NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting that if you ask people what they think of lawyers, they will tell they are all dishonest cheats and scumbags. Ask them what they think of THEIR lawyer, and they'll tell you he's great.

Good joke: Lawyers aren't all bad. It's just that 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name.

I'm a law student, and I work for a lawyer. I don't know any truly dishonest or evil lawyers. I just wanted to see what others here thought.

Lawyers aren't bad people. For every lawyer who's a prick, you could probably find 500 who are honest, decent people.

Well my dad is a lawyer, the people he works with are nice

I've worked with lawyers. For the most part, they really aren't bad people.

Q: What do you call a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand!

As a lawstudent myself I would have to say its is becasue lawyers weild tremendous power over people. If you commit a crime, your fate is in the hands of lawyers. If you run over some little idiot chasing his ball into the street, the lawyers will be after you for millions. Lawyers have a monopoly over the courts and access to justice which of course makes some dislike them.

Also lawyers are smart and people resent intellectualism especially in the US, where it is considered a sign of weakness or being gay or something.

I plan on being a lawyer so I like them. It's just tonight because of the gang-rape thread that the lawyers are getting it.

You're trapped in a room with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. You have a gun with two bullets. What should you do?

You shoot the lawyer. Twice.
_______________
How do you get a lawyer out of a tree?

Cut the rope.
_______________
“Excuse me,” a young fellow said to an older librarian, “I’ve just moved here and I wonder if this town has any criminal lawyers.”

“Well,” replied the librarian, “I have lived here all my life and all I can tell you is we are pretty sure we do, but no one has been able to prove it yet.”
________________

Eh, just for fun

I plan on getting a law degree in due time. Of course I'm also more than willing to join in and offer a few of my own tasteless lawyer jokes...

What do you call a lawyer at the bottom of a pool?
A good start.

What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
One's a slimy bottom-feeder, the other's a fish.

:D

What's the difference between a dead lawyser on the raod and a dead dog on the road?


--------------
The dog has streak marks in front of it.

How many lawyer jokes are there?

None, all those stories are true.

In America, at least, lawyers have the reputation of being overly litigious ambulance-chasing, doctor liability insurance raising slimeballs. Commercials air on TV - "Have you been in an accident? I contacted Slick Willy, and he got me 20 gajillion dollars for my accident."

Then you get the defense lawyers whose main clients are the mob or drug dealers.

Then you get the corporate lawyers who litigate the little guy who may have a legitimate complaint to death.

Then you get my lawyer, who's great, until my case is over ... ;)

John Dies.
John is an Architect and all architects go to heaven.
SO John goes up to heaven.
Saint Peter says "Hi John, just let me get you signed in and ....oh wait, you dont seem to be in the book."
John "What do you mean? I am an architect. Everybody knows all architects go to heaven."
Saint Peter " I know John, but are not in the Book, so I cant let you into heaven. You have to go to hell."
John "BUt I am an architect!!!"
Saint Peter "Sorry John"
****Poof****
John finds himself in hell.

Devil "John?"
John "Yup."
Devil "John, what are you doing here? All architects go to heaven, you dont belong here."
John "I know, but Saint peter said I wasnt in the Book, so I couldnt go there, so I had to come here."
Devil "Well, that sucks. I am sorry John, I have idea whatto do with you. I guess you can just hang out. Torture?"
John "No thanks."
Devil "I didnt thik so."
John " You know since I am architect and you dont really have anything to do with me. How about I put my skills to use a spruce this place up a lttile bit."
Devil "John, this is hell. What is it you think you are going to do?"
John " I see some real possibilities down here."
Devil "Well, I really dont have anything for you, so I suppose that is fine."

G-d comes around for his quaterly inspection of Hell to find steam bathes, jacuzzies, wet bars with tastey cold beverages, a complete central air system--in short Hell is looking pretty damned good--every pun intended.
G-d "Devil!!! What is going on down here?!? This is supposed to Hell!!! You know a bad place to be."
Devil "Hey!! It was John not me."
G-d "John? What are you doing down here? All architects go to heaven, you arent supposed to be here."
John "I know, but Saint Peter said I wasnt in the book."
G-d "Another typo."
G-d " Ok, Devil, fun time is over turn John over and things will go back to normal."
Devil " I dont think so, he got sent down here fair and square."
G-d "Devil, all Architects go to Heaven, give him up."
Devil "No."
G-d "Fine I will just sue you."
Devil "Really?---Where are going to get a lawyer?"

My stepdad is a lawyer and he is a big gaping anus.

My one direct experience with lawyers was not pleasant. My mother was being sued by a retired NFL football player for work that her recently deceased husband, he claimed, did not complete. I went to the deposition and sat in under the condition I did not say anything. His lawyer was manipulative, combative, and slimy. Her lawyer was not much better. In talking to him afterward, it seems that the best lawyers are those that get a charge out of the whole "game" of it. They love the Machiavellian manipulations of it all. It's an adrenaline rush to them, an intellectually stimulating game.

That joke was good...and I'm a lawyer ;). And sorry not all lawyers feel like that. But I'm sorry it felt that way to you. I don't practice in the US anyway :)

A jury: a group of 12 of yuor peers who decides who has a better lawyer...

A jury: a group of 12 of yuor peers who decides who has a better lawyer...
True to some extent, but juries can see past that (not all the time). O.J. being the exception of course.

A friend of mine got his end of year statement from his lawyer. Due to a typo it said "standard retainer, per anus."

He called and asked if it would be okay if he could just pay through the nose as usual.

A friend of mine got his end of year statement from his lawyer. Due to a typo it said "standard retainer, per anus."

He called and asked if it would be okay if he could just pay through the nose as usual.
ROFL!!! :D Good one!!

A jury: a group of 12 of yuor peers who decides who has a better lawyer...

Not in the UK it's not...Well, not yet anyway ;).!

A friend of mine got his end of year statement from his lawyer. Due to a typo it said "standard retainer, per anus."

He called and asked if it would be okay if he could just pay through the nose as usual.

Quality. Pure quality.

Gen. LeMay, I salute you! That was fan-freakin'-tastic.

Not in the UK it's not...Well, not yet anyway ;).!
How is the court system in the UK structured? Do you use 12-person juries of your peers? And I heard somewhere that, in the British system, a person accused of a crime is presumed guilty, and has to prove themselves innocent, rather than presumed innocent and has to be proven guilty (probably one of those urban myths, but thought I'd ask).

How is the court system in the UK structured? Do you use 12-person juries of your peers? And I heard somewhere that, in the British system, a person accused of a crime is presumed guilty, and has to prove themselves innocent, rather than presumed innocent and has to be proven guilty (probably one of those urban myths, but thought I'd ask).

I'm not going to be violent here. But that is an absolute myth! Yes there is a 12-person jury for many cases. This is not necessarily the case on much of continental Europe. But we have had an innocent-till-proven-guilty kind of system for a long time now: not for as long as some people think...but definitely for a long time. Enough of a system to allow our 'terror suspects' to be released ;): Human Rights is a big deal here.

NOTE: 12-person jury only for serious cases, of course..

Also, more people who have the intellectual chops are becoming lawyers, not engineers or scientists. And that's sad. Also, lawyers are doodieheads.

Also, more people who have the intellectual chops are becoming lawyers, not engineers or scientists. And that's sad. Also, lawyers are doodieheads.
Well said!!! And with such logic, too!!! :D

Well said!!! And with such logic, too!!! :D

I showed restraint. What I meant was, lawyers are big, fat doodieheads.

I showed restraint. What I meant was, lawyers are big, fat doodieheads.

Bah...what about a degree in Law and a degree in Physics?

People hate lawyers because the common perception is that they sell their souls and shed all morals for the opportunity to drive a Jaguar and live in a nice house.

Of course guys like the ones defending Handl and his buddies in S. Cal do a lot to support that image.

Bah...what about a degree in Law and a degree in Physics?

Degree? What are you going to do with a degree?

It's JOBS, man. JOBS. Do you know any physicists who practice law in their spare time? How about lawyers who design gold nanotubes?

But still, THAT would be a resume. Physics and Law. Why not add Biomedical Engineering and Spanish?

I showed restraint. What I meant was, lawyers are big, fat doodieheads.
And they have cooties, too! :D

Degree? What are you going to do with a degree?

It's JOBS, man. JOBS. Do you know any physicists who practice law in their spare time? How about lawyers who design gold nanotubes?

But still, THAT would be a resume. Physics and Law. Why not add Biomedical Engineering and Spanish?

Well I already speak french...and some spanish. But nah...you're right. But you can do patent law to make sure those ideas get nicely protected and make big £££/$$$ for the people/companies that came up with them. These kinds of laws keep the innovation going...

The majority of lawyers I know (suprisingly quite a few) do nothing but push papers areound all day. Their like overpaid accountants... no actually more like underpaid accountants...

So in all fairness they don't get a chance to be evil.

Degree? What are you going to do with a degree?

It's JOBS, man. JOBS. Do you know any physicists who practice law in their spare time? How about lawyers who design gold nanotubes?

But still, THAT would be a resume. Physics and Law. Why not add Biomedical Engineering and Spanish?
One of the local universities here has started a new degree program that combines a medical degree and a law degree.

Well I already speak french...and some spanish. But nah...you're right. But you can do patent law to make sure those ideas get nicely protected and make big £££/$$$ for the people/companies that came up with them. These kinds of laws keep the innovation going...

Good point. Lawyers that protect innovators are good. Just as long as they protect the innovators, not the companies they work for. Because scientists and engineers do not run the companies they work for, businessmen do. And businessmen can be mean, too.

One of the local universities here has started a new degree program that combines a medical degree and a law degree.

I suppose with all the medical malpractice lawsuits, to be a doctor you have to be able to protect yourself.

Poor doctors.

Whats the difference between a lawyer and a flatfish?

One's a bottom feeding scum blood-sucker.. and the other's a fish.

--------------------------

I thought Lawyers we're no more the despised bottom feeders? Now it's the Accountants.. especially after the Enron cases. :D

Good point. Lawyers that protect innovators are good. Just as long as they protect the innovators, not the companies they work for. Because scientists and engineers do not run the companies they work for, businessmen do. And businessmen can be mean, too.

I know. One the one hand: "Protect the people who invented this product". On the other hand: "Protect the multi-billionaire who owns the company". But with the first way you lose your job and they most likely lose the idea ;). So at the end of the day you have to protect whatever and whoever you're obliged to. Otherwise it would be corruption...even if it looks good in my eyes or yours.

I suppose with all the medical malpractice lawsuits, to be a doctor you have to be able to protect yourself.

Poor doctors.

Haha...actually most of these people become the lawyers to either PROTECT these people or to prosecute them. The medical stuff might be stupid, but you should blame the government, not the lawyers. The same hysteria hasn't started here in the UK in quite the same way yet...and here the lawyers just follow the law as the government writes it...

But doctors. They put you through the ringer if you're a doctor. I mean, I'm studying engineering physics. But doctors? They gotta be crazy.

But doctors. They put you through the ringer if you're a doctor. I mean, I'm studying engineering physics. But doctors? They gotta be crazy.

Yeah I know...a lot of it comes through ignorance on the patients' behalf. But not always...sometimes doctors can be at fault. I've studied hundreds of these cases. I'm up for more protection for the doctors: judges are for the most part deciding the cases in the favour of the doctors in the UK. But only government legislation can protect the doctors sufficiently.

Haha...actually most of these people become the lawyers to either PROTECT these people or to prosecute them. The medical stuff might be stupid, but you should blame the government, not the lawyers. The same hysteria hasn't started here in the UK in quite the same way yet...and here the lawyers just follow the law as the government writes it...
Well, the lawyers here "just follow the law as the government writes it ". The trouble is, people seem to interpret the laws rather differently. There is a raging debate over the strict constructionists, who believe we should literally interpret the Constitution as written, and not give rights or take away rights because society has evolved, and those that think the Constitution should be interpreted as a "living document", to be interpreted in the light of new advances in social, economic, and technological advances. The latter are often lampooned as being soft on criminals and the corruption of our society.

Yeah I know...a lot of it comes through ignorance on the patients' behalf. But not always...sometimes doctors can be at fault. I've studied hundreds of these cases. I'm up for more protection for the doctors: judges are for the most part deciding the cases in the favour of the doctors in the UK. But only government legislation can protect the doctors sufficiently.
In the US, one of the things I would like to see is to force the person suing to pay the doctor's legal fees if they lose. And if a judge determines the suit is frivolous before it goes to trial, they pay a fine. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and many doctors settle for small amounts when they are not guilty to save on the legal fees.

Well, the lawyers here "just follow the law as the government writes it ". The trouble is, people seem to interpret the laws rather differently. There is a raging debate over the strict constructionists, who believe we should literally interpret the Constitution as written, and not give rights or take away rights because society has evolved, and those that think the Constitution should be interpreted as a "living document", to be interpreted in the light of new advances in social, economic, and technological advances. The latter are often lampooned as being soft on criminals and the corruption of our society.

I tend more towards realism than formalism. Formalism CAN be good...but generally I favour twisting the interpretation in order to achieve JUSTIVE. People who do this kind of thing get a real smack from the formalists who say the law should be consistent: here they have a valid argument. It's difficult to know exactly what Parliament when they passed a piece of legislation...

In terms of what you're saying I would rather see the Constitution as a "living document". But here in the UK it really is living, since it isn't codified it's changing all the time...

I work at a law firm. It's a conservative, corporate firm...no high-profile criminal cases, mostly boring intra-corporation bull, bankruptcies, and such. Many of the lawyers there are friendly and sociable, despite making at least 5 times my salary.

After 4 years of observation, I fail to see what they really contribute to society, however. All they seem to produce is tons of paperwork and dull conversation...yet our firm is swimming in dough. The job doesn't look that hard, maybe I'll pursue a law degree (or at least a paralegal certification).

I found it interesting that the tone of political conversation around the office last Fall was pro-Bush...the consensus was that Kerry, and Edwards especially, were "Ambulance Chasers" that soiled the rep of "legitimate" lawyers such as themselves.

Just an observation...

MM

Actual Event:
A man confesses a crime after he's detained and pleads guilty. However a lawyer finds out the officer who arrested him did not read his Miranda Rights during the detaining. Lawyers get in front of judge and Judge frees man on technicality. Forget he committed the crime and confessed to it, the lawyer just wanted to win. And lawyers want to call that justice?

Another:
Less than a week ago in the US, people are waiting in a line to get certain tax forms or something of the sort. Two guys in the line begin cracking lawyer jokes. They're not saying it to anyone in particular. They aren't even good jokes. "When can you tell if a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving!" Other people in the line snicker and laugh. A lawyer who is also waiting in line tells them to shut up and that he was a lawyer. The two guys don't care and so they keep cracking jokes. The lawyer calls a security guard and has both of the men arrested for Causing a Disturbance. A disturbance that was bringing smiles to people who were probably bored while waiting in line.

So a lawyer can have people arrested for telling bad jokes while waiting in a line? Why can't I sue Lifetime for showing men as either wife-beaters, alcoholics, and child molesters?

In the US, one of the things I would like to see is to force the person suing to pay the doctor's legal fees if they lose. And if a judge determines the suit is frivolous before it goes to trial, they pay a fine. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and many doctors settle for small amounts when they are not guilty to save on the legal fees.

I agree: that seems like a bad system. I'm not too sure about the fining...it all depends: if you dissuade potential appellants too much then some cases which WOULD have been found in their favour may never be raised. On the other hand, from a realist perspective, given the climate of "mass suing", (well, that's how the media portrays it), the fines may also be a good idea.

Here in the UK, many of the cases raised are because doctors didn't raise things that might seem like "common sense" to some people, especially a doctor, and these caused problems later on. It's a tricky business to say the least.

I tend more towards realism than formalism. Formalism CAN be good...but generally I favour twisting the interpretation in order to achieve JUSTIVE. People who do this kind of thing get a real smack from the formalists who say the law should be consistent: here they have a valid argument. It's difficult to know exactly what Parliament when they passed a piece of legislation...

In terms of what you're saying I would rather see the Constitution as a "living document". But here in the UK it really is living, since it isn't codified it's changing all the time...
Well, the US Constitution can be amended, but it is very difficult. It takes 2/3 vote by both chambers of Congress, signed by the President, and approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures (of 50 states, would need 34 states). But federal law doesn't rule most aspects of our country; state law does. Federal law only applies in such things as civil rights, bearing arms, interstate commerce, etc. State laws apply in the more common criminal matters, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc, unless those crimes cross state lines, where they can then become federal.

Actual Event:
A man confesses a crime after he's detained and pleads guilty. However a lawyer finds out the officer who arrested him did not read his Miranda Rights during the detaining. Lawyers get in front of judge and Judge frees man on technicality. Forget he committed the crime and confessed to it, the lawyer just wanted to win.


Sorry but consistency in the law is important. It seems illogical and stupid. But if the law uses 'illegal methods' to capture someone or obtain a piece of evidence it is no longer valid. Okay, it seems stupid. But there are reasons for this kind of thing and it stops the police snooping in on you and breaking into your house without a warrant. Or extraditing you from foreign soil...etc...etc.

In the first case the lawyer was just doing his job. If you want to change this, blame the Government. That's if the Patriot Act hasn't changed it already :).

Oh the frivolous lawsuits are another reason that for some reason didn't pop into my head.

A hospital's entire emergency staff refused to work because they couldn't afford it. Try to attach a man's finger and it doesn't stay on, the staff is apparently liable for over a million dollars? Pregnant women who don't take care of themselves sueing doctors for over twenty million dollars when their baby is dead or unhealthy when born?

Suing teaches the doctors to try harder for their workers, I bet some of you (the idiots) think. Wrong. Doctors may have liability insurance but when they get sued, that insurance goes way up in a hurry. So much so doctors are a dying resource here in the United States and many are forced out of the business because they can no longer afford their insurance. Hopefully in the 10 more years I'll need to become a doctor, the government will finally step in and post caps on non-financial damages.

Sorry but consistency in the law is important. It seems illogical and stupid. But if the law uses 'illegal methods' to capture someone or obtain a piece of evidence it is no longer valid. Okay, it seems stupid. But there are reasons for this kind of thing and it stops the police snooping in on you and breaking into your house without a warrant. Or extraditing you from foreign soil...etc...etc.

In the first case the lawyer was just doing his job. If you want to change this, blame the Government. That's if the Patriot Act hasn't changed it already :).
Quote from you earlier:
"Formalism CAN be good...but generally I favour twisting the interpretation in order to achieve JUSTIVE. "
Would you not favor twisting interpretation here for the case of the guy who confessed without being read his Miranda Rights? Would that not be achieving real justice? It sounds like in that case no illegal methods were used, just a procedure was missed.

i just don't like ambualnce chasers and people who do class action...

Sorry but consistency in the law is important. It seems illogical and stupid. But if the law uses 'illegal methods' to capture someone or obtain a piece of evidence it is no longer valid. Okay, it seems stupid. But there are reasons for this kind of thing and it stops the police snooping in on you and breaking into your house without a warrant. Or extraditing you from foreign soil...etc...etc.

In the first case the lawyer was just doing his job. If you want to change this, blame the Government. That's if the Patriot Act hasn't changed it already .

It wasn't illegal methods at all. They had enough evidence to make a case, hence why they detained him in the first place. The only thing that was the problem is the man didn't keep his mouth shut. He could have said "No it wasn't me," and plead not guilty. But he confessed and plead guilty.

Just a fast one:

Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?

A: Professional courtesy.

And since I believe in being fair, I'll disparage my own profession:

Q: What do engineers use for birth control and STD prevention?

A: Their personalities.

Just a fast one:

Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?

A: Professional courtesy.

And since I believe in being fair, I'll disparage my own profession:

Q: What do engineers use for birth control and STD prevention?

A: Their personalities.
My uncle and first cousin are both mechanical engineers. Your joke is frighteningly accurate ... ;)

I guess a reason that defense lawyers are hated is that they are paid professional liars. They are obligated to defend even the worst scumbag and get him acquitted (or at least a reduced sentence), usually in the face of overwhelming evidence. Then the lawyer turns around and says, "It's part of the job. Don't be emotional."

It can be infuriating, but I suppose it's the price of a free society.

My uncle and first cousin are both mechanical engineers. Your joke is frighteningly accurate ... ;)

Well I'm an electrical and your description of them doesn't startle me in the least. ;)

Another engineering one:

John, an engineering student rides up to Mike, a classmate on a state of the art, brand new, shiny mountain bike.

Mike: "Whoa! Awesome bike! How the hell could you afford that? You've been living off of cat food for the last month after spending all you money on beer during frosh week."

John: "You won't believe this, but Angelina Jolie came riding up to me on this bike, stopped on the grass next to me. Next thing I know she's stripped naked in front me and says, 'you can have anything you want' so I took the bike"

Mike:"Good choice, her clothes probably wouldn't fit."

Quote from you earlier:
"Formalism CAN be good...but generally I favour twisting the interpretation in order to achieve JUSTICE. "
Would you not favor twisting interpretation here for the case of the guy who confessed without being read his Miranda Rights? Would that not be achieving real justice? It sounds like in that case no illegal methods were used, just a procedure was missed.

I don't live or work in the United States and don't even know exactly how the Miranda Rights etc. operate. If its similar to how the law operates in the UK, (as I understand the situation being described), then the broad principle is that if illegal action is used to arrest you then it's a big F U, no matter how silly the mistake is... That is the formalist approach anyway. In this case it seems that he deserved to be punished for whatever he admitted in the normal manner. From a perspective of the law this is not necessarily the case. Even from a realist standpoint, negating the effects of reading the rights could only - supposedly at least - lead to them not being read in the future. Then we must consider the question: Did he know that the rights had not been read and only admitted guilt because he knew of the legal technicality? Even a realist judge can only bend the rules so far. If its law that the rights have to be read then that's the law, and that's that.

Oh the frivolous lawsuits are another reason that for some reason didn't pop into my head.

A hospital's entire emergency staff refused to work because they couldn't afford it. Try to attach a man's finger and it doesn't stay on, the staff is apparently liable for over a million dollars? Pregnant women who don't take care of themselves sueing doctors for over twenty million dollars when their baby is dead or unhealthy when born?

Blame the government not the lawyers. Man..

Suing teaches the doctors to try harder for their workers, I bet some of you (the idiots) think. Wrong. Doctors may have liability insurance but when they get sued, that insurance goes way up in a hurry. So much so doctors are a dying resource here in the United States and many are forced out of the business because they can no longer afford their insurance. Hopefully in the 10 more years I'll need to become a doctor, the government will finally step in and post caps on non-financial damages.

No I'm not an idiot and no I don't think that it will make doctors work harder. We don't have as much of a problem with this here in the UK but it's growing: only the government/legislature can stop it, not the lawyers. Some of the cases are absolutely retarded, I agree, and the amounts awarded are too high as well. As lawyers we can only act on what the government has given us: if it's retarded then you don't have the lawyers to blame; you have the government. We only follow the law to the best of our abilities. That is our job and that is what we do. At least in Britain anyway.

A lawyer might seem a complete B****** straight out of hell's kitchen when he stands up in court and defends somebody who - at least it seems - quite obviously committed awful and horrific crimes. It is our job to attempt to discredit the evidence and put these people in the best light we can in the face of the law. That is our job. Man, would you like to have someone defending you if were accused of some heinous crime that just stood up in court and said: "look guys, i think it's pretty obvious he raped 5 girls, then took photos of their dead, naked bodies, whilst forcing the 6th to eat their flesh...that's before he shot her and dumped them in a river.." Cause what if you hadn't actually done it? Well then you'd be pretty f***ing screwed... Seriously guys...we don't think that what we defend is good... And I'm speaking on behalf of the majority who don't believe murder is good; don't believe stealing is good; most likely don't believe that whatever crime the man admitted in the case above - but didn't have his "Miranda Rights" read out to him - is good.

Even if it's 'obvious' that somebody has committed an offence, they still deserve a fair trial, and with the media's ability to manipulate public opinion I think this is more important today than ever before. What standard would you set anyway? One innocent man goes to prison for life, (oh wait this is the US, he dies!), for every 10 guilty that don't; or is it 20; 19; 21.13423 on average?

It wasn't illegal methods at all. They had enough evidence to make a case, hence why they detained him in the first place. The only thing that was the problem is the man didn't keep his mouth shut. He could have said "No it wasn't me," and plead not guilty. But he confessed and plead guilty.

If not reading the rights isn't an illegal method, or somehow against standard procedure, then my lack of knowledge of the US system means I cannot attempt to answer this question.

Asking the "hypothetical"..."if he had kept his mouth shut" is a risky business in any area of the law... Because "causation" in the law isn't what amounts to 7 weeks of soap episodes when some man is whinging about how he 'caused' lil jonny's death cause he gave him 50p and he was hit by a car while he was crossing the road to buy some sweeties. "OH JONNY! OH JONNY! IF ONLY I HADN'T GIVEN HIM THAT 50p! GOD SAVE ME! I KILLED HIM!"...That isn't just cause in the law.

Where do you draw the line? Take this hypothetical case. Girlfriend Y dumps boyfriend X. Boyfriend X is really angry but says, "Fine F***YOU!" and leaves. Girlfriend Y meets a new guy...let's call him Z. Five years later they are married and have a daughter: M. ex-Boyfriend X is very pissed off.

Scenario 1: Z is dropping off his daughter, M, one morning at school. Disguised ex-boyfriend X is in the back of the car: he tells Z who he is. He points a sawn-off shotgun at his head and says: "You're not going to enjoy this very much". The shotgun is 12 inches away from his head. The gun's safety latch is on, but Z does not know this. X puts a noose around Z's neck. X then takes the latch off the gun, and shoots Z.
--Police find X, and he's found guilty of pre-meditated murder: in his bag they find a knife, a chizel and some foreign money.

Scenario 2: Z is dropping off his daughter, M, one morning at school. Disuised ex-boyfriend X is in the back of the car: he tells Z who he is. He points a sawn-off shotgun at his head and says: "You're not going to enjoy this very much". The shotgun is 12 inches away from his head. The gun's safety latch is on, but Z does not know this. X puts a noose around Z's neck. Z knocks the gun out of X's hand and runs away from the car with the noose still around his neck.
--Police find X, and he's found guilty of attempted murder. Evidence for this verdict is supported by the knife, chizel and the foreign money found in his bag. The jury decided that the safety latch being on does not mean that X will not shoot Z. This is a difficult decision because the hypothetical is usually limited to "one action" before the crime. Defence lawyers argued that he did not intend to kill X: the safety latch was still on!

Scenario 3: Z is dropping off his daughter, M, one morning at school. On the way to the scene someone reports a man acting strangely, (most likely pretty angry and in a state of rage). The police pick him up and find the loaded sawn-off shotgun, the chizel, the knife and the foreign money.
--Despite vast circumstantial evidence, there is not enough evidence to convict him of attempted murder. He is charged only for carrying an illegal weapon.

This case isn't actually hypothetical. Scenario 2 is what really happened. The judge said that had X not been in the car, with the gun pointed at Z's head, then attempted murder could not be charged. Playing with hypotheses and the law is difficult. You go one way and people accuse you of being lenient on the "scum of the earth". You go the other way and you risk putting innocent people in prison for life, (in the UK), or even to their death, (in the USA).

Life isn't always easy for a lawyer. Nor are you always rich. Legal-aid work lawyers in the UK can be expected to be paid in the region of £20, 000 per annum. That's below the average income.. But then again, I suppose you'd be pretty pissed off at your lawyer if he'd just put you down for a million in a blatantly stupid claim! "McDonalds MADE ME FAT! I NEVER KNEW I WOULD BE FAT *cries* PLEASE! PLEASE! CAN'T YOU SEE McDonalds is evil". Yeah, like eating 3 burgers a day and sitting on your lazy arse won't make you fat: TT.

Another:
Less than a week ago in the US, people are waiting in a line to get certain tax forms or something of the sort. Two guys in the line begin cracking lawyer jokes. They're not saying it to anyone in particular. They aren't even good jokes. "When can you tell if a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving!" Other people in the line snicker and laugh. A lawyer who is also waiting in line tells them to shut up and that he was a lawyer. The two guys don't care and so they keep cracking jokes. The lawyer calls a security guard and has both of the men arrested for Causing a Disturbance. A disturbance that was bringing smiles to people who were probably bored while waiting in line.

So a lawyer can have people arrested for telling bad jokes while waiting in a line? Why can't I sue Lifetime for showing men as either wife-beaters, alcoholics, and child molesters?

I don't like this kind of a person, people who aren't light-hearted and can't take a joke piss me off. On the other hand, if this had been a racist or sexist joke then people would most likely have seen this very differently. Yes I don't particularly like this man. But he told them to stop...and they didn't...maybe he was truly offended by it: "a disturbance that was bringing smiles to people..."...I've never heard a joke at the expense of one man, or a section of society, that wasn't funny to another. I'd give you an example if I wouldn't be immediately branded a racist // sexist for it. That's no excuse in general and it would be poor reasoning to suggest it was. Either way, if they same thing happened to you, not being a lawyer I presume, you'd have the same right as this man to say what he did...ignorance of the law is no reason to condemn lawyers: they aren't trying to hide it from you. To be honest, I think it's a bad example.

As for Lifetime I don't even know what it is...show me, (the courts, if you will), the evidence and it's all yours ;)

Well, the US Constitution can be amended, but it is very difficult. It takes 2/3 vote by both chambers of Congress, signed by the President, and approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures (of 50 states, would need 34 states). But federal law doesn't rule most aspects of our country; state law does. Federal law only applies in such things as civil rights, bearing arms, interstate commerce, etc. State laws apply in the more common criminal matters, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc, unless those crimes cross state lines, where they can then become federal.

In the UK it's the counties that deal with only how the most minor and regulatory offences are dealt with: traffic offences and the like. But the whole situation in the US is totally different, especially with it being so much larger and coming about in such a different way. Our constitution is certainly much more flexible: this affords certain advantages at the cost of potentional disadvantages. In Britain our laws need not adhere to any particular 'moral' framework... Some lawyers claim that the law adheres to a "higher law": the first time this was claimed the entire House of Lords was called in like 2 hours to reaffirm that they enforced Parliament's legislature...hehe.

Haha...actually most of these people become the lawyers to either PROTECT these people or to prosecute them. The medical stuff might be stupid, but you should blame the government, not the lawyers. The same hysteria hasn't started here in the UK in quite the same way yet...and here the lawyers just follow the law as the government writes it...

The UK has a loser pays system. A smart idea that America would be wise to adopt. Unfortunately law is probably the most common degree among politicians and 1 political party is even owned by them lock stock and barrel.

Actual Event:
A man confesses a crime after he's detained and pleads guilty. However a lawyer finds out the officer who arrested him did not read his Miranda Rights during the detaining. Lawyers get in front of judge and Judge frees man on technicality. Forget he committed the crime and confessed to it, the lawyer just wanted to win. And lawyers want to call that justice?
A few points on this case though. The rights existed at the time, but it was not necessary for a policeman to tell an apprehended suspect that he had them. The whole reason they're now called Miranda Rights is because the guy's name (last name) was Miranda.

Might not have been justice, but at least it set the proper procedure down for future events.

----

What do you call a lawyer who's been corrupt for 20 years?

Your honour.

I hate the law and thus lawyers

I find it interesting that if you ask people what they think of lawyers, they will tell they are all dishonest cheats and scumbags. Ask them what they think of THEIR lawyer, and they'll tell you he's great.

Good joke: Lawyers aren't all bad. It's just that 99% of them give the other 1% a bad name.

I'm a law student, and I work for a lawyer. I don't know any truly dishonest or evil lawyers. I just wanted to see what others here thought.

My uncle is a lawyer. Therefore, any comment I might make could be "overruled" on the basis of "conflict of interest". ;)

I've worked with lawyers. For the most part, they really aren't bad people.

Q: What do you call a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand!

Why would you call him that?

Actual Event:
A man confesses a crime after he's detained and pleads guilty. However a lawyer finds out the officer who arrested him did not read his Miranda Rights during the detaining. Lawyers get in front of judge and Judge frees man on technicality. Forget he committed the crime and confessed to it, the lawyer just wanted to win. And lawyers want to call that justice?

That's how the system in America works, man. It's called the law. We base our courts on adversarial relationships, and you've got the funding of the government against one man. The job of the lawyer is to provide the best defense possible for someone.

A man, guilty or not, deserves the best available representation.

Second, because of the exclusionary rule, the crime doesn't matter if evidence is obtained illegally. That's what safeguards our freedoms. A man must know that he has the right to a lawyer. Personally, I think it's fair to release 10 criminals if I know that 1 innocent man is being protected.


Another:
Less than a week ago in the US, people are waiting in a line to get certain tax forms or something of the sort. Two guys in the line begin cracking lawyer jokes. They're not saying it to anyone in particular. They aren't even good jokes. "When can you tell if a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving!" Other people in the line snicker and laugh. A lawyer who is also waiting in line tells them to shut up and that he was a lawyer. The two guys don't care and so they keep cracking jokes. The lawyer calls a security guard and has both of the men arrested for Causing a Disturbance. A disturbance that was bringing smiles to people who were probably bored while waiting in line.

So a lawyer can have people arrested for telling bad jokes while waiting in a line? Why can't I sue Lifetime for showing men as either wife-beaters, alcoholics, and child molesters?

Hey, another almost-true story! So, this black guy is waiting in line in the south, and these guys are making black jokes. You know, just having fun. Putting a smile on some faces. And this fucking black guy complains and the white guys won't stop- they're just having fun!

That's how the system in America works, man. It's called the law. We base our courts on adversarial relationships, and you've got the funding of the government against one man. The job of the lawyer is to provide the best defense possible for someone.

A man, guilty or not, deserves the best available representation.

Damn right he does..

Second, because of the exclusionary rule, the crime doesn't matter if evidence is obtained illegally. That's what safeguards our freedoms. A man must know that he has the right to a lawyer. Personally, I think it's fair to release 10 criminals if I know that 1 innocent man is being protected.

Agreed. A fundamental pillar of English law as expressed by Horoyd J. in 1823 when he declared: "it is a maxim of English law that ten guilty men should escape rather than one innocent man should suffer".

Forescue would set the standard at 20 when concerning capital punishment: "Indeed, one would much rather twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death than one innocent person should be condemned to suffer capitally".

Your freedoms are safeguarded through the "exclusionary rule" and ours are protected by our equivalent.

Hey, another almost-true story! So, this black guy is waiting in line in the south, and these guys are making black jokes. You know, just having fun. Putting a smile on some faces. And this fucking black guy complains and the white guys won't stop- they're just having fun!

The example he chose was pretty poor. The ways you can tear it apart...eat it from the inside out... ;) :D ;)

The UK has a loser pays system. A smart idea that America would be wise to adopt. Unfortunately law is probably the most common degree among politicians and 1 political party is even owned by them lock stock and barrel.

Hehe. Then again Tony Blair's wife is a lawyer... Anyhow, what are the main arguments behind not having the system we have in the UK :confused:? Or is it just a "politically sensitive" area for reasons said above ;)? (ie. more money for lawyers with the system you use..) It's a lot less of a socialist system...that's for sure! Hell I'm not even very socialist but I believe I advocate our system! :p

I hate the law and thus lawyers

Stupid society. Who needs laws anyway? We should go back to the good old days... With the 'Big Man'...He'd impose good, solid and respectable standards.
:rolleyes:

What do you call a lawyer who's been corrupt for 20 years?
Your honour.

What do you call a lawyer who's been corrupt for 30 years?
My Lord

Actually, I take that back, I have a great deal of respect for (almost) all of the Law Lords sitting today. They actually protect our freedoms!

"Why does everyone hate lawyers?"

Well, let's see ...

1. The largest number of congressmen and senators are lawyers, as opposed to any other profession, and they write the laws;

2. The trial and civil lawyers and the prosecutors represent and try those who break the laws;

3. Judges are lawyers before they become judges, and they decide who has broken the law and what their punishment shall be;

Talk about having it all sewn up!

"Why does everyone hate lawyers?"

Well, let's see ...

1. The largest number of congressmen and senators are lawyers, as opposed to any other profession, and they write the laws;

2. The trial and civil lawyers and the prosecutors represent and try those who break the laws;

3. Judges are lawyers before they become judges, and they decide who has broken the law and what their punishment shall be;

Talk about having it all sewn up!

Maybe it's all a conspiracy...*X Files Music*...The Truth is Out There :D

The majority of lawyers I know (suprisingly quite a few) do nothing but push papers around all day. The're like overpaid accountants... no actually more like underpaid accountants...

So in all fairness they don't get a chance to be evil.
Sorry, there were gross spelling and grammar errors that made me cringe and vomit Shakesperian English.

Sorry, there were gross spelling and grammar errors that made me cringe and vomit Shakesperian English.

He obviously hasn't met many barristers yet ^_^. :p

Maybe it's all a conspiracy...*X Files Music*...The Truth is Out There :D
That was my favorite TV program. They've started doing re-runs of them now on the SciFi Channel. :D

That was my favorite TV program. They've started doing re-runs of them now on the SciFi Channel. :D

They really were quality. Especially the early ones.

My Dad is a Barister so I see nothing wrong with Lawyers. I think the American thing about lawyers being the butt of so many jokes is that everyone dislikes them because they get so much money from thriving of eveyone else's misfortune.

My Dad is a Barister so I see nothing wrong with Lawyers. I think the American thing about lawyers being the butt of so many jokes is that everyone dislikes them because they get so much money from thriving of eveyone else's misfortune.

Yeah, but the American system is a bit different to ours in the UK. They do have more to resent...I guess. But I still maintain that most lawyers are good people and, on the whole, don't support rape and murder just because they have to protect the people who do these kinds of things.

And Atticus is just awesome. Nobody should ever hate a lawyer :-D And they shoud never kill a mockingbird either!

Why does everyone hate lawyers?

Well, one of the basic problems is that lawyers only make money if there is conflict between two or more parties which requires arbitration in some way. This condition does lead lawyers and law firms to provoke confrontation where it would not otherwise exist. Malpractice suits, Defamation claims, Unfair dismissal etc.

Had there never been such hard sell tactics on the part of some of the legal proffession, I believe that they would not be so disdained now. When there is a real conflict of interests, where the parties have tried to reach a mutually satisfactory solution and failed, then there is a necessary role for lawyers and advocacy, however the current system jumps straight to the confrontation without attempting to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

The UK does not have the same amount of litigation because, in part, there is a functioning arbitration system there, that avoids the need for costly court cases in a large number of cases. Other reasons include the Law itself being much easier to understand than in the US, which leads to fewer breaches being committed.

Lawyers are hated because, as previously stated somewhere in this thread, they make money out of the misfortunes of others, but moreso, because they attempt to provoke misfortune to make money.

Lawyer: "Judge, I wish to appeal my client?s case on the basis of newly discovered evidence."

Judge: "And what is the nature of the new evidence?"

Lawyer: "Judge, I discovered that my client still has $500 left."

Well I have had one good lawyer experiance, but have heard of a lot of crap, I think almost all lawyers are at least a bit shady, seedy even, oh some are big gaping anuses as well lol!

Well I have had one good lawyer experiance, but have heard of a lot of crap, I think almost all lawyers are at least a bit shady, seedy even, oh some are big gaping anuses as well lol!

I am a big gaping anus. Nice to meet you: :fluffle: