C. Dodd Harris IV (of the famed, but sadly defunct Ipse Dixit) protests the content of this post;
As a lawyer, I deeply resent the implicit comparison to journalists in this post.
My deepest apologies to any other lawyers who were similarly insulted.
And to used car dealers, whorehouse piano players, pickpockets, dog catchers, meter readers, proctologists, and tax collectors, who, though not mentioned specifically, no doubt felt the hot flush of knowing how it feels to hear their occupations mentioned in the same breath as “reporter”.
The thing about lawyers is that 99% of them make it look bad for the rest of them.
The thing about reporters is that 99% of them work for somebody other than the public.
Thin skinned lawyers, reporters and that gaggle of other lovelies you listed shows their sensitivity to truth. The truth has thick skin.
You are playing the imp today Kate. Good one!
I’ll bet C.Dodd Harris IV has a sore stomach reading your aplogy.
Interesting that his family can’t think of other names to call their sons. Or is it simply colossal ego?
Ha! Was wondering how long before Kate picked up on that posting…
Don’t forget religious leaders.
Generally 90% of lawyers are good guys…
…it just seems like we’re always dealing with the 10%…
Ouch!
I’m glad I managed to slip under the radar on that one.
Angus McBile
left-handed bagpipe technician
Lawyers bring on their reputation without any help from the outside world. Yes, there are many great lawyers who have made a major impact and a worthwhile impact on our society. There are also another much larger group within this occupation, who are totally nothing more than bottom feeders. They do an amazing job of living off the misfortunes of others… and often from the most underprivelged in our society. It is this group that have developed the distaste and lack of trust that many people hold about them.
It has often been suggested that since it has become rather unethical to use animals such as rats in research projects, that we move to use lawyers in their place. When one thnks about this, some obvious benefits appear. (1) There are probably more lawyers than there are rats, (2) their actions are more predictable and (3) you can probably get lawyer to do things that even rats won’t do.
To C. Dodd Harris 1V, all I can say is that my heart pumps pure porcupine piss for you. You obviously need to get a life. If this is all it takes for you to be insulted, I have two words for you… and they aren’t ” Happy motoring”.
HEY! Futures trader here. Me too. Don’t leave me out.
I still like the one about scientists replacing lawyers with Norwegian brown rats for lab experiments:
1. Lawyers are not as scarce as rats.
2. Lab technicians don’t get so attached to lawyers.
3. There are some things that a rat would not do.
The world would be a much better place if admission to the bar was also disqualification from holding public office.
Hey, stop dumping on Dodd! He deserves your respect for helping pioneer the political blogosphere as you know it.
Excellent point Ed Minchau!!!
Kate, umm . . . no I don’t think so. I’ll give respect where I feel it’s due. YOU may believe he deserves respect. I see no evidence of it. Have a nice night.
As an attorney, I’m with Ed M. It’s not that lawyers are all bad – I think I work with some really great attorneys who are also good people (the I Bankers on the other hand, talk about doing things a rat won’t do, but I digress…), but being a (good) lawyer teaches one to think and act in a certain way that is rather predictable and risk-averse, which is not exactly what you want in a leader, especially during wartime.
Ther is one other thing before I hit the sack. It’s abit off topic I know but since Dodd apparently believes lawyers get such a bad rap could he explain something to me?
When it was uncovered that many lawyers who were appointed as judges in Quebec were also big supporters and contributors to the federal Liberals . . . we heard nothing but silence from the Canadian legal community.
If lawyers are so wonderfully ehical and pure you would think that they would have plenty to say about this matter. Not a peep? Dodd, ooooohhhhh Do-o-dd? Dodd, are you there?
I feel it’s totally inappropriate to compare lawyers to journalists as being a journalist requires skill and integrity to do the job properly.
Be ashamed, Kate.
Well, that wasn’t what I was thinking, Holdfast. Rather, I was thinking that lawyers are in a conflict of interest if they are also the ones writing the laws.
Just imagine, if lawyers were prohibited from being the ones writing the laws, how simple the wording on laws would become!
I think most professions who have become welded to Universities. Instead of the old apprenticeships programs. Have lost the human touch . As well as an ethical foundation.
I think the aforementioned institutions actually devolves ones morals & standards threw insidious, & incessant propaganda. Leftist materialism .Conjoined with nihilism. Seeking a heaven on Earth at any cost. I am surprised more young people don’t commit suicide, after being exposed to this type of rot. Or become raving lunatics. No wonder the State wants to meddle in families. Its a bulwark against this social control by the State.
In relying solely in most cases, on just an academic approach. Without resort to experienced old hands , who have been exposed to human nature & how it pertains to there choice of work. They have lost the spirit of there callings. All that begins to matter is there ego’s & consumption. Morals be damned. Humans become flesh machines for Dr’s who have become body technicians. Lawyers who end up as bad as there clients, to be seen as at the top. Politicians thinking they deserve to rip the public off. Corporations as well, thinking of just there own profits & screw the community or workers. Ethics are for smocks. All this comes down from the top & may take a decade before we can change attitudes.
You can see the fallout. Dr�s being sued, lawyers looked upon as lepers. Companies like Enron & Nortel & others who have lost the publics confidence. Even Churches have tried to hide there sins or not spoken out. The amount of litigation is stunning & getting worse.
We wonder why the moral climate stinks?
In the end peoples manners &life values come from top to bottom, from people who live them. In positions of authority & the youth know this very well.
Aren’t corruption and stupidity Charter rights?
It would appear that they haven’t been limited by any legislation subject to section 1.
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
You see there it is, all those rights are subject to “reasonable limits”. But of course corruption and stupidity isn’t reasonable, so our right to be corrupt and stupid in Canada is infinite.
This of course proves why the beaver’s tail is flat. We spend so much time trying to catch a piece of tail, but in the end only wind up flattening each others tails.
This is how litigation starts. How litigation “ends” of course, is the beginning of another “tale”.
Corruption and stupidity, it makes you think doesn’t it? And who’s fault is section 1 of the Charter? Well we’re right back to square one with a lawyer, namely, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Hence one can demonstrably conclude, in a free and democratic society, that corruption and stupidity, are unreasonably included in the Charter and are in fact a LIEberal invention.
Thus corruption and stupidity in Canada is in fact quite reasonable!!
Quo ed demonstratum!!
Grant has an interesting point. However, is Dodd able to do to himself what he would do to his clients and the legal profession? Hey guys and gals get some books called Lawyers and Other Reptiles and Lawyers and Other Reptiles Part two, the rebuttal.
Theo
Jeancula, aka The Choker, aka Lieyer, aka …
Da proof here: Call Alfonso Gagliano. +
OCCUPATION
* Lawyer (called to the Quebec Bar in 1958)
* 1958 -1963 Lawyer with Chr�tien, Landry, Desch�nes, Trudel and Normand
* 1962 -1963 Director of the Bar of Trois-Rivi�res
* 1986 -1990 Counsil with Lang, Mitchener, Lawrence and Shaw, and Senior Advisor with Gordon Capital Corporation, Montreal +
Stupidest Canadian Comment Contest
What kind of proof ? It’s a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it is proven.” By Prime Minister Jean Chretien …
http://www.peterwarren.ca/PAGES/CommentContest.htm – 11k –
I feel it’s totally inappropriate to compare lawyers to journalists as being a journalist requires skill and integrity to do the job properly.
Be ashamed, Kate.
Posted by Sean at April 6, 2006 01:34 AM
So Sean has just proved there are no journalists at the CBC.
Dat’s a proof, by gar.
Perhaps Sean could give us some VERIFIABLE examples of a journalist being held accountable & ounished for failing to uphold this famous journalistic integrity?
Naw, thy’s about as likely as a lawyer commenting negatively on the Quebec Liberal/judge promontion story.
Are lawyers partisan? They are supposed to be! Journalists, on the other hand, are supposed to be non-partisan. The analogy in inappropriate.
As a lawyer, I don’t mind being ridiculed–we have broad shoulders. My impression is that many get worked up about lawyers because they are worked up about what lawyers accomplish–successful lawsuits, etc. Seems to me that those lawyers should be respected for being effective at what they do. If one has quibbles with the outcome, it is the content of the law that should be blamed–blame the legislature and the judges who make up the law. You cannot blame the lawyer for achieving results for a client within the law or by successfully advocating a new legal approach in a case. Clients come to me because they expect creative thinking to accomplish results within the law and that’s what I do.
Murray:
Thanks for pointing out the substantive difference between lawyers and journalists.
Secondly, kudos for being such a good sport.
Maybe give a reminder to Bertuzzi to keep his gloves on and his stick on the ice.
The problem with lawyers really isn’t individual lawyers themselves, it’s the system that has evolved around them. There is a huge difference between “justice” and “law”.
Everyone understands “justice”. One merely needs to ask what is right, and what is wrong? Anyone can do it. “Law” is a convoluted and contrived specialty designed and managed by specialists with, like all humans, their own agenda. This is why the citizen who is not a lawyer generally dislikes and distrusts them; the “legal system” has become distant from the common understanding of “justice”.
Journalists are in an analogous situation today, and as Mr. Harris points out, even worse. He (tongue-in-cheek) resents being compared. Journalists frequently pursue only sensationalism and their own political agendas, truth taking second (or third) place.
“Lawyers” are to “justice” what “journalists” are to “truth” and journalists are frequently worse.
Kate, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this post. As usual.
You can turn a phrase like a knife!
Some lawyers are real scumbags, who use the law to work against the good of society. The ones I work with are, however, decent and very professional. As an accountant, I know I can rely on whatever my taxlawyers do to ensure we are on side with Canada Revenue Agency, usually for under 6 figures (-:
There are some lawyers who ply their trade for good. For example, Jerry Chipeur does a lot of family values or conservative related cases.
The first difference between lawyers and journalists is that lawyers have a professional association that disciplines them. Look at the Alberta Law Society’s webpage, you will see they actively discipline their members. Do you see Dan Rather or some CBC reporter being disciplined by their profession – NO.
The second difference is that much of what they do has to undergo scrutiny by a judge and opposing counsel. Journalists can just print whatever the hell they fell like with impunity as long as it is not outright libel.
What does a lawyer do after he is disbarred? Some of them sell investment scams, to which the media gladly accepts their advertising dollars, rather than exposing them.
maz2 and mad mike:
” A proof is a proof. What kind of proof ? It’s a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it is proven.”
By Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Quoted Page A-15, The Winnipeg Free Press, Sept. 21, reference to the possibility of Saddam Hussein’s production of weapons of mass destruction
In logic courses the above statement would qualify as a tautology.
So while we are turning phrases, we need to keep our knives sheathed.
I wonder how Jean Chretien’s appeal on the Gomery fiasco is coming along? If he uses the above “logic”, his appeal may in fact be dismissed on the grounds of unintelligibility.
On the other hand, this may be protected by the Charter.
Don’t you just love the sound a raw nerve makes?
When it belongs to someone you despise!
as a lawyer, i would like to point out that dodd was kidding. lawyers aren’t generally thin skinned about the profession and usually pass around the best lawyer jokes.
many of you have strong feelings about lawyers yet have probably met very few. i have dealt with thousands and most are bright, witty and honourable people.
please hug a lawyer today.
Every lawyer I have ever met (and I have met a lot of them)was a lying bag of **** with less morals than a whore during shore leave.
I just got a nice comment from Dodd on a post of mine — not far away from another post in which I accuse law schools of performing lobotomies on their soon-to-be graduates.
I actually have quite a few readers who are lawyers and I dis the legal profession fairly often. I haven’t been sued yet. (knock on wood)
now just a darn minute! – I’m a tax collector – don’t lump me in with lawyers! Some of my best clients are lawyers, followed closely by accountants, doctors, and way down the list, used car salesmen. Journalists can’t seem to reach UP to that level (TV personalities, however climb into the crosshairs quite willingly). Now, politicians, on the other hand, are great sport – like fish in a barrel – they really should understand they have no place to hide…:)
TAX COLLECTOR!!!! Where’s my shotgun????
Allen wrote: “As a lawyer I would like to point out . . .(see above). . . many of you have strong feelings about lawyers yet have probably met very few.”
So? . . . I don’t need to get up close and cozy with a pile of s%%t to know that it smells bad.
I’ll present my challenge again. If all you lawyers visiting this site are soooooo ethical and such pure innocent paragons of virtue, then please tell me why has the Canadian legal establishment been so silent about the matter of Quebec lawyers who contribute heavily to the Liberals getting plum judicial appointments?
My guess is you won’t bother with this one.
john, or if i may use your real name, asswipe, in canada appointments to the bench are strictly political. most litigators think most judges are lefty half-wits. the worst bench being in ottawa in my experience. speaking out against judges is career suicide. you sound like the kind of guy that would tell the surgeon about to open you up that you banged his daughter the night before.
and as far as your shit/smell analogy goes, i appreciate your honesty in admitting you draw broad cynical generalizations about groups of individuals without any actual experience or exposure to them. you are probably a racist puke as well.
i sincerely hope that when you really need a lawyer, and everyone does at some point, you get stuck with one of the minority shysters and he screws you over completely.
you can contact me for a referral.
“I feel it’s totally inappropriate to compare lawyers to journalists as being a journalist requires skill and integrity to do the job properly.”
Yeah – ’cause 1 year of J-School after taking a BA in social stupdity is really hard. There are plenty of lawyers who are slimy a-holes – but they are generally pretty smart a-holes who worked hard to get there (the Quebec Bar excepted). Many journalists can’t write woth s**t and know bugger-all about the subjects they purport to cover. So much for skill.
Integrity – any job can be done with or without it, and from what I’ve seen in the last decade or so, most journalists wouldn’t know it if it smacked them in their smug little mugs. Lawyers are supposed to be hard-core advocates for their clients – and if both sides are, then the system balances. The two biggest problems with the Canadian Justice System:
1) Political appointments to the Bench, especially the SCC – law schools are filled with academics who rarely if ever step into a court-room, yet somehow end up on the bench. Also, judges are chosen by the party in power (usually the Libs) with no political checks or balances. This is a failure of structure and policy. If you don’t want politicized courts, then put hard-working trial atorneys, including former prosecutors on the bench.
2) Recruiting too many liberal women as crown prosecutors – women more interested in maternity leave and benefits than in putting the bad guys in jail. This is not an anti-women thing – it’s a fact.
“If you don’t want politicized courts, then put hard-working trial atorneys, including former prosecutors on the bench.”
If you don’t want politicized courts, then make admission to the bar a disqualification for becoming a judge or politician. Break the tidy little monopoly that lawyers have on the justice system, so that it is actually a justice system rather than a legal system.