Writing paper, need honest thoughts, what comes to mind when you think of an attorney

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

What I find interesting, is all the lawyers have disagreed by quoting me, not by quoting the lawyer I quoted

I agree, the "human skill" contributes in many fields. I just don't think that's what should make new case law.
You mean Tex? He seems very well able to speak for himself, but I understood him to be describing the fun and excitement of performing the job well more than the general social utility of the job. They're not inconsistent or unrelated, but nevertheless different. I'm sure that an I-banker, plumber, teacher, soldier, or firefighter can derive a lot of personal satisfaction from the challenges of his job, but the adrenaline rush, excitement and pride a solider or firefighter feels in performing his job well in challenging circumstances is not what gives it social utility. I understood the original question to be about people's perceptions or associations regarding the profession -- on that level, Tex's post seems responsive. Obviously, the way the profession is perceived or experienced by one actually performing it is likely to be colored by their experience on the ground. I didn't take issue with Tex in order to partially disagree with your statements because I don't disagree with what I understand him to be saying. I don't think Tex was suggesting that case law should be created on the basis of which lawyer is having the most fun. But it certainly is fun and rewarding to feel that a court has decided a close, previously-unsettled issue in your favor because you were able to effectively articulate the merits of your case.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by pg600rr

I think your a bit confused by what I meant when I said justice is in the outcome. There is no justice found in the way a case is litigated (or the process as you mentioned), it is all in the outcome, what is the result. There are many cases everyday when guilty are let off the hook and innocent are incarcerated. Our legal system is not set up for the truth to come to the surface. Because it is adversarial in nature no one is concerned with finding the truth and achieving justice, they are strictly concerned with achieving the best result for their client, guilty or not (which it is our ethical duty to do). I don’t have a problem with that per se, because it is just the way things are. I can hardly see from your example anything that resembles an explanation on why you think someone with this point of view is going to fail as an attorney, nothing you said makes any sense, at least to me... maybe someone else can figure it out?
With all due respect

I think you may be confused yourself. The whole point of the adversarial system is to bring truth to the surface by having effective advocates present the evidence on each side of a disputed issue in the best possible light, so that the trier of fact can make a fully informed decision. Of course there are going to be cases where the trier of fact ends up making the "wrong" decision. It's a system designed and operated by imperfect human beings. In an individual case the attorney certainly is concerned with achieving the best result for his client, to the extent that can be done within the bounds of the law and professional ethics. But that is because that's the role designated for advocates in the system and is essential to that system's functioning. By playing that role properly, attorneys do advance the systemic drive for truth and justice. And even within an individual case, it's simply not the case that "because [the American legal system" is adversarial in nature no one is concerned with finding the truth . . ." That is exactly what the triers of fact -- juries or judges, as the case may be -- are supposed to concern themselves with. They do so by weighing the evidence and argument presented by the advocates for each side. Again, they certainly get it wrong at times, but we clay-footed mortals manage to get lots of things spectacularly wrong, much of the time, in many of our grand and minute pursuits. I often, half-seriously, say that I view the legal system similarly to how Churchill supposedly viewed democracy: the worst, most unfair, and least reliable way of achieving truth and justice, excepting only all of the other methods so far conceived by mankind.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Agnacious

their pedantic personalities leave them unfit to lead.
Like Lincoln, for example.

Originally Posted by unjung

Here's a three sentence response: overly concerned with pedantic minutiae. Always in the way of getting real work done. Always coming up with reasons to prevent other team members from success: "we can't do that, because of the miniscule risk of X."
First, this is funny and well-played. Second, the last statement suggests to me that you've worked with lawyers who aren't very good, or who weren't well-utilized within an organization. The job of an in-house lawyer should be to give accurate, useful advice about risks and potential outcomes. A lawyer who insists that a client should follow a course that runs counter to what would be suggested by an thoughtful risk-benefit analysis is probably giving bad advice. And generally speaking, while the lawyers will (or at least should) provide reasonable and thoughtful assessments of potential risks, the strategic choice of what course to pursue ultimately should rest with executive management, with that choice being informed by the best available information about the likelihood and magnitude of potential risks and benefits.

 

[jdcpa]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Second, the last statement suggests to me that you've worked with lawyers who aren't very good, or who weren't well-utilized within an organization.
Hello all, If I may stick up for the transactional lawyers for a minute, I have found most of them to be extremely creative and innovative in both their legal theories/opinions and strategies to accomplish management goals. I have worked mostly in tax, commercial transactions, business planning and in my experience we often worked very well with our corporate clients and in-house counsels. Rather than having an 'it can't be done because of X' we usually approached everything with "you can, here's how...but". Its a minor distinction but important. I was surprised when I left law school how much we focused on creating solutions rather than shooting down ideas. For example, lawyers have played a big role in encouraging corporate funding of alternative energy to gain tax deductible losses rather than gain from the energy. It encourages investment in a risky and expensive industry. I think the idea of using loss as tax gain is pretty creative. Further, when the laws (tax-corporate) are well designed it incentivises people to employ them to personal and social advantage ex. alt-energy. Was it what I expected when I left law school; no, far more business like and pragmatic. However, I've found high camaraderie and a very warm professional environment. Of course, I am a transactional lawyer so perhaps I'm a bit biased.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

And bill for each box, of course.

Not really the case. The facts and law will generally out, but in close matters or matters where it really is a matter of judgment and not an absolute boolean fact dispute, advocacy plays an important role. Certainly presentation of the facts and law matter significantly. This is not a fact unique to law. In sales and marketing, the human skill that is contributed does have value -- even though one could argue that only the objective virtues of the product being offered should matter. Generally, someone needs to be able to articulate and highlight those virtues.


Idiot. I tried golf once in my life, and was bored witless.

Note that the last part of my post was the most important...

 

[pg600rr]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

With all due respect

I think you may be confused yourself. The whole point of the adversarial system is to bring truth to the surface by having effective advocates present the evidence on each side of a disputed issue in the best possible light, so that the trier of fact can make a fully informed decision. Of course there are going to be cases where the trier of fact ends up making the "wrong" decision. It's a system designed and operated by imperfect human beings. In an individual case the attorney certainly is concerned with achieving the best result for his client, to the extent that can be done within the bounds of the law and professional ethics. But that is because that's the role designated for advocates in the system and is essential to that system's functioning. By playing that role properly, attorneys do advance the systemic drive for truth and justice. And even within an individual case, it's simply not the case that "because [the American legal system" is adversarial in nature no one is concerned with finding the truth . . ." That is exactly what the triers of fact -- juries or judges, as the case may be -- are supposed to concern themselves with. They do so by weighing the evidence and argument presented by the advocates for each side. Again, they certainly get it wrong at times, but we clay-footed mortals manage to get lots of things spectacularly wrong, much of the time, in many of our grand and minute pursuits.

I often, half-seriously, say that I view the legal system similarly to how Churchill supposedly viewed democracy: the worst, most unfair, and least reliable way of achieving truth and justice, excepting only all of the other methods so far conceived by mankind.

looks like we will agree to disagree, there are obviosually different views of our legal system and we happen to be on different sides of the fence. I think your view gives the system far too much credit and is kind of sugar coated and inaccurate. I agree to a point that triers of fact are concerned with the truth but I was speaking more to the attorneys themselves. Maybe this applies to judges but juries are often less concerned with the truth and have many other factors that wiegh on their decisions. As for attorneys if there main goal was to achieve justice and let the truth come to the surfuce, one side (the side in the wrong) would always be doing their client a disservice, that is the way our system is set up. That is why it is a system not interested in finding the truth.

 

[Fuuma]

BTW since you're a lawyer in training and looking at the title I couldn't help but think you need "honest thoughts" because you can't have any anymore.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

I think it is very fair say, that the largest beneficiaries of the legal system in US, are lawyers.

Well . . . duh

Just as the biggest individual beneficiaries of banking are the bankers.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by pg600rr

I think your a bit confused by what I meant when I said justice is in the outcome. There is no justice found in the way a case is litigated (or the process as you mentioned), it is all in the outcome, what is the result.

If it is all in the outcome, if the evidence in the fictional case I described above it totally incontrovertible, then it is okay for me to just walk up and put a bullet in the murder's head, without a trial?

And btw, why did I say fail? Because you get paid for the process, as an attorney. If it was all about outcome, we'd just do what we wanted, without the help of lawyers.

 

[crazyquik]

I would disagree. The justice is in the process. Lawyers are there to manage or shepherd a system or process, which over time seems to generate more "mostly right" results than other systems.

Without lawyers, Western Civilization crumbles. Well, even with lawyers its crumbling anyway.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

Well . . . duh

Just as the biggest individual beneficiaries of banking are the bankers.

Really? So then those people that say, get mortgages, lines of credit, companies that do M&A, etc., do not benefit more? I mean, who gets more marginal utility from say, the creation of Microsoft? The bankers that helped/do help finance the company, or the world in general?

Go to health care. Are you going to tell me doctors are the biggest beneficiary of the health care system? Or the people alive today, or living substantially better lives, due to medical treatment?

Sorry bud, lawyers gain the most from the legal system, more so than I can argue for other big sectors. YMMV, it's hard to quantify. But I know where I come down

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Really? So then those people that say, get mortgages, lines of credit, companies that do M&A, etc., do not benefit more? I mean, who gets more marginal utility from say, the creation of Microsoft? The bankers that helped/do help finance the company, or the world in general?

Go to health care. Are you going to tell me doctors are the biggest beneficiary of the health care system? Or the people alive today, or living substantially better lives, due to medical treatment?

Sorry bud, lawyers gain the most from the legal system, more so than I can argue for other big sectors. YMMV, it's hard to quantify. But I know where I come down

And who keeps their neighbors from putting a gun to their head and stealing those houses and the things they bought with the credit? How do you have functioning credit markets without regulators and transparency? How do you have any investment or M&A without contracts that are enforceable? For instant transactions (I'll give you money and take a good) then you don't really need a formal contract, but anytime there is a lapse in time between agreement and exchange, you need a more-formal contract and a system of enforcing them.

Without an independent judiciary and lawyers to operate in it, you can't have meaningful private property ownership. Without that, you might as well be living in Russia, where insiders can do whatever they want and outsiders are fearful that the KGB/FSB will steal whatever they want.

Without a way to enforce the future-completion of a transaction at an agreed on price, there would be no bespoke suits

Tailors would only be able to sell RTW, because without contracts as soon as they cut the cloth, the customer would try and renegotiate a lower price. Or, say the suit isn't worth $2000 to them now, but they'll take it for $800, now that its custom-made and won't fit anyone else.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

And who keeps their neighbors from putting a gun to their head and stealing those houses and the things they bought with the credit? How do you have functioning credit markets without regulators and transparency? How do you have any investment or M&A without contracts that are enforceable? For instant transactions (I'll give you money and take a good) then you don't really need a formal contract, but anytime there is a lapse in time between agreement and exchange, you need a more-formal contract and a system of enforcing them.

Without an independent judiciary and lawyers to operate in it, you can't have meaningful private property ownership. Without that, you might as well be living in Russia, where insiders can do whatever they want and outsiders are fearful that the KGB/FSB will steal whatever they want.

Without a way to enforce the future-completion of a transaction at an agreed on price, there would be no bespoke suits

Tailors would only be able to sell RTW, because without contracts as soon as they cut the cloth, the customer would try and renegotiate a lower price. Or, say the suit isn't worth $2000 to them now, but they'll take it for $800, now that its custom-made and won't fit anyone else.

Sooo...there were no enforceable contracts prior to the creation of an attorney caste and without said caste, all contract law would cease? I think you overstate the case

I'm not saying they do not offer some utility/value, btw, just that the group that has derived the most benefit from the legal system, are the attorney caste that has been created.

And btw, let us take the contracts with tailors. Lawyers enforce them? You're going to strap on a piece and go arrest the tailor? Nah. Don't conflate enforcement with civil litigation, etc.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Really? So then those people that say, get mortgages, lines of credit, companies that do M&A, etc., do not benefit more? I mean, who gets more marginal utility from say, the creation of Microsoft? The bankers that helped/do help finance the company, or the world in general?

Go to health care. Are you going to tell me doctors are the biggest beneficiary of the health care system? Or the people alive today, or living substantially better lives, due to medical treatment?

Sorry bud, lawyers gain the most from the legal system, more so than I can argue for other big sectors. YMMV, it's hard to quantify. But I know where I come down

Kinda hard to have microsoft without laws and lawyers to provide a framework for corporate governance, intellectual property protection, etc. Apples to Apples -- pun intended -- and all that.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

This is factually accurate. The thing is though, you're saving our asses from other lawyers.

Going into law is one of those theory/fact dichotomies I think. In theory, it's pretty damn noble. I will be diplomatic, and say that the reality is usually far from noble.

Not true at all. Lawyers don't sue people - people sue people.