| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How do you feel about lawyers?; What about the US legal system? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2005, 09:39 AM (1,164 Views) | |
| 24thcenstfan | Jul 29 2005, 03:12 PM Post #31 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Have no fear Gvok, the entire populace could be super smart and we will still need people who specialize in law to act as councel. The reason being, not everyone will be educated in the same way. I wouldn't expect a nuclear scientist to be able to perform a heart transplant operation. I wouldn't expect an Entomologist to know much about the finite areas of the tax code or anything else about the legal process. I say I wouldn't expect, not that they wouldn't know about such things. However, people will until the end of time continue to specialize and need access to the specialization of others. Well, until that special implant is developed and all known knowledge can be downloaded into our brains at birth. I don't see that happening anytime soon. And as Mainiac mentions, there will still be people who need an advocate. People who don't have the ability (mentally, physically, whatever) to do so for themselves. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 03:21 PM Post #32 |
|
Unregistered
|
Agreed as to your entire statement. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Mainiac | Jul 29 2005, 03:46 PM Post #33 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
I don't know... I might could come around to abg's way of thinking... I mean without lawyers... Corporations could choose random stockholders to represent themselves in court. That would be interesting...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jul 29 2005, 03:47 PM Post #34 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
The legal system has been made intentionally complex. That can be changed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jul 29 2005, 03:47 PM Post #35 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then let it go. Remember that this is my OPINION, and I don't have to justify it to you in any way. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 03:48 PM Post #36 |
|
Unregistered
|
Napoleon had the same idea. Turns out they still needed lawyers. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Minuet | Jul 29 2005, 03:51 PM Post #37 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
He didn't ask you to justify. He said he disagreed. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jul 29 2005, 03:53 PM Post #38 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, he said, "I'm not sure what you base your assumptions and theories on." In other words, he wants me to tell him how I justify it. I'm firmly nuanced, today
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 03:56 PM Post #39 |
|
Unregistered
|
Minuet was correct in her interpretation. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jul 29 2005, 03:57 PM Post #40 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jul 29 2005, 03:58 PM Post #41 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
It must be a Friday :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Jul 29 2005, 08:09 PM Post #42 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Some of what you say has merit Admiral. Much of the way the profession behaves today would cause my late father to roll over in his grave! There was a reason why certain unscrupulous lawyer types were originally called "ambulance chasers." They literally showed up at the scene of an accident or hovered around hospitals to talk to patients to drum up business. They were not allowed, by the Bar (if I recall correctly), to advertise in newspapers, radio, television, or even massive ads in the Yellow Pages! That's something that has changed in the past 20 years or so. Dad's listing was only in the White Pages, his name followed by the abbreviation "atty-at-law," he never wanted for business.. Another area that might be worth reviewing is the no win/settlement-no pay arrangement. The idea for it, admirable as it was, was to give people that could not easily afford a really good lawyer a way to gain access to one (or several!). However, for some this means they will take a case that is somewhat shaky and push it as far as they can until the otherside is willing to settle to make it go away. One suggested solution has been to adopt the "loser pays" concept, that is the losing side of a law suit pays the fees and court costs of both counsels. I am not sure if this is the most practical solution, especially in the case of those that might not be able to afford one lawyer, let alone two. Then there is the factor that the vast majority of lawsuits never make it to trial. The parties usually settle with the defendant not admitting to any wrong doing on their part. In effect no winner, no loser technically. Maybe it would be better if to just let each lawyer charge their client an hourly rate and the associated costs and filing fees. Might cause the more frivolous/questionable suits to dwindle... Lastly, Admiral, let offer one example of a lawyer with a conscience. No, this wasn't my father either. It was a lawyer that my family had used after Dad died. My then future brother-in-law had been working on restoring a classic car. He took it to a locally, generally reputable body shop to take care of some work that needed to be done to it and get that perfect paint job. Well, one thing lead to another and he ended up with what most of us thought was a legitimate grievance against the body shop. The amount of overall monetary damages was well over the small claims court limit. He went to visit this lawyer and laid out the details. The lawyer told him the way he had been treated was, and I quote, "bu11$h!t." He then explained to my future brother-in-law that he could take the case to court, probably win too. Then he explained the financial end of it and told my brother-in-law how much he would really get after all was said and done. He explained how a settlement would be the most probable result. In the end, the lawyer told him he would be better off financially to go for the max in small claims and probably end up with the same or more in his own pocket for a lot less cost and a far sooner turn around. The lawyer literally told him "Why pay me so much." He gave my brother-in-law some additional pointers and made some notes for him to use as a guide and told him to call if head any further questions (he wouldn't charge for any subsequent call in questions). He did this all during what is generally the initial "free consultation." In the end, my brother-in-law was satisfied and came away with considerable respect for a lawyer that had treated him fairly and honestly. These types are out there. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Jul 29 2005, 09:45 PM Post #43 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
Sorry, but I must profess the unpopular position that we need lawyers to maintain our freedoms and to have our rights respected. While I know that sometimes the scope of frivolous lawsuits in the US can get a little ridiculous, those are mainly the cases we hear about. In my personal experience, lawyers have protected me from losing money in real estate transactions, got me a good settlement in an automobile injury claim, solidified the security of my family's financial holdings, and saved my best friend from being jailed by overzealous prosecutors who had a joke of a case to bring into court. Lawyers are the only thing than spare us from having a police state or some kind of authoritarian tribunal type of justice system as found in non-democratic countries. Lawyers and the legal profession are one of the cornerstones of our democratic society. In Canada, lawyers are scrutinized by the Law Society (usually provincial) and they are pretty strict. I don't know how that works in the USA, perhaps Gvok can comment on that part of it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jul 29 2005, 10:14 PM Post #44 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I have never had good experiences with lawyers, not even form the ones that where working for me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Jul 29 2005, 10:20 PM Post #45 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Here we have the American Bar Association. There are state and local aspects to this organization and you generally have to be admitted to the bar to be able to practice law in your area. So it is essentially a self regulatory authority. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:07 PM Jul 11