Lawyers - Why Do People Hate Them?
Lowell
Thoughts?
Dave Smith
> Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
> Thoughts?
Perhaps it is because they tend to be lying scum bags who run up huge
bills for their clients while doing absolutely nothing for them. In the
years that I did enforcement work I spent a lot of time in court rooms.
In all that time I dealt with three lawyers who I respected. They were
gentlemen who know their stuff and who acted expeditiously and in the
best interests of their clients. The typical strategy of most lawyers
was to make multiple court appearances, having the cases adjourned time
after time after time and then usually pleading guilty. They charge got
every court appearance, and those pleas could have been entered on the
first or second appearance without the extra $500-1000 in fees for
unnecessary court appearances.
Most of the lawyers we dealt with had no business dealing with
commercial vehicle law. They didn't have a clue what they were talking
about would have served their clients much better by referring them to
someone who did understand the regulations. Of course, that would mean
the other lawyer would make the money on the case.
Lawyers charge a lot of money because they consider themselves to be
qualified professionals. A few are. Many of the rest are just money
hungry liars who are happy to have you spend hundreds of dollars more
on a defence to a simple traffic offence than to plead guilty, and they
most of them can't even conduct a successful defence.
We had a number of paralegals that used to represent many of our drivers
and operators in court. They work for a fraction of the cost of a
lawyer. The knew the relevant statue and regulations as well as the CVSA
OOS criteria. They tended to deal with matters expediently without
running up huge bills for their clients. And when they were unable to
arrange a satisfactory plea bargain, or if they elected to dispute the
charges entirely, they tended to be much more effective at getting their
clients acquitted than the lawyers.
.
Night Rogue
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136422859.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
> Thoughts?
Because most of them are bottom feeders??
Skateboard'n
> Thoughts?
Because they grow up to be politicians!!
Tom
Troublemaker
> Thoughts?
Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: Why does San Francisco have all the gays, and Los Angeles have all the
lawyers?
A: San Francisco got to choose first.
tscottme
news:zq6dnfsWYsPNWCHe...@comcast.com...
>
> Reminds me of the old joke:
>
> Q: Why does San Francisco have all the gays, and Los Angeles have all the
> lawyers?
>
> A: San Francisco got to choose first.
>
>
That's funny!
--
Scott
Today, the sons and daughters of those earlier appeasers have taken up
where their parents and grandparents left off. - Burt Prelutsky
http://tinyurl.com/coplb
The Baron
> Thoughts?
Don't get me started, but I guess I can mention this much.
To make a long story short, in I have had trouble with two lawyers in
particular, one I hired to defend me, one prosecuted me. Years later, both
ended up serving 3 years in jail for Theft by Deception so I might have got
the last laugh on them.
The one I hired to defend me, wouldn't talk to me because, I didn't know at
the time, he knew the woman bring charges against me and it was a conflict
of interest. He shouldn't even have taken the case. I fired him, right
before my first jury trial and was left clueless on how to defend myself in
court and lost.
The one that prosecuted me, didn't care what evidence was presented in
court, he also knew the woman bringing charges against me and used every
trick he could to win the trial for her.
But, it wasn't all bad. Before the one that prosecuted me, went to jail, he
taught me the tricks he uses against me and that allowed me to win a second
jury trial 12-0. See:
http://SlimeFest.com/JuryNOTGuilty.gif
I could go on and on, but as you can see, from the site above, I have at
least one web site devoted to "bad attorneys." Fact is, I think I have six
sites devoted to their treachery.
Thanks.
Jordon
"Troublemaker" wrote in message
> Reminds me of the old joke:
Me too...
What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
The hooker will stop fucking you when you die.
Jordon
Felix Dzherzhinskiy
Truth and justice are meaningless to the majority of them; they are
administrative gunsels, hired to win, and damn the method.
Many, myself included, believe that the erosion of our justice system into a
mere legal system is due to the actions and interests of lawyers, and their
professional associations. Now truth and law aren't the main ideans in
courtrooms; the main idea is that whomever tells the best tale wins the
case.
Of what use is a legal system to the common man if the common man must hire,
at exorbiant cost, an individual to interpret a deliberately convoluted
legal code for him?
Perhaps Shakespeare was right...
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136422859.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Night Rogue
"Felix Dzherzhinskiy" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:PsDvf.150963$Ph4.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Lawyers are professional manipulators.
>
> Truth and justice are meaningless to the majority of them; they are
> administrative gunsels, hired to win, and damn the method.
>
> Many, myself included, believe that the erosion of our justice system into
a
> mere legal system is due to the actions and interests of lawyers, and
their
> professional associations. Now truth and law aren't the main ideans in
> courtrooms; the main idea is that whomever tells the best tale wins the
> case.
>
> Of what use is a legal system to the common man if the common man must
hire,
> at exorbiant cost, an individual to interpret a deliberately convoluted
> legal code for him?
>
> Perhaps Shakespeare was right..
In otherwords you are innocent until proven broke.
Wavking
A lawyer will take any case. It has nothing to do with merit or if it is
justified. Only that he thinks he will get paid.
And they get the money up front--that's what a retainer is--so they WILL get
paid.
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136422859.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Wavking
> Perhaps Shakespeare was right...
First kill all the lawyers
-------------
Here's a little history of the phrase
http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html
The Baron
> Thoughts?
"lawdog" you don't happen to be a lawyer just having fun with the reaction
you get when you say "lawyer." Sure looks that way.
I hope you are happy with the reactions you got from MTT.
mailch...@yahoo.com
Paralegal, not working as one right now because, attorneys don't want
to pay a paralegal, they just want a secretary who is not educated in
law and they won't have to pay the wage that we deserve. I started a
buiness here to aid that person who did not have the money to pay an
attorney...I gave them no legal advice just researched the law and gave
them the info they needed...well the attorney's here were all up in
arm's that I was taking money out of their pockets to do a dissolution
or a transfer of deed or any piece of paper that might go before a
judge...documents for a statute were started that no paralegal could
put their hands on or have anything to do with any document that would
go before a judge without an attorney's approval. That pretty much put
me out of business and now I will not even think about working for
one...not at a meager secretary wage...I was trained and knew the
law...probably more, soemtimes than they did...give me a low salary and
then charge the client triple or more for me. BALDERDASH
Bethany81
.
>
> But, it wasn't all bad. Before the one that prosecuted me, went to jail, he
> taught me the tricks he uses against me and that allowed me to win a second
> jury trial 12-0. See:
> http://SlimeFest.com/JuryNOTGuilty.gif
>
>
Please share your tricks with me! I'm learning all I can. Any other
websites to view, let me know. I am going to law school.
colridg...@yahoo.com
Lowell
practicing without a license). That is why the attorneys were up in
arms. You were breaking the law that you allege to know "probably
more, sometimes than they did." Your flagrant disrespect of the law,
your breach of ethics and your entitled attitude are likely the reasons
that attorneys would not hire you. I'm not in Ohio, but I'll bet you
dollars to donuts that your judicial forms do not have a signature line
for a paralegal -- they have a signature line for the attorney
representing the party OR for a party appearing without an attorney.
Please explain how you claim to give no legal advice but, after
researching the law, you gave them the info they needed. What you did
is precisely what you say you did not do. Call it what you will but
you were giving legal advice.
Lowell
3. mailcherih...@yahoo.com
Jan 8, 2:07 pm show options
Newsgroups: misc.transport.trucking
From: mailcherih...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 8 Jan 2006 14:07:09 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 8 2006 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Lawyers - Why Do People Hate Them?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Dave Smith
Let's look at an example of one of those forms a lawyer signs. How about
the title search on a piece of property. A lawyer sends a paralegal or his
clerk or secretary down to the country land registry. The paralegal.
secretary or clerk does the search, gets paid an hourly rate, so we are
looking at $20-30 for their time. The attorney then has his secretary
complete the form. He looks it over and signs it and then sends a bill to
the client for $500 or more.
Lawyers are a self regulating profession. Paralegals are not. Here in
Ontario a paralegal can represent a person in court for a number of
different issues. They are commonly used in family court and traffic court.
They are required to produce a copy of a letter from their client in which
the client acknowledges that they are aware that the person is not a lawyer
and is not subject to client attorney privileges etc.
During the years that I worked in CMV enforcement and spent a lot of time
in court, I saw an ever increasing number of paralegals representing
people. Mot of them worked on a flat rate fee that was a fraction of the
cost of lawyers. Most of them demonstrated a much greater understanding of
the relevant statute law and regulations than most of the lawyers. Most of
them were much easier for us to deal with. They were able to read the
disclosures and discuss cases with the officers and prosecutors and know
when their clients were screwed and how to work out a good deal without the
bullshit machismo most of the lawyers tried to pull.
I can give you a prime example with two similar cases involving improperly
licensed bus drivers. In both cases the drivers were put out of service,
drivers were charged fr driving a commercial motor vehicle with the
improper class of licence and the companies were charged for permitting an
improperly licensed person to drive a commercial motor vehicle. Both
offences are steep fines and each carried demerit points.
One company sent a paralegal. The paralegal made a request for disclosure
and then came to court and worked out a plea arrangement . He knew there
was a solid case and worked a deal where the company would plead guilty and
the charges against the driver would be dropped.
The other company sent a lawyer. The lawyer arrives at court on the trial
date and insists that we should drop the charge against the driver and
proceed only against the company. We tell her that we will drop the driver
charge if the company pleads guilty. That is not her plan. She has issues
and wants to go to trial. We tell her that if we go to trial we go to trial
against both. So we end up going to trial against the owner and the
driver.
She made four more court appearances before the case finally went to trial.
She was doing well for a while because she revealed that at the time the
bus was inspected there were no passengers on board and it had not been
seen on the road. The bus was inspected in a tourist location parking lot
while the passengers were sight seeing. The lot is accessible only from
the road, but she had raised a question of doubt.
Her defence went downhill form there. She tried to claim that the read
bench seat had been removed from the vehicle so that it had seating for 10,
not 13. She tired to claim that unless I had physically boarded the bus
there was no way I could have seen that the bench seat at the back had been
removed, though the bench seat was plainly visible by looking through the
side door. This was not a major issue because while trying to argue that
the seating capacity makes it too small to be a bus, the requirement for a
bus here is seating for 10 or more passengers. If she wants to argue that
it has seating for only 10, it is still a bus.
As if it is not enough that she has made of a point of demonstrating to the
court that the vehicle meets the definition of a bus, she then called the
driver to the witness stand. She has him tell the court that the back
bench seat has been removed and there was only seating for 10, not 13.
Until the driver was on the stand there was a lot of hearsay evidence that
could not be given. Our prosecutor cross examined the driver, asked him
how many passengers he had, asked him where he picked them up, what route
he drove to get there, had him verify there was seating for 10, making it a
bus, and verifying that he had been carrying passengers. Thanks to the
lawyer putting the driver on the stand, their defence collapsed. The driver
and the company were both convicted. Both paid fines, the company getting
an even bigger fine than they would have under a plea arrangement and they
had twice as many points on their operating record. To make matters worse,
she charged the company for each of her court appearances. There is usually
a minimum charge for each appearance. So she could go to court, spend 15
-20 minutes there until she got up and asked for the case to be adjourned
to another date and collect for her appearance, even though there was no
reason not to go ahead with the trial that day.
This was not a hypothetical. That is what happened, and it is typical of
the way that paralegal and lawyers operate. Some jurisdictions to not
allow paralegal, but others do, and they are becoming increasingly common.
Most paralegal realize that there are cases with issues where a lawyer may
be the best bet, and most will refer people to a client. While most
paralegal can deal with traffic matters much better and much cheaper than a
lawyer, you can be sure that lawyers aren't likely to refer their clients
to one when they have the opportunity to squeeze money out of them,
As an example of the ethical standards of lawyers ..... It is quite common
for lawyers to offer to be executors for their clients' wills. It is also
quite common for them to insert themselves as co-executors. Then when the
client dies the lawyer seals the residence and sends in an appraiser to
determine the value of the estate. As co-executor of the will he is
entitled to a percentage of the value of the estate, even if he does no
work.
gashauler
I've had both good and bad lawyers. In dealing with workmans comp I had to
fire this Bozo because all he did was sit back and make sure I got my
checks. Luckly I fired him before I owed him any money. I did the rest
myself and my state even allowed me a lawyer from the state if I needed him.
But the other lawyer I owe many thanks to. He saved me almost $200,000.
Dave Smith
I once dealt with a lawyer who was married to a friend of my wife. I won't go
into the details, but had gone to him to have him send a cease and desist order
to an old landlord who was being a jerk. The deal was that if he harassed me or
my wife again after being sent the letter he could be charged. I left it in the
lawyer's hands.
Two weeks later, the wacko landlord contacts my wife. I called the lawyer and
asked him to proceed with charges. He tells me he can't do that. There is a
small problem. He hadn't heard any more from us so he thought the problem had
been resolved and he never sent the letter. I explained to him that I was
looking at a bill from him for sending a letter. I had not asked for legal
advice, just that the letter be sent. He didn't send the letter, so he should
not expect to be paid. If he wished to pursue the outstanding bill I would be
contacting the law society. We never hear from him again.
The funny part is that we never heard from the landlord again. I was telling my
brother and his neighbour about the trouble with the landlord and how this
lawyer screwed up. The neighbour was always referring to his Mafia connections.
He asked me the landlord's name and address, then a few weeks later he asked if
we had heard from the guy again. He said that a friend of his had a talk with
the guy.
LG
Lowell wrote:
> Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
> Thoughts?
I was under the impression that paralegals do not represent clients in
court for a fraction of the cost of a licensed attorney???????
LG
represent clients in court because they are not licensed by the State
Bar as attorneys. I know they may be able to deliver papers to the
court, but representing the client in court leads one to think they are
actually conducting business there other than beling a delivery person
of papers to the court.
LG
UGALawDawg
having started a new career at the age of 35. I am an associate with a
very small town office with 3 lawyers. We do just about all types of
law, but primarily personal injury, worker's compensation, criminal
defense, family law (divorces, adoptions, child support modifications,
etc.) and some general business.
Most of the lawyers that I deal with on a daily basis are the best sort
of people. Yes, there are a few scummy types (usually INSURANCE DEFENSE
lawyers, i.e. those that work for State Farm, AllState, Progressive and
some overly aggressive divorce lawyers), but for the most part lawyers
are fantastic people.
I work a 70 hour week, I spent 7 years in a top-notch university and
incurred over $100,000 in debt to become a lawyer, and I go through a
bottle of Tums about every 2 to 3 weeks worrying about my clients.
I recently represented a young man who was charged with 4 counts of
trafficking narcotics. He could only afford to pay $750 up front. As
the trial approached, his family did not come up with any more money. I
still represented him in a 5 day jury trial (plus 2 1/2 days of jury
deliberations) and got him acquited of 2 of the charges. His actual
bill came to over $16,000. I will never see that, but it's okay. Myself
and another lawyer spent well over 100 hours on this case.
I also routinely represent people for nothing when a landlord
wrongfully evicts them, but they have no money to hire a lawyer. I
often help people out in Magistrate Court when they don't understand
the procedures. Again, no fee.
I am no martyr, but I take my oath very seriously, as does the man who
I work for who has been practicing law for decades. He feels a civic
duty in a small town to help anyone that comes in the door, even if
they cannot pay.
As for the courts being "clogged with frivilous cases," that's
bullshit. That is pure propaganda brought to you by AllState,
Progressive, State Farm, etc. and designed to get egregious tort reform
laws passed to increase their already hefty bottom-lines.
By the way, a lot of those cases have little or nothing to do with
personal injury cases.
Most lawyers won't file "frivilous" cases. Since they take the case on
contingency, if they don't collect, they get nothing. And contrary to
the propaganda you're been fed, insuracne companies don't settle those
cases to make them go away. They try them to a jury. If the case is a
dog, the plaintiff's lawyer gets zero, and would soon go broke trying
those types of cases.
People point to a FEW cases (McDonald's Coffee Case) and use them to
erroneously damn the whole system. By the way, the above case is not
nearly as frivilous as most people think. Do a little research and
you'll find out the truth about that case.
Some here said " The evidence is that all of these antics by lawyers
has not improved safety, just increased costs." BULLSHIT...EVERY safety
feature in everyday life is thanks to a plaintiff's attorney.
Seatbelts, airbags, non-exploding gas tanks on cars, a whole slew of
drugs that kill people...the list goes on and on.
I think the vast majority of people that don't like lawyers do so for a
few reasons:
1) they blindly accept the pablum fed to them by the Insurance
industry;
2) they are divorced and their spouse hired a better lawyer; or
3) they have been through the criminal justice system and been
convicted.
Dave Smith
> First of all, yes, I am a lawyer. I have been for about 5 years now,
> having started a new career at the age of 35. I am an associate with a
> very small town office with 3 lawyers. We do just about all types of
> law, but primarily personal injury, worker's compensation, criminal
> defense, family law (divorces, adoptions, child support modifications,
> etc.) and some general business.
>
> Most of the lawyers that I deal with on a daily basis are the best sort
>
> of people. Yes, there are a few scummy types (usually INSURANCE DEFENSE
>
> lawyers, i.e. those that work for State Farm, AllState, Progressive and
>
> some overly aggressive divorce lawyers), but for the most part lawyers
> are fantastic people.
>
> I work a 70 hour week, I spent 7 years in a top-notch university and
> incurred over $100,000 in debt to become a lawyer, and I go through a
> bottle of Tums about every 2 to 3 weeks worrying about my clients.
>
> I recently represented a young man who was charged with 4 counts of
> trafficking narcotics. He could only afford to pay $750 up front. As
> the trial approached, his family did not come up with any more money. I
>
> still represented him in a 5 day jury trial (plus 2 1/2 days of jury
> deliberations) and got him acquited of 2 of the charges. His actual
> bill came to over $16,000. I will never see that, but it's okay. Myself
Don't worry. You can make up for it buy learning to maximize your billable
hours. Here is one that a lawyer, an old family friend, pulled on my sister
is law. She was in his office to sign some papers and passed his office on
the way out. He was on the phone but waved her into his office. He asked
she was doing, asked about the family and some old friends. The bastard
tried to bill her for the time.