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

[bluemagic]

Great thread.

For OP:

Pinnacle of Western Civilization
INTJ

 

[pg600rr]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

If the system is not intended to achieve at least a measure of truth and justice, why would we give a **** if an attorney is doing his client a disservice? You can say "that is the way our system is set up", but in your view what is the point of the system? Your last two sentences suggest you don't even understand the point I was making. You say "As for attorneys . . ." and then say "That is why it is a system . . ." Your second sentence does not follow from the first. Attorneys play the role designated for them in the system. Saying that they act as advocates for their clients -- as the system contemplates -- does not in any way demonstrate that the system is not designed to function as a truth-seeking process.
I'm also curious about the basis for your assertion that juries aren't concerned with finding the truth. That's inconsistent both with my personal experience as a juror as well as my experiences as a trial lawyer.

1st bold: We the people wouldnt give a **** if the attorney is doing his client a disservice, the person that would give a **** is the client themself and the attorney (because of reputation). As for juries that is my personal view from being selected to two and working on a number of cases were there was a feeling that the jury had made up their mind one way or another before ever entering dilerberation.

2nd bold: I do believe the "point" of the system is to get to the truth and have justice served, however I dont think that is how it works. It is a poor set-up that has too many flaws.

3rd bold: Sure it does, if you are acting as an advocate for a client that has admitted to commiting a crime how can you say that you are zeoulsy advocating for that client and sekking the truth at the same time? they dont go hand in hand. What are you going to do, come to court and say everyone my client is guilty, he desrves what he gets, that is the truth you were seeking, lets go home now, the system worked.

4th bold: For example in both of my experiences being on a jury, the group I was with walked into the room sat down and voted guilty, this is pretty much what the deliberations consisted of. In both instances I was one of two or three people who wanted to actually discuss the facts, the issues, and how they apply. Both times I was met with "c'mon you know he is guilty lets all go home, I have stuff to do" or "can we hurry up a bit, I have places to be", etc. the vast majority of jurors make up their mind based on other factors than the actual facts they are presented with. Maybe this isnt the case in high profile cases (mainly because they realize the magnitude of the case) but in your everyday cases jurors are more interested about getting the process over with then actually working through it.

 

[thekunk07]

i think scumbag, though my lawyer is one of my 5 favorite people.

 

[unpainted huffheinz]

Lawyers can be useful people on occasion, but their massively overinflated sense of worth is never helpful. If you live your life never needing the services of one, you have probably lived well.

 

[Piobaire]

pg600rr, you never answered my question. If it is only the result that matters, why can't I just put a bullet in the forehead of someone I have witnessed commit murder? Why is it different if he gets a costly and lengthy trial, sits on death row for 15 years, then gets put to death?

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by pg600rr

.



3rd bold: Sure it does, if you are acting as an advocate for a client that has admitted to commiting a crime how can you say that you are zeoulsy advocating for that client and sekking the truth at the same time? they dont go hand in hand. What are you going to do, come to court and say everyone my client is guilty, he desrves what he gets, that is the truth you were seeking, lets go home now, the system worked.

.

Arguing that apple seeds are indigestible doesn't prove that you can't eat an apple. The fact that airline pilots don't drink jet fuel doesn't demonstrate that you don't need fuel to fly a 747 across the country.

The point of the system is to seek the truth. The attorney's role in that system is to be his client's advocate. The idea is that with each attorney advocated for his client, the system -- not necessarily an individual lawyer -- has a better chance of discerning the truth. If you can't distinguish between the overall goal of the system and the specific role the attorney plays within that system, I'm afraid you have a rough road ahead.

To tie it to your specific question: I go to court and present the best available defense for my client (or neogtiate a resolution if that appears to be in his best interest). The prosecutor presents his or her case as strongly as possible. The trier of fact then makes an informed decision, based on everything presented by both sides, about what the true facts are. Thus, attorney's systemic role = advocacy; trier of fact's systemic role = determine, based on information presented through adverarial process, what the truth is.

 

[dirk diggler]

Originally Posted by ms244

Risk Averse Paper Pushers

I've heard this description before, possibly on SF.


Although in all honesty, thats what engineering colleges are pushing nowdays ..

I disagree. We give advice. We don't have to live with our advice literally. I tell my clients about their choices, and the probabilities of them. If my internal client tenda to be risk-averse (as most corporations are), how is that my problem? A lot of my people here at work talk tough **** but won't follow through when it is time to act. Ok, well, I give the locker room jocks the same choices as everyone else. They are the ones who are afraid of making a mistake. I love nothing better than some off the wall out of left field response and to take that chance. Occaisionally, I get someone here on the business side who likes to roll the dice and they let me, but usually, they are so worried about being second-guessed, they thank me for my advice and move on.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

I disagree. We give advice. We don't have to live with our advice literally. I tell my clients about their choices, and the probabilities of them. If my internal client tenda to be risk-averse (as most corporations are), how is that my problem? A lot of my people here at work talk tough **** but won't follow through when it is time to act. Ok, well, I give the locker room jocks the same choices as everyone else. They are the ones who are afraid of making a mistake. I love nothing better than some off the wall out of left field response and to take that chance. Occaisionally, I get someone here on the business side who likes to roll the dice and they let me, but usually, they are so worried about being second-guessed, they thank me for my advice and move on.

I think that's a good point. Certainly lawyers, on average, are probably fairly risk-averse. But I can think of many times where I would have been happy to take an aggressive position and felt pretty good about our chances, but the client chose the more conservative option because they preferred more certainty in the outcome.