Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was interesting about the whole process is that it had nothing to do with getting to the truth. Just manipulating facts. And in the end, even the plaintiff got screwed...but the lawyers walked away with cash in their pockets.
It was a thoroughly fascinating process...like the most interesting colonoscopy you ever had.
Then I was called as an expert witness in another case...and again, it was interesting how nothing was about truth or justice...it was about proving little points that would, as a whole, hopefully influence a bunch of jurors.
Honestly, I would love to go to law school (and my lawyer relatives/friends tell me I'd love it and be great at it) just for the mental exercise. It's really quite interesting to me. I just would never do it as a job.
It all depends on the job...I've got a great gig now, 40 hours a week and hardly any travel, and just enough litigation to keep things interesting.
I was a prosecutor before, and that just flat out sucked.
As for the truth, what is that? Who gets to decide in a world where everyone's perception is their own reality?
I know it's politically incorrect in some people's opinion to say this, but I think juries are usually not that great at sorting out the truth. Give me a trained, logical, experienced and politically UNACCOUNTABLE judge any day rather than a box full of boneheads who can be swayed by emotional appeals and other nonsense.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2
It's a fact that most people have a negative opinion of lawyers. Some of these opinions are no doubt deserved. As with any profession, there are some bad apples that taint the batch, and the good apples unfairly take the blame. No matter what kind of law they practice, or how well, or how ethically, lawyers have to put up with all sorts of abuse.
Late last night, one of the best lawyers in the world and a noble champion of civil rights sadly passed away after a long struggle with ALS. The world is just a little dimmer this morning as a result.
A few years back, he gave a graduation speech which addressed the infamous Shakespeare quote above that I hope will stimulate some discussion here:
I'm not able to view the video where I am. I assume that he, in part, talks about how the quoted phrase is virtually always read out of context; that in fact, the speaker was conspiring with others to overthrow the king or such, and take power themselves, and they knew that it would be the lawyers who would raise objections that the conspirators were violating the 'law of the land'. Hence, silence those who would attempt to defeat the unlawful scheme.
Been an expert witness in many cases of litigation. I have seen consumers without any law experience, put high powered attorney's to shame.
Lawyers are just people that understand the law. They bend your version of the facts, to liquidate your wallet, even though they know you don't have a chance in hell, of winning more than you will owe them.
I have met one attorney, that actually wanted to know if it was worth it, or did they have a case. In 20 years, only one.
the 'good work' in the profession basically amounts to giving "regular people" access to the world of lawyers. eg providing pro bono work to a non-profit that is being sued for something unjust.
a better scenario would be to not have a world of lawyers.
What was interesting about the whole process is that it had nothing to do with getting to the truth. Just manipulating facts. And in the end, even the plaintiff got screwed...but the lawyers walked away with cash in their pockets.
It was a thoroughly fascinating process...like the most interesting colonoscopy you ever had.
Then I was called as an expert witness in another case...and again, it was interesting how nothing was about truth or justice...it was about proving little points that would, as a whole, hopefully influence a bunch of jurors.
Honestly, I would love to go to law school (and my lawyer relatives/friends tell me I'd love it and be great at it) just for the mental exercise. It's really quite interesting to me. I just would never do it as a job.
The adversarial process is typically the only practical way you can get to the "truth" of the matter when there's a dispute. Old societies used to have magistrates who made their decision based on the reputation of the parties, and it always favored the well-born, and was rife with open corruption. The justice system isn't perfect, and to the untrained eye, it looks like little more than parsed words and manipulation. But the intention is to get to the bone-truth as close as possible.
it all depends on the job...i've got a great gig now, 40 hours a week and hardly any travel, and just enough litigation to keep things interesting.
I was a prosecutor before, and that just flat out sucked.
As for the truth, what is that? Who gets to decide in a world where everyone's perception is their own reality?
i know it's politically incorrect in some people's opinion to say this, but i think juries are usually not that great at sorting out the truth. Give me a trained, logical, experienced and politically unaccountable judge any day rather than a box full of boneheads who can be swayed by emotional appeals and other nonsense.
word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
