Originally posted by AThousandYoungA judge, but most of them look at it the sameway as a lawyer.
Who do you think should get to decide what the thought behind a law is?
Literally. 😞
People are looking to much at the points and are not thinking about the thoughts behind it to help people out.
How many lawyers win on precedure faults?
Missing signature(s), typo's, etc.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe issue is not with lawyers, but with paying for justice.
There's a lot of lawyer hate out there. In my opinion, lawyers are how civilized people handle disputes. Most of those who hate lawyers seem to think it's better to simply assault people you don't like; that is, might makes right, and violence is how disputes should be settled. Lawyers are how we avoid such an outcome and are thus to be respected, not put down.
Thoughts?
We already support a government whose two most important functions are policing and dispensing justice, and it is totally unfair to have to pay AGAIN to get a fair settlement of a case.
Judges are government employees -- why not lawyers? They could still receive a salary in proportion to how many cases they win. That would ensure they would work hard for their clients. But their salary would come from the government -- thereby short-circuiting a lot of the shenanigans that go on now and the ludicrous cases and settlements that are now filed.
We've allowed the free market to creep into one of the few places it does not belong (protecting the environment and providing national security are others).
If someone wanted to pay external lawyer-consultants to help prepare a case beforehand -- fine, if that's how they want to spend their money.
But no one should be forced to pay for justice to be done.
Originally posted by SeitseBit like when Anna Mayers expected her landlord to put up warnings in the property saying something like, "Do not climb out of the window and dance on the roof".
Now, seriously, people... do not confuse lawyers in the U.S. with
lawyers of the rest of the world. Obvious differences apart, I've seen
no society in the world where a person with a brain can really accept
coffee is freaking hot and McDonald's really does not have to put
a legend in the paper cup saying so... or a pen saying 'do not drink
the ink', for crying out loud!! 😞
At least she didn't win the case. 🙂
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444950&in_page_id=1770
Just imagine how even more out of control litigation culture will become if she did win.
1 edit
Indeed!
In my very personal opinion, U.S. lawyers shall not be fried in the
same pan with others... the key word is: common sense.
When greed is added to free time, you have a dangerous concoction.
In very rich societies (the UK is trying to catch up with the U.S. litigation
spirit) where economic success is seen in the culture as the only or
most important sign of success or happiness, you have people trying
to make money in any way possible... and they have too much time
in their hands to figure out damages with hot coffees, inks, toys that
do not talk like in the TV commercial, etc.
Also, it has to do with trust. There is no trust anymore in those
societies... I remember that during one business trip to the U.S.
I was meeting clients in this chain of executive services offices, and
one day I needed an aspirine for a headache, in the middle of a
meeting. The receptionist told me she could not give me one because
they could get sued by me... sued! by me!!!! Can you believe that???
I didn't try to argue because it was company policy... but for crying
out loud, people, it is MY head, MY headache, and if it was a brain
tumor then I wouldn't be so stupid to sue them saying they provided
me with medical advisory not being doctors, or some crazy stuff like
that... pfff... ridiculous.
Originally posted by SeitseRidiculous but lucrative.
Indeed!
In my very personal opinion, U.S. lawyers shall not be fried in the
same pan with others... the [b]key word is: common sense.
When greed is added to free time, you have a dangerous concoction.
In very rich societies (the UK is trying to catch up with the U.S. litigation
spirit) where economic success is seen in the culture as the only ...[text shortened]... with medical advisory not being doctors, or some crazy stuff like
that... pfff... ridiculous.[/b]
After the meeting, you sue the company claiming that their asprin caused you to become so nauseous that you missed a meeting the next day and so lost out on a multimillion dollar contract.
You want $10,000 to forget the whole thing. The company realizes it will take $20,000 in lawyer fees to win the case in court. So they pay you 10K which you then split with the lawyer who wrote the letter. Not a bad payout, for writing a letter, is it?
Cheaper not to give you an asprin.
Originally posted by spruce112358Yup, but you have to think one step before that... and ask yourself why?.
Ridiculous but lucrative.
After the meeting, you sue the company claiming that their asprin caused you to become so nauseous that you missed a meeting the next day and so lost out on a multimillion dollar contract.
You want $10,000 to forget the whole thing. The company realizes it will take $20,000 in lawyer fees to win the case in court. So they ...[text shortened]... the letter. Not a bad payout, for writing a letter, is it?
Cheaper not to give you an asprin.
People treat and are treated as (a) retards, or (b) enemies. Period.
There seems to be NO respect for human intelligence and NO
respect for human decency and social harmony.
Originally posted by zeeblebotaha thanks man now i remember where i heard it. it also had a nice twist in the fact that the defender(aka lawyer) had to share the punishment of the accused if he cannot defend him successfully.
google only found (after changing the wording slightly) this two links:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YY38Tajp840J:www.youtube.com/%3Fv%3DeWJ_mxjzbP8+%22we+solved+our+lawyer+problem+years+ago%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A7291&comments=yes
"Uniting Superman, Batman and a ...[text shortened]... kick out of seeing obscure villains like Gorilla Grodd and Sinestro resurrected.
"
a lawyer can make his client loose a tone of money on legal fees and expenses and doesn't even offer the guaranty that he will win. he just moves on. in my opinion, lawyers should share the risk. if the client is forced to pay 1 million dollars, the lawyer should pay half of it. if a lawyer stands trial for murder and gets life, so should a lawyer. if you don't think you can save your client, don't take the case.
2 edits
Hey, hey, hey... wait a second there... ðŸ˜
I-am-a-freaking-LAWYER!!!!!! 😵
Let's all forget about my ranting... pfff... shame on me... money is good... lawyers are good... screw social harmony... we ALL need lawyers...
*uncorks champaigne*
Clan 24665
😀
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseIt's the same at my place .. a Casino.
Yup, but you have to think one step before that... and ask yourself [b]why?.
People treat and are treated as (a) retards, or (b) enemies. Period.
There seems to be NO respect for human intelligence and NO
respect for human decency and social harmony.[/b]
You better bring your own headache medicine if you think you might get a headache.
And yes, the reason is due to lawsuits.
Unlike Europe, we do have TP and papertowels though .. soap too.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe job of a lawyer is not to be sure his client wins, but rather to ensure that he receives fair treatment before the law.
aha thanks man now i remember where i heard it. it also had a nice twist in the fact that the defender(aka lawyer) had to share the punishment of the accused if he cannot defend him successfully.
a lawyer can make his client loose a tone of money on legal fees and expenses and doesn't even offer the guaranty that he will win. he just moves on. in my op ...[text shortened]... s life, so should a lawyer. if you don't think you can save your client, don't take the case.
Originally posted by zebanoyes, but if he knows that he gets payed either way, win or lose, he isn't stimulated. if a lawyer is not good, the client gets the chair and he gets a coffee and moves on to the next client.
The job of a lawyer is not to be sure his client wins, but rather to ensure that he receives fair treatment before the law.