> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:34:10 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 2:22 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > Have you and Mionske talked about this?  I'd be curious to hear what he tells you.

> > > Thankfully, and I may be believing in the tooth fairy here, but I

> > > (like to) believe the courts will *not* gush over any personage (as

> > > you seem to), and instead "weight" all information FWIW.

> > Dan, it's not gushing over a personage.  It's expertise in an area of law.

> Sure looked like you were gushing to me.  *You* said something about
> the courts giving more weight.  A subject matter expert, maybe - but
> it's still the content.  A lawyer may ply his trade with expertise,
> but the court is the expert on law and justice.

> > We have a young lawyer in the extended family. He recently started with a new firm, dealing with cases in a different area than those he was previously familiar with.  He's come home in awe of the firm partners and their expertise in that area, noting that despite his years of good experience elsewhere, he now has tons to learn.

> Duh.  (So gushing runs in the [extended] family, does it? ;-)

> > It's like that with law, just as with most professions above the burger-flipper level: people develop a particular set of skills and knowledge.  If you get hurt by a driver in a car-bike crash, or if you get an unjust ticket while riding, I'd advise getting a lawyer familiar with bike law, not one who specializes in real estate, divorce or bankruptcy.

> Shouldn't sway a judge (or jury) in the least if what they say is
> reasonable.  (I would just bone up on the applicable law, myself, but
> you know what they say about the man who represents himself... haven't
> lost a case yet, though I kinda slipped up and had to accept a reduced
> charge once :-)