Architect vs Lawyer

[robin]

Most architects are doomed to spend their careers on strip malls and rehashed facades.

 

[dragon8]

Originally Posted by PinkPantser

A relatively common ethical dilemma for architects: a client wants a design that is not in the interest of the general populace and there is nothing in the building codes to prevent such a design. Which obligation takes precedence - that to the client or that to the public?

The one that pays you

 

[yachtie]

Originally Posted by dragon8

The one that pays you

You're a LAWYER!

 

[PinkPantser]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

By this, do you mean in aesthetic terms?
No, I was thinking more in terms of public safety or of taking up a commission for an entity you believe to be 'evil' (see OMA's design for the CCTV).

Originally Posted by yachtie

Anyone can be an Architect with AutoCad.

Ah, but AutoCAD will soon be a thing of the past, the aspiring architect should now be on to BIM.

Originally Posted by robin

Most architects are doomed to spend their careers on strip malls and rehashed facades.
It has been my experience that a smaller number of firms than you would expect do strip malls, but at a very high volume.

Originally Posted by dragon8

The one that pays you

Its true, there are very few architects who turn down a commission for ethical reasons.

And to the OP, architecture is an old man's game. On a given project, the broad strokes of design comprise roughly 5% of the time spent by a firm on a project. Because that is the fun part, it's generally the people at the top of the chain who get those opportunities (though they are notable exceptions to this). The other 95% of the time is spent researching code requirements, researching materials and products, coordinating between the engineering consultants, meeting with goverment agencies, developing drawings and specifications for someone else's design, etc. Not fun by most people's standards.

 

[Flambeur]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

This thread is a disappointment. I was hoping for something more along the lines of Celebrity Death Match.
yeah but it would sort of be like... a guy in a suit vs. a guy in a suit. not very exciting.

 

[Flambeur]

Originally Posted by Tardek

(The vast majority of) lawyers do not knowingly protect criminals, they defend innocent men.

Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with defending a criminal. Everyone has the right to a lawyer, representation, counsel, defense, etc. - everyone has the right to plead their case and so on. Even the most despicable human being deserves a fair trial and out system is better for it. That's ******* awesome, and I do not understand why people get mad at lawyers for defending the bad guy - it's just a part of the system and what makes our country so great. Just making sure that someone gets a fair trial and all evidence and facts are evaluated isn't the same as trying to falsify **** and get a criminal off.

 

[Tardek]

Originally Posted by Flambeur

Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with defending a criminal. Everyone has the right to a lawyer, representation, counsel, defense, etc. - everyone has the right to plead their case and so on. Even the most despicable human being deserves a fair trial and out system is better for it. That's ******* awesome, and I do not understand why people get mad at lawyers for defending the bad guy - it's just a part of the system and what makes our country so great. Just making sure that someone gets a fair trial and all evidence and facts are evaluated isn't the same as trying to falsify **** and get a criminal off.

Yes, we have that down here too. I am not particularly interested in doing crim, but I understand that if you have actual or constructive knowledge that your client committed a crime, you can no longer argue the case based on his innocence, but only based on defences like autonomous action or self defence or what have you.

I think if anything needs an overhaul it's prisons. Everyone knows they're **** factories. Why not just keep them busy doing hard labor, like in the good old days?

 

[romafan]

As far as I know, George Costanza never pretended to be a lawyer....

 

[likeitaloud]

Originally Posted by romafan

As far as I know, George Costanza never pretended to be a lawyer....

That's cause he couldn't even pull off an architect what chance does he have to be a pretend lawyer?

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by Tardek

Yes, we have that down here too. I am not particularly interested in doing crim, but I understand that if you have actual or constructive knowledge that your client committed a crime, you can no longer argue the case based on his innocence, but only based on defences like autonomous action or self defence or what have you.

I think if anything needs an overhaul it's prisons. Everyone knows they're **** factories. Why not just keep them busy doing hard labor, like in the good old days?

Something I totally agree with. Too bad we can't send them to a penal colony . . . Austrailia turned out fine

 

[Redundant]

Well gentemen, I have gathered the needed evidence, so thanks for your input, it was very useful in defeating my oponent.

 

[likeitaloud]

Originally Posted by Redundant

Well gentemen, I have gathered the needed evidence, so thanks for your input, it was very useful in defeating my oponent.

Another failed argument based on biased polls and lack of knowledge grats. It's almost as embarrassing as when you thought weed on KvS was real.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Flambeur

yeah but it would sort of be like... a guy in a suit vs. a guy in a suit.

not very exciting.
Most architects I know don't wear suits.

Originally Posted by likeitaloud

Everyone is (or like to play) lawyer when they get pulled over and asked to step out of the car

Originally Posted by yachtie

You don't get far without the card.

Yeah, I think you'd have better odds pretending to be an architect.

 

[AndrewRogers]

Originally Posted by Flambeur

Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with defending a criminal. Everyone has the right to a lawyer, representation, counsel, defense, etc. - everyone has the right to plead their case and so on. Even the most despicable human being deserves a fair trial and out system is better for it. That's ******* awesome, and I do not understand why people get mad at lawyers for defending the bad guy - it's just a part of the system and what makes our country so great. Just making sure that someone gets a fair trial and all evidence and facts are evaluated isn't the same as trying to falsify **** and get a criminal off.

I think part of it is that you don't know who the bad guy is until you've finished defending him. Until then, he is presumed to be like any other innocent person Only in retrospect might we say a bad guy deserved those rights. If said like that, it makes it a bit easier to swallow. Of course, presumptions are there to be rebutted and that's the prosecution's job.

 

[Tardek]

Originally Posted by AndrewRogers

I think part of it is that you don't know who the bad guy is until you've finished defending him. Until then, he is presumed to be like any other innocent person Only in retrospect might we say a bad guy deserved those rights. If said like that, it makes it a bit easier to swallow. Of course, presumptions are there to be rebutted and that's the prosecution's job.

Doesn't work quite like that if your client says to you "I am guilty. Get me off anyway".

I do ethics this semester, so my answer to such a thing is only an approximation.