: originally I was going to prescribe a firing squad.
The point was (and I thought it was kind of obvious) that people whose livelihood is enciphering and deciphering the "sacred language" of the law have way too much temptation to "fudge" things in favor of some special interest, constitution be damned.
We get hunks of legislation all the time with little obscure "harmless-looking" riders that screw with our rights. I figured that it would only be just if someone engaging in that kind of chicanery got his knuckles rapped with a 4-pound hammer. Or a firing squad.
Now, the law is written in "English" in this country, but for some reason people with a high school or even college education in English can't penetrate the mysteries of legalese. Thus we need this "vicar" -- this interpreter -- to explain that "the party of the first part" means that guy over there, and that "whereas" means because, and so on. It could be alleged that the law is deliberately written in obfuscated English so that only the annointed can decipher it, thus creating job security for these "vicars of the law."
The "drafting a law that violates the constitution" thing was actually toned down: originally I was going to prescribe a firing squad.
The point was (and I thought it was kind of obvious) that people whose livelihood is enciphering and deciphering the "sacred language" of the law have way too much temptation to "fudge" things in favor of some special interest, constitution be damned.
We get hunks of legislation all the time with little obscure "harmless-looking" riders that screw with our rights. I figured that it would only be just if someone engaging in that kind of chicanery got his knuckles rapped with a 4-pound hammer. Or a firing squad.
On a more sober note, the most serious problem we have with the law as commonly drafted is that the English used is not the English taught to everyman. Through an accident of fate, I have a better-than-average grasp of English, and even I have trouble with that stuff.
The solution (IMO) is that the English language needs to be more comprehensively taught, so that people graduating college have at least as good a grasp of grammar and composition as I had when I finished eighth grade. Okay, that was a little cheap, I admit, but 15 years ago I tutored a high school teacher in English grammar -- at college 3rd year level -- so that she could teach sophomore English the following year. I got her through it, but even after that, with her two degrees (one, a masters) and her teacher's certification, she still could not construct a decent English sentence in her conversations. Yuck.
The idea that "laws need to be written in 'plain' English" thus dumbing down both the language and the law is a pretty broken concept. The "common" man needs to have a far better mastery of his mother tongue.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt if lawyers would cease and desist from the deliberate obfuscation of legal language. Yes, we all know yer real smart, we'll take that as read; now, could you demonstrate yer cleverness by making laws clear rather than cloudy?
Thanx.
Thain
Member
Of course, every person has the right to represent themselves in the American Court system. It is generally not recommended, for the simple reason that oppossing anyone with years of experince and dedicated trainning by an amature usually ends badly.
I'm not going to win a basketball game agianst Magic Johnson... or even the better forward on my local Junior High squad. Why should I expect to beat a trainned lawyer?
I'm not going to win a basketball game agianst Magic Johnson... or even the better forward on my local Junior High squad. Why should I expect to beat a trainned lawyer?
Pax, my comment was certainly not meant to denigrate lawyers . . . I am one, just as a comment that a gun is a tool is not meant to denigrate the gun. I understand that attorneys are thinking people, but they have to have clients to pursue a case. To blame too many lawsuits on lawyers is to totally ignore the fact that they have to have clients willing to bring those lawsuits. Don't place the blame only on the lawyers.
grampster
Member
If we didn't have a lot of lawyers, we wouldn't have all the great opportunities for humor.
"What do you call a local bar association skydiving team?"
"Skeet"
Ponder for a moment if we were not a land of laws. As such we need lawyers to negotiate our differences; most of the time peacefully. In other countries, they have local militias and bands of armed thugs that settle differences by murder and ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and villages. I would rather be ruined financially than have a couple of tires shoved around me, have gas poured on me and then set ablaze, or chopped up with a machete.
Besides, what would we do with out El T?
"What do you call a local bar association skydiving team?"
"Skeet"
Ponder for a moment if we were not a land of laws. As such we need lawyers to negotiate our differences; most of the time peacefully. In other countries, they have local militias and bands of armed thugs that settle differences by murder and ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and villages. I would rather be ruined financially than have a couple of tires shoved around me, have gas poured on me and then set ablaze, or chopped up with a machete.
Besides, what would we do with out El T?
jenniferjane
Member
Wow - I can't believe all of the generalizations in this thread. You'd think we wouldn't be that way. After all, aren't "all" gun owners rednecked old white boys?
There are good people, and there are bad people. There are responsible gun owners, and then there's the guy at the NRA Convention in Milwaukee last year who managed to get himself on the local news while wearing a shirt that said "I'm running out of places to hide the bodies." Likewise, there are good lawyers, and there are those that give the rest of us a bad name. Unfortunately in the case of lawyers, the bad ones tend to be an extremely vocal minority.
Most people who meet me outside of my law practice admit that they would not have guessed that I am a lawyer. Unfortunately, I have to take that as a compliment. We're a maligned profession.
-Jen
There are good people, and there are bad people. There are responsible gun owners, and then there's the guy at the NRA Convention in Milwaukee last year who managed to get himself on the local news while wearing a shirt that said "I'm running out of places to hide the bodies."
Likewise, there are good lawyers, and there are those that give the rest of us a bad name. Unfortunately in the case of lawyers, the bad ones tend to be an extremely vocal minority.Most people who meet me outside of my law practice admit that they would not have guessed that I am a lawyer. Unfortunately, I have to take that as a compliment. We're a maligned profession.
-Jen
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
Get rid of all the lawyers.
Except mine, of course.
(Repeat 300 million times.)
Except mine, of course.
(Repeat 300 million times.)
longeyes
member
What is life if not billable hours?
Cato the Younger
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 130
hey, not all lawyers are bad
Dear All,
As a current law student, I must defend the profession. I must state that, as others have said, a lawyer is bad, until you need one. Really, there are crooked lawyers, just like there are crooked doctors, mechanics, etc. Yes, we are held to higher standards, because we are a profession, not merely a business-making enterprise. However, when the useage of stolen body parts from cadavers came to light last year, did the entire medical profession become denigrated as "body snatchers?" Also, how many of you must account for every 1/6 of an hour that you work- that is what my Property I and II professor had to do when she was last in practice in Beaumont. In summation, I wish to defend my future profession from charges of corruption- yes, it should be rooted out from out profession as a whole, but most lawyers are decent men who are good advocates for their clients, and honest.
Dear All,
As a current law student, I must defend the profession. I must state that, as others have said, a lawyer is bad, until you need one. Really, there are crooked lawyers, just like there are crooked doctors, mechanics, etc. Yes, we are held to higher standards, because we are a profession, not merely a business-making enterprise. However, when the useage of stolen body parts from cadavers came to light last year, did the entire medical profession become denigrated as "body snatchers?" Also, how many of you must account for every 1/6 of an hour that you work- that is what my Property I and II professor had to do when she was last in practice in Beaumont. In summation, I wish to defend my future profession from charges of corruption- yes, it should be rooted out from out profession as a whole, but most lawyers are decent men who are good advocates for their clients, and honest.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Except that in a practical sense, a lawyer is also a gatekeeper to our judicial system. You can still bring a case without a lawyer; but you are unlikely to go very far and there is a very high probability you would lose your case - even if it had merit.
If no lawyer takes your case, you are automatically at a huge disadvantage in court. Should your legal rights in court be subject to whether a lawyer feels sympathetic to your particular case? I understand your point; but it is real easy to get into a situation where the minority has no effective access to the court system at all once you start encouraging lawyers to exercise discretion in who they work for.
Some lawyers do go off by themselves
There is a lawyer in Houston, I think, who is suing his client because the client wants to drop him. I believe it is in regards to the Enron case. The lawyer doesn't want to get cut off from the huge pot of gold ie any settlement at the end of the rainbow.
Also in class action suits the lawyers will advertise to get clients to make up the group.
Yes you do need a lawyer in many cases now in the US. Isn't that a sad thing?
pete
There is a lawyer in Houston, I think, who is suing his client because the client wants to drop him. I believe it is in regards to the Enron case. The lawyer doesn't want to get cut off from the huge pot of gold ie any settlement at the end of the rainbow.
Also in class action suits the lawyers will advertise to get clients to make up the group.
Yes you do need a lawyer in many cases now in the US. Isn't that a sad thing?
pete
Davo
Member
Lawyers are the problem like guns are the problem.
Tom609
Member
One could agrue the number of lawyers, but the problem is with too many insane laws. As a resident of NJ, I can speak firsthand. We had a intellectually challenged legislator recently propose a bill that would make riding a bicycle while speaking on a cell phone illegal. He admitted not knowing of an incident where this was a problem, but he thought it made sense. Fortunately, he was forced to withdraw the proposed legislation. It's a vicious cycle that's been created by inept people that focus on trivial matters in order to avoid dealing with the important and controversial issues.
Car Knocker
Member
I wonder which professional group makes up the largest number of lawmakers? Cause and effect, maybe?
Umm...you should check again and see how many of those lawyers are trial lawyers. I believe the excessive amounts of lawyers in this country is a fault of corporations and businesses. You have teams of IP lawyers and business lawyers (probably another name for it) for every company. That's why they're "sue happy", because they have an entity in the company designed to "hinder competitors". It's the fault of the US Justice system that causes law to be used for profit. I don't think there's an exponential increase in criminal trials (I may be wrong), but there is an exponential increase of claims between companies. Lawyers aren't the problem, they just facilitate a corrupt company's desire to take advantage of IP laws for profit. There are businesses out there who's ONLY source of income are settlements against other businesses by trying to hinder product timing. That's where all the money is coming from and that is why there is such a large influx of lawyers.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The real problem are voters who decide their vote based on a 30 second tv commercial on what the politician has gotten done. Politicians know that they will not win their race unless they can show what they have done in a 30 second soundbite.
I do agree that we have too many laws in this country, but I do not believe that lawyers are to blame. The real fault lies with voters who think "there ought to be a law against that" and expect their representative to do something. Unfortunately, you cannot legislate common sense.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
But some of us are a higher caliber than others.
ProguninTN
Member
Laws/Lawyers
I think there are too many laws, which is why there are so many lawyers. Also, bashing lawyers will get you nowhere. Those who bash lawyers might want to remember that they might need one someday.
I think there are too many laws, which is why there are so many lawyers. Also, bashing lawyers will get you nowhere. Those who bash lawyers might want to remember that they might need one someday.
thexrayboy
Member
Both Arfin and Bartholomew have grasped the fundamental problems that have arisen in the legal profession. The combination of laws being written in ever more tortuous language requiring countless billable hours of research and courtroom wrangling to decipher the meaning of such words as "is" and the fact that unless you have a pretty hefty bankroll you simple can't afford the services of a lawyer has combined to make the profession pretty much a millstone around the collective neck of the common man. The once noble profession of practicing law now benefits only those who can afford it's practicioners. Can't cough up the scratch? No justice for you.
The bard said it first and best in Henry VI (part 2).
The bard said it first and best in Henry VI (part 2).
- Status