Lawyers - Why Do People Hate Them?
Lowell
Thoughts?
Falky foo
Larry
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote:
> Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
> Thoughts?
Surveys have repeatedly shown that people dislike "lawyers" in general,
but have overwhelmingly positive views of any individual lawyers they
have retained/consulted.
RHR
>Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
>Thoughts?
As I said when you posted this in alt.lawyers, it is not the
practitioners that are hated; it is the practice, in other words, the
US legal system. I don't believe lawyers are as hated in Europe,
South America and Asia. I think most Americans have an unease with,
as Roscoe Pound put it 100 years ago, "the sporting theory of
justice". You should read his entire article since it still is quite
relevant to your question:
http://www.law.du.edu/sterling/Content/ALH/pound.pdf
RHR
Falky foo
who's left standing in the end.
Is there any truth to it? No. But that's how it goes and has for
millennia.
fripp...@hotmail.com
system in general Falky foo. People pay a lot of money and stress out
over their legal problem and it doesn't matter if they are right or
wrong, it only matters who had the better lawyer. For most people, who
have from 0 to maybe 1 legal problem in their entire lives, they have
no idea who the good lawyers are. They're often going up against
corporations or "slicks" who know the system and have a lawyer on staff
or at least permanent retainer. By the time they get to court they've
been deposed and been thru discovery, where the other side's tried to
discredit them, asked for their personal journals, bringing up
irrelevant facts from their past, e.g. one elderly couple in a
construction defect case had it exposed in a depo that their late son
had been gay. The man was embarrased, grieving still, didn't want to
discuss his son's sexual history, etc, but instead of his own lawyer
not allowing it, the lawyer did allow it. the man died of a heart
attack, the corporation walked away from the suit a winner because the
widow was grief stricken and terrified and could not go thru with the
rest of it. Yeah, tha'ts justice...who wouldn't want to go thru that?
Jon Beaver
>Just curious what is behind the knee-jerk reaction "I hate lawyers."
>Thoughts?
Lawyers empower the unworthy and cheat people out of their unfair
advantages. Their license to talk for someone else means they get to
assert disputed facts without first-hand knowledge of the truth, which
some people mistake for lying.
- Jon Beaver
Falky foo
nobody's come up with anything better. The inquisitorial systems like latin
american countries are switching to the adversarial system in droves. So
apparently it's currently the best system. YMMV
RHR
<falk...@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The inquisitorial systems like latin
>american countries are switching to the adversarial system in droves.
Really? Reference please.
RHR
Falky foo
> Really? Reference please.
From http://www.iadb.org:
Your court or mine?
A primer on differences between inquisitorial and adversarial trials
By Paul Constance
Every week millions of Latin American television viewers tune in to
watch the dubbed version of Law and Order, a courtroom drama that portrays
wily detectives, earnest prosecutors, reptilian defense attorneys and
poker-faced judges in New York City.
Viewers the world over are seduced by the show's realistic portrayal
of the U.S. criminal justice system. Fans become lounge-chair experts on the
arcane rules that govern the use of expert witnesses, plea bargains, and
forensic evidence, not to mention the emotional manipulation of juries.
What many of these Latin American viewers don't realize is that some
of the scenes portrayed in Law and Order may soon be coming to a courthouse
in their hometown.
While many Latin Americans are aware of efforts to reform their
judicial systems, few know that the most far-reaching changes are taking
place in the area of criminal procedures. For a variety of reasons (see
related article, Verdict pending), many countries have decided to replace
aspects of traditional written and "inquisitorial" criminal trials with oral
and "adversarial" ones.
In the inquisitorial system, which Latin American countries inherited
from Spanish and Portuguese colonists and which is also practiced in most
European countries, the judge plays the central role and has broad powers
and responsibilities. He or she directs the investigation of a crime,
interviews witnesses, considers evidence and issues a verdict. Defendants
have relatively few rights and are not necessarily presumed innocent. Trials
are conducted gradually and behind closed doors, as the judge accumulates
evidence submitted primarily in the form of written briefs.
The adversarial system, which is based on the British common law
tradition, is what people see when they watch Law and Order. Here the role
of the judge is restricted to acting as a referee in a contest between the
prosecution and the defense. Investigations are carried out not by the judge
but by the police, under the direction of prosecutors. Defendants are
presumed innocent until proven guilty and they are guaranteed the right to
an attorney who will present their version of events, call defense witnesses
and cross-examine prosecution witnesses. In adversarial trials the verdict
is often delivered by a jury of ordinary citizens who weigh the merits of
the opposing arguments with guidance from the judge. (However, it is
important to note that even Latin American countries that have adopted
aspects of the adversarial system have generally not adopted the use of
juries.)
Jurists will always debate the comparative advantages and
disadvantages of each system. In Latin America, defenders of the shift to
adversarial trials argue that these make it easier to prevent miscarriages
of justice and protect the rights of suspects. They also claim that
adversarial trials diminish the risk of bias on the part of a judge and make
the whole process more transparent by forcing all parties to see evidence
and hear oral arguments in one place and at the same time. Written trials,
these critics contend, lead to an opaque and time-consuming process that
creates too many opportunities for corruption.
But other jurists point out that inquisitorial systems in Europe and
other parts of the world have largely succeeded in protecting the rights of
suspects and preventing corruption. They argue that the type of judicial
procedures is less important that the training, probity, and efficiency of
the judicial officials who operate it.
The jury-in this case the millions of Latin American citizens who long
to see improvements in the courts-will ultimately decide which system is
best.
Date posted: August 2003
Falky foo
By Leonel Sanchez
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 5, 2004
A San Diego-based legal think tank that teaches Latin American lawyers about
the U.S. judicial system is trying to draw a bigger audience.
Proyecto ACCESO has unveiled a line of products - clothing, beauty kits, a
cartoon series and trading cards - that it plans to market throughout the
Americas.
Each product is tied to the dramatic judicial reforms taking place in Latin
America. The goal is to raise public awareness of the changes, said James
Cooper, director of Proyecto ACCESO, based at the California Western School
of Law.
Most Latin American countries are in the process of switching from written
to oral trials, which are the norm in the United States and inspire more
confidence because of their transparency. [Actually, they're not just
moving from "written" to "oral" trials but from inquisitorial to
adversarial. See below re the new concept of 'public defender.' -FF]
Since 1998, Proyecto ACCESO has trained more than 1,600 lawyers in 15
countries to conduct oral trials, write legislation and negotiate across
cultures. The U.S. State Department has sponsored some of the training
workshops.
"One thing is to talk to lawyers and judges, the other thing is to win the
hearts and minds of the public about the importance of the rule of law,"
said Cooper, an assistant dean at the law school.
The nonprofit group is looking for investors to produce and sell the
merchandise, which is closely tied to core democratic values. The line of
clothing for example includes the "transparency jacket," the "free media
helmet," and the "judicial independent vest."
Cooper said he came up with the idea of using pop culture to popularize
judicial reform in 2002, after an opinion poll in Chile showed that most
people weren't aware of the historical changes taking place there, including
the introduction of a public defenders office.
Unfortunately, Cooper said, "publicizing the rule of law is not a priority
for many of these governments, because they're so busy cleaning up after
(emerging from long periods of) dictatorships."
Proyecto ACCESO, the Spanish acronym for Creative Lawyers Collaborating to
Find Optimal Solutions, is made up of U.S. and Latin American lawyers,
judges, law students and professors.
Most of the group's financial support comes from the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, which in 2003 renewed its funding with a three-year,
$600,000 grant.
Proyecto ACCESO is using proceeds from some of its legal training contracts
with governments and private universities in Latin America to support the
development of the rule of law merchandise. Cooper is looking for retailers
in Chile and the United States to carry the products.
Cooper is also developing an MTV-like reality series about lawyers as well
as a cartoon series for children. He is shopping both programs to
Spanish-language networks in the United States and Latin America.
The characters for both are based on several of Proyecto ACCESO's
instructors who've adopted superhero names over the years to raise public
awareness of the judicial reforms taking place in Latin America. They
include "The New York Street Fighting Lawyer," "The Flame of Justice," and
"The Superdefender."
"People don't want to read the law, but they'll like watching the cartoon
and learning about the law," Cooper said.
For more information about the group, call (619) 525-1436
Falky foo
jtno...@yahoo.com
>Thoughts?
Because they have the largely unaccountable power to ruin, and I mean
devastate permanently, people's lives. And they do so often to promote
their own selfish ends, and even to their own client's hurt. Sometimes
they do it with a pure Stalinist's heart-just for the enjoyment of
doing evil. Nobody in a democracy should have that kind of power, but
they do, and it doesn't matter that some are nice about it, power
corrupts over time, if not immediately.-Jitney
Jon Beaver
Geez, Risch. I've been trying to tell you for years. The "adversary
system" has another name -- democracy. If you don't have a right to
be an adversary, it isn't democracy.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
Explain what power a lawyer has that is not, in fact, his client's
power? Explain to whom, besides his client, a lawyer should be
"accountable?"
- Jon Beaver
RHR
Heeeeee's back. It's bluffing. It's bluster. It's blowhard. It's
bullshit. IT'S the BEAVERRRRRR! Plenty of democracies have
inquisitorial trials. You fail to understand the difference between
being an adversary of another party and court room procedures where
the adversaries control all the questioning of witnesses.
RHR
RHR
<falk...@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Really? Reference please.
>
>From http://www.iadb.org:
>
> Your court or mine?
> A primer on differences between inquisitorial and adversarial trials
> By Paul Constance
>
I think you and some of these articles are overstating how far
adversarial trials have permeated in Latin America. After the fall of
Communism, there were all sorts of efforts to get US style trials
introduced into Eastern Europe. I think only Russia has tried them
but their future there is murky. I found the following in the
testimony of Heritage Foundation analyst in a Congressional hearing in
2005.
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/joh030905.htm
"Courts are only gaining political independence in Mexico with
adversarial trials being tested in the state of Nuevo León. Napoleonic
codes and written trials still clog courts with cases that last years.
Thanks to local will and U.S. administration of justice programs, case
law and public, adversarial trials in criminal courts are beginning to
clean up the backlog in 15 out of 23 Latin American countries".
I find the some of the above comments, hard to understand. In
competant tribunal based legal systems, like France,Holland, Germany,
even trials where the parties are rich don't take anywhere as long as
in the US. And why would the Napoleonic code, which specifies
penalties for offenses, quite exactly, cause a backlog?
Whatever they are doing now to please the Americans, I predict the
South Americans will go back to Roman law style tribunals, just as the
Russians are doing. Why? As I have pointed out for years, here, the
adversary system is more expensive, takes longer, and is less accurate
in bringing justice than having a tribunal require the parties
present dossiers of their cases and then call and question witnesses
in their search for the truth.
RHR
Dane
"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
news:eiktr195goric9uvm...@4ax.com...
Yeah, well, look in CJS 2 Ed under Attorney and Client and discover who an
attorney is accountable to, as an attorney is an Officer of the Court..
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
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.