Public Image of Lawyers

[Lenny Weinrib]

Woah, woah, woah, ironmonger! It's the other way around! It's when the client says he's not guilty, that the lawyer cannot represent him on a guilty plea!

Pleading "Not Guilty" does not mean "I am not guilty". It means, I exercise my right to have the State prove that I am guilty.

 

[Kathy P]

Does that mean that a doctor should not treat someone with a disease? Lawyers are there to defend the law, to try and ensure that the process and system stay fair, not just the defendant. People make mistakes in their lives. Sometimes there are reasons that people screw up. Not everyone in the system is a Paul Bernardo. The point is that advocates keep the system functioning so that when a truly innocent defendant does come along, it is there to protect him/her.

As for the lawyer bashing, my personal experience as both a journalist and lawyer is that people like to blame anyone but themselves for their troubles when they're in it. Lawyers are there to hopefully help clean up the mess that people have made of their own lives. My ex-husband always blames the countless lawyers he hires and fires for his legal woes with me, when in fact, the case that he brought them (a deadbeat dad who won't support his child for 16 years and then lies to the court about his income) was a sure fire *****.

Like any profession there are good and bad lawyers. Sometimes there is good and bad law. Generalizations are dangerous and inaccurate.

 

[Perry Mason]

... my personal experience as both a journalist and lawyer...

There you go again claiming that you are a lawyer when you are not! And excuse me for repeating what I said some time ago to you, but you don't have a very sound understanding of the law!

Perry

 

[Kathy P]

Get a life, Perry. You're not the only one to grace the profession and - like I've said before - understanding is a question of perception. Whose to say yours is better than mine. Your arrogance knows no bounds.............

 

[Perry Mason]

You're not the only one to grace the profession

True. But you are not one of them. You said so yourself in an old thread.

Why must you pretend? Is it to boost yourself in your own mind?

Perry

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I just want to add that Alien is a lawyer too. I haven't watched enough Law and Order to qualify.

 

[Perry Mason]

I haven't watched enough Law and Order to qualify.

Apparently, Kathy P has!

Perry

 

[Kathy P]

Perry, Perry you are a twisted old fart. You said the key phrase "old threat". Situations change. People graduate from law schools. People get called to the Bar of Ontario. People get accreditation with Law Societies. If it makes you feel more powerful in your old, useless state to put others down, others who have worked just as hard as you did once, to claim they're not something then, by all means, live your fantasy. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Kathy P]

Should be thread not threat. Very Freudian...

 

[Perry Mason]

You said the key phrase "old threat"

For a supposed journalist, you don't read too well, either!

And you seem to get your jollies dreaming up insults for me... dream away!!!!

I get my jollies reading your self description on your web site.

Perry

 

[Kathy P]

I don't remember posting anything about you, PM. In fact, I was simply trying to contribute to a thread that I felt I had a valid point to make about. You are the quintessential attack dog. The only thing I did was defend myself. As for getting my jollies (supposedly), don't flatter yourself, Perry. I get them in much more interesting ways than dealing with you.

As for my reading/writing skills, I seriously doubt a mere typographical error constitutes a major language deficiency. I am sure you've made the odd mistake in your posts on this board barbs notwithstanding.

As for my website, again, you touched on the key phrase. It's mine. No explanation required.

I wonder just how successful a lawyer you are. It's Monday morning. Don't you have a motion to argue instead of arguing pointless bullshit on this site?

As for me, I'm taking the day off to have some fun. Sorry you can't say the same.

 

[Perry Mason]

instead of arguing pointless bullshit.

You are quite correct. That is, exactly, what you say and write.

You are dancing all around it. Why don't you just say "I got my (LLB or JD) at the University of (insert appropriate name) in the year (insert appropriate year) and was called to the Bar of the Province of (insert appropriate place) in the year (insert appropriate year)" and be done with it?

Perry

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I was called to the bar at the Berlin Night Club in 1995. They still farked up the drink order though.....

 

[The Shake]

Re: Frivolous vs. Slapp law suites.

I'm not that concerned with frivolous law suites.
To some extent "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder.
Several decades ago smokers that brought suites were
considered frivolous. Today they're not. The legal system
has ways of dealing with meritless litigation.

What is of more concern to me are slapp law suites
where large corporations bring litigation against individuals
to stiffle their actions. The individuals cannot stand up to
the legal teams of the corporations and are often bullied and
coerced into submission because they don't have the funds
to fight back.

Frivolous suites are not on the increase, slapp law suites
definitely are on the rise.

I'm getting weary of the large corporations crying and whining
about being treated unfairly. Yeh, right. The litigants that are
being treated unfairly are by and large the average citizens.

Once again the theory of the big lie prevails. Keep telling the
lie over and over again and eventually it becomes accepted as the truth.

Don

Just thought that I'd bump the last post in this thread that actually had a point.

 

[Perry Mason]

Re: Re: Frivolous vs. Slapp law suites.

Just thought that I'd bump the last post in this thread that actually had a point.

Touché!

Perry

 

[Kathy P]

I don't post those personal details for the same reasons I am sure you don't (a) I don't feel I need to justify my education and/or qualifications and (b) I don't want my privacy invaded. As well, in my situation I have a more sensitive issue which is obvious. I don't want my professional activities in this business to overlap with my professional activities in either journalistic or legal contexts. I am certain that is your goal given your behaviour towards me, PM. Why don't you be more forthcoming about your real issue here? You're a control freak who would see it as pleasurable to hurt both my livelihoods.

 

[Kathy P]

I agree with the posts about the average citizen getting shafted. I can't speak for the US, but in Canada only the rich and poor seem to be able to afford representation these days. The average litigant particularly in civil litigation is hurting in that their cases are not being heard because they can't afford the representation. Hardly seems to be fair if we have a great system that is basically unavailable to those who need it because of the economic factor.

 

[Kathy P]

In a way, I believe the legal system ends up with the end product that other areas of society create: poverty, lack of affordable housing, unstable job market, unequal access to education (because of educational institutions making money the determining factor about whether or not you gain entrance) all play their part. Often times, I believe minorities end up disproportionately in jail because of selective policing, because poorer communities are more susceptible to intrusions into their privacy (thereby making them likelier to get caught in say, a drug transaction) and because crime is more of a lure as a means of earning the basics. The justice system does not help, in many situations, but I don't think it is necessary the cause of the problem in the first place. If the whole of society existed so that everyone had an equal chance at a piece of the pie, I think you would see a lot fewer minorities in jail.

 

[Perry Mason]

Re: Respect for the legal institution

DQ:

All our institutions are coming under attack because, each day, we see increasing evidence of the fact that they are not working: this cesspool of problems and predicaments that we are accumulating (and which we call “civilization”) is proof of their failures.

As a lawyer, I don’t disrespect institutions, but my interactions with them also have convinced me that they need to be, at the very least, substantially changed and, preferably, replaced. Yes, many of them may have served us well in the past, but our daily reality has dramatically changed over the past 50 years, and they have not.

The main problem is that our institutions fear change and reform and resist them with all their might: their own continuation and survival has become their first priority, not how they serve the public interest. Politicians, for example, no longer can be counted on to use their intelligence and make sensible decisions: their utmost priority is to get re-elected. Everything is subservient to that.

Our criminal/law enforcement system has been more or less the same since the mid-1700's, when it was created. It is a total anachronism that feeds and supports the increasing rate and gravity of criminal activity.

The “vicious spiraling downward to the lowest common denominator” is evidence of a revolution in the works. This revolution is the consequence of the fact that Information Technology has greatly empowered and changed us as individuals and thus altered the old balance between the governors and the governed. In the long run, it is the best hope for a better future. It does not have to be – and I pray it will not be – violent to be revolutionary!

Perry

 

[benito]

99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.