OK, really. What’s so bad about lawyers? We tend to think of them as something we would be better off without and make jokes accordingly. We call them slimy, dishonest, unscrupulous, rude, uncaring, not so smart, crooks and thieves. We lump them in with politicians and used car salesmen, and act like the world would be a better place without them.
So far the lawyers I know (and those studying to be a lawyer) have been great people. They’ve been very smart, logical, articulate and downright funny.
As far as their job goes, they help to keep our justice system running as smoothly and as fairly as humanly possible, and keep our affairs in order.
So, what’s so bad about lawyers?
Entries (RSS)
One of my transactional litigation professors told us that people tend to not like lawyers because part of a lawyer’s job, especially a transactional lawyer, is to figure out all the risks and try to prevent them. So it always seems like the lawyer is thinking of the negative side only- like lawyers who work with small businesses- they have to think about what will happen if the partnership or business breaks up, or someone wants to leave, or the partners get into an argument, want to compete with each other, etc, but the entreprenuers, like newly weds, are so revved up about their new business that they don’t think it will happen, and they don’t like talking about it. Other times, people don’t get involved with lawyers until it is too late. Small business is a great example- things are so messed up already and sometimes a lawyer will slip up and say something like “Well, if you had done X,” or ‘next time, do Y,” and that makes it sound like they are blaming you- not good when the client is already pissed about the situation, particularly if there is not a whole lot the lawyer is able to do!
Also, jealousy. Ok, not really.
Hmmm… That does make some sense. Most of us probably only need a lawyer at bad times in our lives. Like when we are in trouble for something, or thinking about dying, or trying to keep someone from screwing us over. So we are thinking all sorts of negative things (or being made to think about them) and just transfer all those negative thoughts onto the lawyer. Which really isn’t fair at all, since the lawyer is the one trying to minimize the damage–for what we always think of as huge sums of money.
Lawyers cover up for their colleagues in just about every manner possible.
Their collective arrogance (there are exceptions) relating to non-attorneys being unable to understand even the most simple statutes or caselaw is offensive — as best. While the lack of their general legal knowledge is moderate at best.
Oh, and the answer to the question posed by Megan is:
NOT ENOUGH.
I think the answer might be “Hopefully, not enough parachutes?”
What do you have if you have 1000 lawyers buried at the bottom of the sea? A good start
What is the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a bottom dwelling scum sucker, the other is a fish
What do you have if you have 1000 lawyers buried to their necks in sand? Not enough sand.
Honestly, I agree generally with Megan, BUT like my dad used to say, Anything in moderation is usually OK. What we have is too many lawyers and moderation is not in the vocabulary of some of them.
When we have lawyers (judges) suing for millions over lost pants. Or a lady suing over hot McDonalds coffee. Or parsing words like the meaning of the word “is”, then we have problems.
As one who deals with lawyers on a daily basis, I can say that the majority that I have met are pretty nice (in Richmond), but enough are slime that I see where the bad rep comes from. The further north you go, the worse (less civil) they seem to be.
People who go into the law seem to take their baggage with them. If they are flaming liberals, they often gravitate to the ACLU type jobs, or the legal aid or the plaintiff’s personal injury law or criminal defense. Conservatives seem to gravitate towards insurance defense and prosecution and corporate types. Dumb, illogical lawyers tend to become judges. Just kidding, your Honor. But too many become greedy, and when they are handed a license to steal (a.k.a. a License to Practice Law), they become a mixture of royal pains in the arse and thieves. And people generally go see them when they are hurt, or in trouble with the law, or when they are being sued. No wonder people hate lawyers.
But, as I once heard [to paraphrase]: a doctor once asked a lawyer why the legal profession was so “backwards”. The lawyer replied: “When your profession was using leaches to “bleed” George Washington for his health, our profession was writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
What is black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?
[there whackette, i've just ruint yer blog]
No one has answered the title question right yet.
You’re going to have to try harder than that to ruin it, Rudder. (Really, no need to try.)
99% of all lawyers give the other 1% of lawyers a bad name.
Answer: A perfect set up for skeet shooting.
You got it, Rudder. Here’s your prize.
That prize had a whole different meaning at a different blog.
I prefer the question: “What’s so bad about lawyers?”
Here is my answer. Lawyers do not fix problems; they fix blame. Nobody likes to have the blame fixed upon them. When there is no blame to be fixed on anyone, fixing blame is a crime. Unfortunately, with lawsuits, fixing blame is profitable.
When lawyers are doing their real job, lawyers serve a useful function. When they engage in politics, and practice their profession, that is a disaster. In addition to having the wronge skills, there is too much of a conflict of interest.
When lawyers run for office, they try to fix blame of their opponents (i.e, they run a negative campaign). This blame-fixing confuses the issues and prevents any substantive debate.
When lawyers get elected to office, they try to “fix” things by fixing blame. Look what such politicians have done to our tort laws. How many instances can you think of where the “solution” is to sue somebody. You can start by considering our environmental and discriminaton laws.
Whatever do you mean, Phil?
Tom,I disagree to a certain extent. Lawyers do much more than fix blame. In fact, I think they often prevent blame from needing to be fixed. Wills and business agreements come to mind.
“When lawyers get elected to office, they try to “fix” things by fixing blame.”
I don’t think that’s anything unique to lawyers; just politicians in general. They tend to blame their opponents rather than fix the problem. Probably because if all the problems were to be fixed there wouldn’t be anyone to blame and no reason to vote for anyone.
When we are educated, we acquire a toolset. The toolset of lawyers is an understanding of how our legal code works. Our legal code defines our rights and when someone has transgressed those rights. Our legal code also defines how we punish those who transgress the rights of others.
The services lawyers provide their clients involve fixing blame. Lawyers help their clients avoid blame, and they help their clients fix blame on others. Since our trials are adversarial events, lawyers become expert in fixing blame on each other’s clients (or each other). Because we are ruled by an aristocracy of lawyer, we all imitate lawyers. We imitate both their good and bad qualities, and we need to start thinking about which qualities we should not immitate.
Some problems in the system bring out the worst in people who become lawyers.
1. Those who win get rewarded, those who lose don’t. This produces a win at any cost mentality in those who cannot contain their greed, or who do not have a sufficient moral basis to help them know that they should rein in certain base desires.
2. Lawyers are given too much power with too little responsability or accountability. They can ruin somebody’s life by suing them, causing them public grief and much expenses, then just walk away when nothing comes of it. The state bar, which is supposed to police lawyers, is pretty ineffective.
3. Lawyers are unregulated. They funnel millions of dollars into their escrow accounts, and only after they are caught red-handed stealing are their accounts looked into. By then it is too late.
4. Lawyers have it hard, every day arguing, fighting and bickering with clients, opposing counsel, and judges. It wears them down and changes them and makes them more argumentitive [gross generalization, I know].
5. My theory is that the smaller the town, the nicer the lawyers, as a general rule. In a small town, the lawyers have to deal with each continually, so they can’t burn bridges. In NYC they probably will never see their opponent again, so they treat them like dirt. Because they can.
6. Not all lawyers are bad. I play poker with at least 20-30, on a regular basis, and at least at the poker table, they are all great guys.
HRR - My comments are not intended as a personal criticism of anyone. I do not even think poorly of lawyers as a class.
The fault belongs with us. We are foolish to elect so many people from one profession to high office. Other than the fact lawyers receive some training in oratory and the structure of government, nothing in particular qualifies lawyers to rule the rest of us. Lawyers have little training many other activities that involve our government: defense, natural disasters, commerce, national parks, education, research,….
In fact, what we have done is to put the people who have the most to gain from complicating our laws in charge of making our laws. Look at our damnable tax code, for example. That is not an accident.
I know, Tom. I’m familiar enough with your writings to know you do not criticize anyone. Yer one of the good guys, and I for one appreciate it.
Somewhat unrelated:
In the international system, law is seen as a way to build social justice, to the detriment of both law and democracy. This has more to do with the international community’s wish to make things concrete, and be able to say ‘this is the way you promote democracy in a country.’ However, they tend to overlook the more minute (sometimes not) things in the country at question, and impose a ‘democratic’ system externally, in fact eliminating not only a hope for democracy, but citizens’ faith in self governance.
A lot of what we talked about in my UN class was how political problems in the international realm are often met with legal solutions when they need political, discussed, and negotiated solutions if they are at all likely to succeed. This is an unfortunate disadvantage of the current system of trying to do good in the world–the right questions are not asked, and there is not time and money given by member states to put worthwhile effort into programs that would do more than say, provide food aid after a cyclone. Member countries often approve timetables too short and budgets too small to accomplish anything, and then call what was done in that time period a failure. So the international community helps a great deal in defeating its own goals in organizations such as the UN.
Oh, and the guy who claims that we have too many lawyers? It’s a supply and demand issue, if the market gets saturated with lawyers, salaries go down and people leave.
Morons. Typical blue-collared morons. Everybody else is to blaim but themselves. Tired of the average American.
Go vote for Obama you helpless [removed for foul content].