How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Wardad:

Q: Who in the (USA) is responsible... Golfer, Golf Course, or County?

A (USA) golfer hits a ball over a high fence and it hits a car and that car causes an accident (In the country of the first part).

The golf course claims grandfather rights of operation. They were here first and had plenty of buffer land, until the county condemed a corner of it and placed the 4 lane there. Further more, they have complied with the law by building the fence at great expense.

The county claims it is not responsible for the actions of other people or for foriegn objects entering the roadway. Also, the fence is areasonable precaution required by the law.

well...

The (USA contingency) lawyers think about...
they investigate a little deeper...
and sue the one with the deepest pockets.


EDIT: Added ( ) bold comments, OK GT?

[Growltigger]

Originally posted by rdouglass:
Just 2 cents....

The truth (as usual) is somewhere there in the middle. Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely.

I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, and in fact, just about anybody who has a service or skill which you personally dont possess. I know that my plumber for example makes me look cheap!

Originally posted by rdouglass:
However there is almost a "circle" of people that set up the legal system to begin with. When you can't do ANYTHING in court without a lawyer, it almost seems like a legalized form of racketeering (at least to us common folk who don't know the legal system).

That is not correct. The legal system of pretty much every country in the World has developed over the past centuries from either the common law (based on Mediaval dicta) or the civil law (based on Napoleon) systems. In almost all other cases, a countries legal system has been borrowed from a colonial power. Laws have developed, not been established by a bunch of blokes saying, hey ho, we want lots of cash, let's do something to give us a job for life.

You can go to court without a lawyer. You can bring your own action, you can defend yourself. You simply need to get a textbook and understand the court procedural rules.In the US, you have the equivalent of our small claims court where you are encouraged, not to use lawyers. This applies from every court from your local town court, to the Supreme Court.

You dont need lawyers to go to court. That is your right. Lawyers are there if you want assistance in going to court.

As for legalised form of racketeering, anyone can be a lawyer if they take the exams, just as anyone can be a plumber if they do the course.

Originally posted by rdouglass:
So please don't try to argue that lawyers are the upstanding citizens that are wrongly persecuted when in fact the whole legal system in general very close to an "exclusive club". Remember the legal system dictates how virtually every other entity (private citizen, company, etc.) conducts its affairs.

Rdouglass, this really is a hugely generic statement. My argument certianly was not that lawyers are upstanding citizens that are wrongly accused, but that it is unfair to generically criticize all lawyers whereever they may be for the faults of one particular type of lawyer in one particular country.

As for the legal system being an "exclusive club", I just dont see that.

Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....

And yes, I did IT work for a Supreme COurt system and I do understand how judges and lawyers (and others in the system) are socially connected as well as professionally.

I am not privy to the art of IT, I do not understand plumbing, I am not a very good electrician, in order to obtain these services, I need to go through the appropriately ualified person, and utilise the resources at their disposal. Why should lawyers be any different. We are specialists in our respective fields, and it is that expertise that is the one commodity that we have to sell. What you appear to be suggesting is a denial of my right to make a living as a lawyer.

As to the remark on social connections, it may be different in the US but the old boys network is not exclusive to the legal community, and applies at all levels of business. I think it is unfair to say that we have some private club going, it is just not the case.

Just my 3.2 cents worth

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
The only reason I am not doing that if cos I dont think you lot are good for the cash

Of that Gt you are most definetly correct.

Originally posted by Growltigger:
I also demand you formally reprimand Atrocities in writing and in triplicate for his willful and hurtful attack on the worldwide legal community.

How about as a compromise we just cane him.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rdouglass:
Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely.
Originally posted by Growltigger:
I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, and in fact, just about anybody who has a service or skill which you personally dont possess. I know that my plumber for example makes me look cheap!

Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....
Originally posted by Growltigger:
I am not privy to the art of IT, I do not understand plumbing, I am not a very good electrician, in order to obtain these services, I need to go through the appropriately ualified person, and utilise the resources at their disposal. Why should lawyers be any different. We are specialists in our respective fields, and it is that expertise that is the one commodity that we have to sell. What you appear to be suggesting is a denial of my right to make a living as a lawyer.

That is a rational argument Gt, however there is a difference. At least a perceived difference, whether it is valid or not I will not attmept to say.

Like the plumber, electrician, IT person, etc. the lawyer is providing a skilled service. The percieved difference however is that the service the layers provide is only required because of the exsistance of other lawyers.

I need a plumber because I want running water to my loo and don't wish to freeze my bum going to the trees behind my house in at 6 in the morning.

The cynical view of lawyers on the other hand is that their purpose for exsistance can be boiled down to two basic purposes. To get something for myself that belongs to someone else, and to keep something of my own that someone elses lawyer is trying to get for him.

You could say that lawyers would be unneccesary if I would simply be happy with what is mine, and if everybody else were happy with what is theirs. On the other hand, there is no malicious intent behind my pipes freezing on a cold day. And if I don't have the skill to repair them myself, I need someone who does. I can't eliminate my need for a plumber by convincing everyone else they don't need a plumber.

I realize that lawyers believe they serve an important function in defense of the powerless against the powerful. But the cynic will reply that the powerful only allow the laywers to do what they allow them to do. That the defense the lawyer provides is merely an illusion the powerful allows the powerless to enjoy. The only thing the powerful really fears is that the powerless will lose the illusion that there really is anything protecting them other then the powerful's promise to "follow the rule of law". Because losing that illusion results in anarchy, and anarchy is the only thing that can truely cause the powerful to lose his power. He needs to maintain order, and to do that the powerless must be allowed either hope or fear. And while fear is effective for a time, it is inefficent and a poor motivator for the long term.

Of course, that's just the cynical view.

[Growltigger]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[/qb]

Of that Gt you are most definetly correct. [/QB][/quote]

Suspected as much, but then I could subsequently bring an action for non-payment of settlement, charge whopping great default interest on the debt and re-sue you for not paying my first award.

Yippee, Geo, Shrapnel and Atrocities and all their offspring for subsequent generations enslaved to Clan Growltigga. I could start an empire.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[/qb]

]How about as a compromise we just cane him. [/QB][/quote]

Ooh, yes please, and can we use bamboo, for the extra pain that little bendiness gives you? and can we rub it down with a rasping file, so that he gets splinters in his backside when we cane him, and ooh ooh ooh, can we tie him over a barrel as I find that downward swipe of the bamboo in a vertical trajectory just gives us that extra bonus bit of agony...

Yeah, bugger juries and awards, let's just cane people for minor misdemeanours

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i'm gonna sue this thread for meandering aimlessly.

[Cirvol]

im giving the lawyer the benefit of the doubt...

ie, this is so clearly ridiculous that he MUST have intended the whole sordid affair to expose the stupidity of the current patent system

if he's serious, then... hell, he's worse than mcbride ;P