Their Rats. That's all I have to say about that.

um, yeah... Lawyers are rats...

um, yeah... Lawyers are rats...

Let's not get carried away now. I know some really, really good people who also happen to be lawyers.

Is it just a case of the Defence Trial Lawyers spoiling the barrel ??
With the Charter acting as the fungus ??

So the CBA wants Khadr returned to Canaduh for a "fair trial"? Yup....get him back here so we can get him house arrest,his welfare entitlements,plus he's old enough now to vote for the leftards!
Ron...you are correct. The criminal defence lawyers are second only to terrorists. Just ONCE, I would love to see some pervert get house arrest,and the judge tell him/her that they must serve it in their defence lawyers house!

Ron, we are talking about lawyers as a group, not individuals. I have taxed two lawyers for overbilling and won both times.

I also have a couple of friends who are lawyers. Honorable men who confirm that collectively, lawyers are rats. Judges are lawyers too, which explains the travesties of justice we so regularily see.

In the old days we used to kill each other when we disagreed. Pistols at dawn and such. Now, with the benefits of the rule of law and order, we go to court instead. So instead of our seconds carrying our pistols, now they are our lawyers.

Since we now-a-days heap all our problems onto the shoulders of our lawyers, it reasonably follows that lawyers get tarred with the brush of our worst behaviour. Sure, I think lawyers get paid too much, compared to doctors and engineers, but then maybe that's their actual free-market value.

Everybody hates lawyers, except the one that successfully defends them.

Careful, Kate, you might offend some rats.

Generalization alert!

Just because the CBA leadership is a proxy for the Liberal Party, doesn't mean every lawyer is terrible.

There are good ones and bad ones, just like in any other business. There is a higher concentration of bad ones in areas of law such as personal injury, malpractice, and many other subsets of civil and criminal law.

Criminal defense lawyers simply do their job in the system of the rule of law. If no lawyer defended someone who may or may not be innocent, we would end up with a system like Iran.

Of course, that doesn't mean our judiciary is full of morons, but they were appointed for political reasons, and we all know who has been in power for the majority of Canadian history.

As a (non-practising) lawyer myself, I must say that there was nothing in the Maclean's article that suprised me.

Yes, there are many good people who are lawyers, and some of them are my friends. But, the requirements of the profession encourage a litany of unethical activities, and attracts a significant number of people who enjoy that type of behavoir (hence why I do not practice).

As for Khadr, isn't it tradtional just to have him "killed while attempting escape"?

***...mean our judiciary is NOT full of morons***

Lawyers live off of peoples' hardships. They are leeches. Look at Tony Merchant's law firm/ 40,000,000.00 off the backs of the abused. How does he sleep at night? His son was recently disbarred in Alberta then reinstated.

Lawyers live off of peoples' hardships. They are leeches. Look at Tony Merchant's law firm/ 40,000,000.00 off the backs of the abused. How does he sleep at night? His son was recently disbarred in Alberta then reinstated.

More like tape worms.

So does that make John Gormley a rat?

In any case he would disagree with Kate:

http://www.newstalk650.com/commentaries/gormley/070813.mp3

Canadian Bar Association President J. Parker MacCarthy said of Khadr's life path "It would be unimaginable that this could happen to a 15-year old in Canada."

That's really true. It IS unimaginable for this to happen to a fifteen year old in Canada -- not unwelcome, just unimaginable. Thing is, there's no need to imagine anything of the sort, because the events didn't happen in Canada. Even now, nothing is happening in Canada; Khadr took a trip, and ended up somewhere else. That's where it's happening.

The idea that one should be able to wield a Canadian connection as some "get out of life free" card is a byproduct of devaluing Liberal-promoted relativism. Khadr didn't kill an allied soldier in Canada, and he didn't kill on behalf of Canada; he was an enemy combatant abroad with an LPC passport -- an irrelevent piece of happenstance that has nothing to do with his family's preferences -- fighting against our allies for a cause perfectly antithetical to that of our own nation.

"His lawyers maintain..." (that he is enduring horrible conditions.)

That's their job. It's not Canada's job to maintain such arguments on Khadr's behalf as his -- probably LPC-connected -- lawyers do, nor take at pure sweet face value the utterances of every lawyer plying his trade around the limits of immigrant issues.

Yet it remains the case, EBD, that a set of one or more examples of lawyers that are wrong, for one's value of wrong, no more vilifies the set of all lawyers than does a set of equivalent examples regarding doctors, or engineers, for one's value of wrong. The danger presented by maltargeted vilification is that one may find oneself without valid allies, in cases where one's value of wrong does not apply.

...i pick (C) All the above?

Jeepers, Vitruvius, I didn't slander lawyers in a general sense at all. And I didn't even suggest that my personal/spiritual evaluation of their fee schedule might be something subject-worthy; that was you, in your 1:49 post. I merely commented on the Khadr case, and on a couple of pronouncements from the head of the CBA.

I mean, I could have added that if a citizen blogger, say, who has written nothing libelous is effectively silenced by a slap suit because he can't afford to mount a defense, it speaks something bespeakable which won't be spoken about afterwards. The fallout isn't about defending or attacking lawyers, it's about information flow.

To anyone who might be unencumbered, momentarily or at length, from facing such t considerations, perhaps due to his own politeness, I'd just say "bless you and the lawyer you rode in on."

Unless, of course, your lawyer isn't bitch-slapping someone to shut them up on behalf of his client.

The bottom line is, some of my best friends are lawyers. I strongly agree with commenter "common sense" who, referring specifically to Kate's post, wrote: "Just because the CBA leadership is a proxy for the Liberal Party doesn't mean that every lawyer is terrible."

It's just so true.

yes, this won't do me an ounce of good, but it's my "charge of the light brigade" complex. The macleans article concerned high paid, large firm bay street lawyers. They operate on their own planet, which i have only glimpsed through a telescope. Read Byfield's column in the Sun on this topic - i doubt you'll take my word for it.
As for the kadhr thing - once again, it's the Canadian Bar Association, a voluntary association of lawyers which many do not belong to, or agree with. Including me.
BTW, some of you seem to have the law mixed up with lawyers. I'm not sure if you're just venting, or honestly this confused. I suppose there are high ranking government lawyers who coud be accused of writing the law - most of us aren't that powerful.
You may resume. Just do me one favour: skip the misused quote from Shakespeare. Nobody seems to understand the context or what he was talking about.

What does it matter that the Canadian Bar Association is a group with voluntary membership?
They are still lawyers.
One of the biggest problems, Dean, is that the bad apples never get dealt with. Its the same with the medical profession.
If I could just once see a crooked lawyer or a quack doctor get dealt with and the issue out in public, i might not have such a jaded view.

Well If they do not want him tried in the US, then I suggest he be tried in Afgan where the "alleged offense occured" is that not the way it normally works. If you are accused of breaking a law in Italy they do not fly you to Canada to have the trial.

Geez, I can see another "unfair generalizations" argument arising over this one, just like the posts about the Jamaicans.

Speaking in general terms, lawyers, as a whole, are rats. Speaking in less "intellectually-lazy" terms, some lawyers are are good, some are rats and some are f***ing rats.

Defense lawyers should be permitted to launch and run an aggressive compaign to defend the rights of their clients WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW, but as soon as they start concocting fairy tales as a defense, THE LAWYERS SHOULD BE CHARGED with some sort of crime. I can't count how many news stories I have read with lawyers using obvious fairy tales as their clients' defense...lying bast***s.

I believe most politicians also are lawyers. I think there may be some corollary here.

Are lawyers rats? The Macleans article purports as much. And many of us have anecdotal evidence to the same. But Jonathon Kay in Monday's Post offers a different viewpoint that's equally valid. I won't dispense it here but in essence the very nature of the self-regulated industry is faulty: ie, expected billings of 40 hours a week actually means 60 or more hours of work, endlessly connected to PDAs, deadlines etc. And it's all driven by those who were once juniors themselves.
Anyway, food for thought.

Heres a headline that seriously tugs at my hearstrings, lol:

Office stress ruining women lawyers' lives

“Women are still leaving the practice of law at twice the rate of men, and they are choosing in much greater numbers than men not to practice law in private law firms,” she said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070814.wlawyers0814/BNStory/National

Lawyers thrive on the confusion and liabilities of badly crafted laws their brothers in legislating produce.

Lawyers belong to a closed society which is responsible for complicating the law to a point no layman can understand it. In this regard they have made a monopoly of the justice system and nullified public oversight and involvement in it.

A bar lawyer sits in judgement of a defendant trapped by uninterrupted law while two other bar society layers put on a show for him with pro and con interpretations of the undefined law another group of lawyers crafted and foisted on the public.....all from the same closed society accountable only to its own standards....never was there a conflict of interest like this instilled as "justice"...more like "JUST- US"

Phil, there may be some validity to that post by Jonathan Kay, but your summary that the:

"...self-regulated industry is faulty: ie, expected billings of 40 hours a week actually means 60 or more hours of work, endlessly connected to PDAs, deadlines etc. And it's all driven by those who were once juniors themselves..."

applies equally well to engineering firms (and other professions)...yet engineers are not viewed with the same disdain (and I would suggest for very good reasons). There's much more to it that that. I believe that (particularly defense and tax) lawyers are encouraged to lie and exaggerate and concoct fictions to create the "shadow of a doubt". Personally, I don't much care for liars.

Vitruvius,

Even journalists have a handful of good people. But taken as a whole, they're a scummy bunch of vermin.

Ditto Lawyers.

Ditto my own profession. The investment industry is full of rats and they infest every corner of Bay Street and the investment sections of every city in Canada. That doesn't mean there aren't good people in it. Just that they're the minority.

Some are rats, some are rat's asses, others just asses.
Someone coined the phrase, "the law is an ass", where did that perception come form?

It's like so many other professions with different applications. They used to command respect as pillars of our communities, many still are but a lot has been lost in that regard with our Charter a la Turdeau. It doesn't help matters with the stacked Lefty deck in the Supreme Court. A lot of trust has been lost in our entire legal system.

The thing about lawyers is that everybody hates them and despises them because they are sneaky, greedy and etc....But when you are in a legal jam and you need a lawyer, you want the dirtiest, sneakiest etc one you can find.

My experience of lawyers - is that they are, on the whole, rats. I don't think it's because they are 'tarred with our sins', as vitruvius suggested - though I see his point. Nor is it about money. I think this is due to the structure of the profession.

Lawyers have become removed from reality. They aren't concerned with truth. Only with winning their case. (Which is why they are so heavily aligned with the similar-thinking Liberal Party - heh).

This fact - that they and their actions have been removed from the level of real life and flung up onto an 'unreal level' - a level without accountability, without contact with the real world shuffling below them..means that there are no 'real-life standards' by which they operate. Their standards are completely different. Their standards are - winning. And how they achieve that win is semantic, ie, it's based around words rather than reality.

So- they aren't interested in the things we, on that lower level, are interested in.

We are interested in truth. Did X shoot so and so? The lawyer isn't interested; he is only interested in convincing you that no such reality exists. Or if X did shoot, then, the cause of that shooting wasn't X, but was society..which didn't provide him with a proper home and basketball court and....

Did X steal money from the taxpayer? The lawyer isn't interested; he is only interested in muddying the issue so that you no longer know what the terms 'steal' or 'taxpayer' means.

We are interested in justice. If you were street racing, were drunk, were driving with a suspended license - we want this acknowledged and you put in jail. The lawyer isn't interested in any justice; he wants to confuse the issue, redefine the issue - and get his client off without accountability.

This fact - that lawyers have, in their daily work agendas, become completely removed from any contact, any obligations to actual truth and justice - and live within a secondary level of pure semantics - has corrupted their profession.

And that's why we hate them. Their disdain for real life, for actual truth and actual justice.

Lawyers, and only lawyers - be they writing law, arguing law or interpreting law - have been instrumental in the separation of "law" and "justice".

There may be honest and dedicated lawyers out there - but the rats rule, and we are living with the consequences.

I've worked with many lawyers over the last 37 years that's I've spent in the financial services industry. Some are honest, some are not, some are just plain brilliant at manipulating the rules and regulations to benefit themselves. Some will exploit every angle - skirt the edges - for personal gain. I have to say that, knowing what I know, there are more that I would not do business with. Lawyers not only work with the law but they also make law.

Tony Merchant's face on the front Page of the Leader Post last week defending his profession is alot like Colonel Sanders sitting on the Chicken Defense Board. What a joke having him as a spokesman for lawyers doing more good in society than your banker. Quite frankly, when I retire, the thing I will miss the least is working with lawyers. The fees they charge are, in many cases, obscene. Judge Gomery is absolutely correct when he says that fees are much too high and this is putting access to the legal system out of reach for many. It is pure and utter greed.

Allan's on to something here—the very thing I wanted to say about lawyers: as a PROFESSION, these Canadians have done great harm to our country. Via the Charter, whose architect was that weasel and lawyer, Trudeau, they turned Canada from a free and proud Dominion to a snivelling, juvenile, irresponsible, nanny state.

NB: Most of our politicians and ALL of our judges are lawyers. (One of the good things about the Conservative government is that it's composed of fewer lawyers—I think: can someone confirm?—than the succession of Liberal governments, which have emasculated both the people and institutions of this country.)

Lawyers have also used the Charter to successfully defend some of the least defensible and most irresponsible Canadian offenders. Accountability? No way: the Charter is only about "rights"—unearned rights, unmoored from their opposite responsibilities. Very bad news.

As a GROUP, Canadian lawyers, both past and present, have a lot to answer for.

(Disclaimer: Some of my family and best friends are lawyers. Some are actually working to expose and change the rot of Canada's Charter culture: not a nice job, but someone's got to do it!)

ET and Liz J, thanks for your fine comments. I altogether agree!

If the engineering society operated like the bar association, most public structures would collapse to rubble from the conflicts of interest between their design and construction and inspection and certification authorities.

The biggest problem with lawyers is that their services are generally out of reach for most middle class people. Poor people have legal aid. Rich people can afford their services. But, can the average person making $25/hr afford the services of someone charging $300/hr?

By inserting themselves into government, lawyers have made their services essential. Then they charge retarded amounts for their services.

And don't give me crap about cost of education, cost of running an office, etc. As an engineer I had to go to school as well. As a self employed consultant, I understand the cost of running a business. And at the end of the day, I charge multinational oil and gas companies less for my services than a lawyer charges a single mom working at Tim Horton's.

Ya lawyers are rats. They're doucebags too!

If society is an organism then justice industry is the cancer that is slowly killing the organism, especially in the US, tough the Canadian cancer is following the leader.
Take the case of a drywall applicator in the nearby US city, the guy can’t do the work anymore because he has to come up with 2 million dollars liability insurance. Are you kidding me? How can a working person afford that?

For a really disgusting example of rat's ass legals look to the Conrad Black trial. A real fine example of a legalized Lynch Mob. If they can't get him on most of the charges they're prepared to invent a new on.
They want him stripped of all his money and all his dignity, making his entire life all for naught and ensuring his life will end in jail.
To act in such a venal manner in the name of justice, those prosecutors have no heart or soul, it's all showboating and winning.
They are lower than rat's asses, they're snakes.

What sickens me is the staggering millions that are paid to lawyers for virtually nothing. Over $400 million was spent for lawyers in the softwood lumber talks over the years and there was no deal until Harper quickly settled it. The millions spent on the Gomery inquiry for what, maybe 3 people charged. The middle class can not afford to use lawyers as they charge too much. My cousin had a fully documented fraud case against her former store manager, the defence lawyer delayed and remanded the case over two years then had the gall to tell the judge that the case was taking too long and his client was suffering emotionally, the judge agreed and dismissed the case, my cousin lost over $200k and her former manager laughed in her face as she walked out. Lawyers lie and cheat, yah think.

Engineers build things, doctors save lives, lawyers shuffle paper to meet the convoluted laws and rules their fellow lawyers designed in the first place! A former chief justice stated that prior to the lawyer's wet dream, the Rights and Freedom Act, it took on average 7 days to try a murder trial whereas today it takes 7 months, billable hours through the roof.

After a spate of killings in Calgary and a retiring chief, the Herald ran an article about how the City Police must modify its vision.

Really! After being cut back some 150 officers and and dealing with a ballooning population, to much of which consists of the "bad guys", just how is this suppose to happen.

The real change in vision has to occur with those in the Judiciary, the IRB adjudicators, and the panelists on the Human Rights Commissions.

Far to often they have been, and continue to be, blatant political patronage appointments and survive by towing the Extreme Political Correctness philosophy that has made Canada a nation governed by minority rule.

These people are, for the most part faceless, have little if any accountability for their decisions, and live in their own small but very powerful politically correct world. These people are the ones who have been and are continuing to set the rules - not the police and not the lawyers who have to plead before them.

To label lawyers at large for what many of them, as well as us, have inherited and have to work within hardly seems reasonable.

If I was accused of some crime, I'd certainly want the benefit of a trial before being thrown in prison for five years. I expect the same for Khadr, although in his case I'd certainly hope that he'd be found guilty of terrorist activities and his freedom removed.

Which would be perfectly acceptable, AFTER a trial. But to give governments the power to permanently detain people without trials or being accountable is a nasty and dangerous thing.

It's not the lawyers, it's the system that encourages perversion of justice.

Things like precedent. Some judge makes a ruling, right or wrong, and other cases are judged by that ruling. Not the law. In effect, the law is changed to be whatever interpretation suits the bias of some judge.

As these judgements based on precedent compound over the years, the standard of judgement "evolves" to the point it bears little relation to the written law.

Zilla,

We wouldn't have to find a scummy lawyer if all the other lawyers, judges and politician (lawyers all) have stacked the system and designed the system for their benifit. They have made the system around their needs and ensured their own indespensibility. The law didn't need to be a nit-picky, overly dogmatic system based more on proceedure, technicalities and gramatical extremism. The idea of winning or losing a case not on fact but on a missing period or comma is assinine. Lawyers did that.

The accounting profession is not that much different except that they had to get their lawyer/politician friends to stack the system for them instead of doing it themselves.

Neither system needs to be so complicated that lawyers and bean-counters are necessary. It is so to benefit the insiders and over-billers who donate huge money, time and power to the politican/lawyers in government. The system will never be rationalized due to their interests.

Kate...your occupational survey counted 14 lawyers/legal assistants. Wonder how many have commented here.
I agree with ol hoss. It is no longer a 'justice system'.It is a game.Law abiding citizens lose.

In British legal tradition it was deemed that if a law was written it must be written so as to be clearly understood by all....the people could not be expected to abide by any law which they did not fully and clearly understand.

This is a very fair and civilly just premise for the rule of law.

By contrast, what have we today is a mutated mix of Napoleonic code law and Roman administrative law wheich were only intended to be understod and administered by the ruling class...we have an income tax act that is 800 plus pages deep...we have a civilian gun control law wich invilves 37 pages of statute and 40 pages of regulations and 125 pages of administrative regulation...we have laws regulating commerce from 3 levels of government which comprise hundreds of volumes of legal regulatory text....lawyers specialize in narrow sections of law or particular statutes because it is impossible even for even them to have a general knowledge of the law...it is too vast and convoluted and undefined and nebulous.

The end result is the citizen is hostage to a society of law which puts a price tag on receiving justice....in such a legal morass beyond the ability of the average citizen to comprehend or file actions or respond to actions, the law society has a monopoly on selling justice.

As an earlier post eluded to; the cost of receiving justice in this modern legal morass is beyond the means of most people.....so you can see "rights" are limited to those who can afford access to the courts. Justice is financially prohibitive to most....and I blame this on the law society and their members in practice, on the bench and in legislating bodies.

They have complicated the law, created a monopoly of justice and priced this justice beyond the reach of the average citizen.

Their RATS,VULTURES,SHARKS,SLUGS,SNAKES,HYENAS,JACKCALS, and all sorts of lowly lifeforms especialy DENEBIAN SLIME DEVILS and REGULAN BLOOD WORMS

Sean,

In war past, would you be in favour of releasing the prisoners before the war ended? Of course not. So if you think he's a legit soldier, no release is needed.

Kadr has had his day in court delayed by lawyers and procedural pickering. Until the lawyers and judges fight out which trial and on what basis and where it will all occur, justice is delayed. That's the law's fault. Kadr is going to be tried in court as an illegal combatant engaged in murder (read: war criminal.) He isn't charged with fighting in a war but being an illegal combatant feigning death and throwing a grenade on a medic after the battle in violation of the rules of war. The Nuremberg trials were not held in a day, neither will Kadr's. The difference between then and now is the political bias of the media and their 24 hour per day news cycle. In today's 24/7 world, no one has any patience at all.

Keep in mind that long trials for hard cases is not uncommon here either. Witness the Bre-X trial that just ended - 10 years or so later.

W.R.T. Kadhr and other Canadians charged with crimes in countries OUTSIDE of Canada:

Why does everyone expect to be held to Canadian justice standards in these cases? If you're dumb enough to traffic drugs in a country that has the death penalty for drug trafficing... well that's your stupid choice.

If you're dumb enough to go to a country to fight Americans and get caught... well that's your stupid choice.

Kadhr should NOT be returned to Canada because he didn't commit his crime in Canada. He committed a crime in Afganistan, against the American Army. I think he should be thanking his lucky stars to have been captured and brought to Gitmo. I can think of a lot worse fates that could have befallen a terrorist/enemy combatant in a foreign war zone.

WL Mackenzie Redux

Better said than I've heard from anyone yet.

When you increase the supply of a good the price tends to drop, especially so when the demand for a good tends toward inelasticity, like legal services.

Assuming the market is free and rational the logical solution is that we need more lawyers. Flooding the market with lawyers will give them incentive to compete harder for clients, leading to lower prices and higher ethical conduct.

Right?

Andrew,

No.

What happens is that more lawsuits happen as more lawyers need to pay their bills. What happens is that they go ambulance chasing and expanding their need to fit their number.

When the supply of lawyers increase, they just expand their demand to match.

It is no surprise that the country with the most lawyers (the US) has the most damaging and obsurd tort laws, the laxest regulation of class-action and the least penalty for frivolous lawsuits.

You could have a 5000 page exibit on the lunacy of cases that have followed.

As the old joke has it, "there are some things even rats won't do."

I'm going to have to FAIL you for that simplistic response, Warsy, as it is ignorant of basic economic theories of supply and demand.

Supply does not create demand, not even outside the econ lab. There is a finite amount of legal services out there and it behooves the consumer to make the lawyers fight for the crumbs.

If I were a rat, I would sue McLeans for comparing me to a lawyer.

Most politician's are lawyers, that's why they love making more laws. That's one more reason to despise them.

Lawyers make it impossible for you too ever know what it is you just signed.

Sure, there may be some good lawyers, but just like the Muslims you can't tell which are okay and which are out to get you blood. The good ones are few and are in fear of the rest.

That wasn't an economic theory. It was a comment on the ACTIONS of lawyers.

Supply doesn't create demand. Lawyers do.

But in economic terms, you don't end up with lower prices, you end up with regulatory changes and more activity which results in a shift in the demand curve which moves demand up and left on the graph. The demand curve doesn't remain static with a mere move along the curve to meet supply. Lawyers expand the need so they don't have to decrease the price for supply and demand to remain in equilibrium.

And I earned very good marks in university in my Economics undergrad, thanks.

Lawyers the Helping Profession helping themselves to this helping themselves to that making new laws to raise to new taxes. Helping helping helping always helping. In the largest law firm around government. Yes helping helping helping.

Good grief, even ET has gone off the rails. There are so many fallacies of reason here...where to start?
"Lawyers that win cases for their clients are bad." That's rich. If you do not like the law, do not blame the successful lawyer. Blame the lawmakers--the elected governments and the judges they appoint. Law schools have been overtaken by socialists because they understand the Charter is a Trojan Horse for a left-wing agenda. Yet the winning lawyers get the blame. That's about as sensible as blaming a mechanic for doing a good job fixing an engine of a car that cut you off. The realgripe is the ascendancy of left-wing political might. Blaming lawyers is a lazy out.

"Some lawyers choose to join the CBA, whose agenda has been co-opted by socialists with nothing better to do. Therefore all lawyers are rats." Is the flaw in logic not self-evident?

"The profession lends itself to rat-breeding." This is just confirmation bias. Private practice is a business. Salaries, rent, health taxes, pensions and so on have to be paid--partners face personal liability. How many employees out their stand to lose their houses if they do not bill and collect effectively. In a large firm overhead runs well over 50% of collected billings. A client must be convinced to pay the bill, which means serving the needs of the client and providing value cost effectively is the overriding concern. Those who fled large firms because they are "soul-destroying" either did not get it or were not cut out for it. My experience is that the great majority are ethical, hard-working, very bright and motivated and energized by their work. Some aren't.

Warwick: I wish I could claim ownership of this clarity on the degeneration of Canadian jurisprudence but it was originally stated by an ex member of the SCC.

Even with all his insight this ex justice expressed the obvious....that being; there is no profit to be made in laws which are clear, concise and simple to understand. The wealth of the legal society comes from the confusion cause by convoluting the law....something law society members of parliament and the justice department do with verve.

For those more inclined to believe that no political or legal sysem degenerates by coincidence there is this timeless quote:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Murray,

Lawyers, like accountants, are a dead-weight drag on the economy. They produce nothing. They create nothing. They are an economic burden which gets worse as the laws (passed by a political class dominated by lawyers) gets more complicated and numerous. Lawyers/judges/politician self-deal to their own and have created a system where they are vampires sucking on the necks of the economy.

It's not successful lawyers vs. unsuccessful ones. It's the profession itself. The lawyers have increased their own need and vigorously defend their monopoly on the law. Look at their fight against Ex-coppers in traffic tickets. The law society tried to have these lower-cost representatives banned. Regulating into existence your own demand and using the state to defend your monopoly instead of competing freely is not capitalism. It's manipulation of the economy by the state.

Warwick, I disagree. Laws are presuambly passed because they have value to to the political constituents to which the politicians respond, such as environmental laws. A lawyer typically seeks to help, say a mining company, bring a project into production as efficiently as possible within the parameters of the law. This has two results: commerce proceeds and the values safeguarded by the law are safeguarded because the lawyer hellps the mining company comply with the law. Thus value is added. One may protest that the law is bad--but that is a question of policitcs.

As for non-lawyer legal represetnation, the law society has to comply with and enforce the legal profession legislation. Cmoplain to the politicians.

How can you call the people rats who wish to re-unite a loving mother with her son? It's not easy being a widow with a handicaped son especially when she help send her son to summer camp in a strange country to learn new skills.
You want to deny a widow an increased welfare cheque? Shame shame.

Laws are passed because interests are successful in making themselves heard over the rest of society.

This is why MADD has increased the penalty for DUI but driving your minivan while beating your screaming kids in the back seat doesn't lose you your licence. There is also a difference between what a law is designed to outlaw/mandate/etc. and how the laws work. Why is a lawyer necessary to fight a charge? Because the law is less about fact and justice than it is about procedure and technicality. That is the legal profession's work.

Laws are also written by lawyers. Even politicians who are not lawyers themselves have the legislation's wording outsourced to lawyers with the law society and judges often consulted. You also must realize that legal procedure is also set by precedence in courts by judges who are also lawyers. The law society is one of the most powerful lobbying bodies, fundraisers (for liberals and NDP,) and has a huge PR machine (not just the media itself.) It can have it's way with politicians and get what they want. That is especially true of the liberal party whose campaigns and fundraising efforts are dominated by lawyers who have an interest in buying politicians.

As for the law society job of defending their legal monopoly over the law, just how do you think that monopoly was legislated? Yes. By lawyers and their political friends.

Your justifications are weak and specious. I presume you to be a lawyer?

A lawyer typically seeks to help, say a mining company, bring a project into production as efficiently as possible within the parameters of the law.

You can add onto that, "...within the parameters of the law as interpreted according to precedent."

Interpretations of interpretations...rather than applying the written law.

Laws are the result of political influence. Lawyers help draft the wording of the laws. These are reviewed in committee by politicians who respond to input from affected constituencies and generally results in changes to the wording. To blame lawyers for the laws is the intellectual equivalent of saying Jews control finance.

Rats.

Murray,

Your analogy is idiotic. The proper analogy is that Financial professionals control finance. Lawyers control the law.

Lawyers are not always directly responsible for the intent of the laws (as I mentioned above in my MADD example) but the application of law, the technical complexity of law, the fact that the system is so devoid of ease and logic that a lawyer's services are necessary. It is this aspect of law that even some (honest) lawyers decry. It is the higher priority on commas than that placed on truth that has EARNED the legal profession disdain from society.

A rationalization of law to make it easier an more fair will never happen as such a thing would be against the interests of lawyers. Ergo, the law society and their bought politicians will fight against such a thing.

If not for lawyers, judges and their lawyer/politicians doing the legal profession's bidding, the law would be able to be applied by lay-persons. Technicalities would be less important than truth and the winner would no longer be the side with the most resources.

The accounting profession is similar exept they don't have as much power as there are multiple bodies for most accounting (CA's have monopolies over certain aspects like signing off on a public company's financial statements.)

Lawyers help draft the wording of the laws.

And also interpret the laws, filtered through the lens of precedence.

Opinions based upon opinions, not much wonder there are so many nonsensical rulings.

Those same nonsensical ruling are, in turn, being used as the basis for new laws to be interpreted and mangled beyond recognition through precedent. It's a vicious circle.

My wife was a lawyer in Malaysia, she was put through the ringer here despite having a University of London law degree. She is unimpressed with our system of law here and with the Bar association. (aka the sandbox protection society) She was amazed at watching people show up for court stoned and everyone pretending it wasn’t happening or not bothering to get a lawyer and then asking for a delay. In Malaysia showing up stoned will get you 6 months of rehab right there and then.

Now that we have a daughter, she has left the profession as it is to “toxic” The billing rate is so high she can’t even afford herself, and most lawyers don’t fully bill their clients as they would be broke by the time the case is finished. The average lawyer seems to work a 70hr week (My sister is also a senior labour lawyer) It is unrealistic to expect a woman to raise a family and work those hours. The whole legal system is broken, it destroys pretty much everyone involved.

murray - you must be a lawyer; you are changing what I said - into what you want me to have said. This confirms my point - that lawyers are not focused on FACTS and TRUTH, but on winning. Your focus is on winning your points - so, you change what I said! Semantic tactics!

I did not say that 'lawyers who win cases for their clients are bad'. I said that lawyers are not focused on truth or justice, but on winning cases. This focus on the 'final goal' of winning, rather than on the final goal of achieving truth and justice - has moved the legal profession into a realm that separates truth/justice from the legal process. You, murray, are obviously not interested in repeating what I said factully or truthfully.

Then, you commented on the CBA. I said nothing about the CBA. Fact? Truth? Your point?

Then, you stated that 'that profession lends itself to rat-breeding'. No, this is a semantic fallacy. I didn't say that. I said, not that the profession per se lends itself to rat-breeding, but that the focus on winning, rather than on truth and justice, lends itself to rat-breeding. The legal profession didn't have to take that step of focusing on winning; it could have focused on truth and justice. Lawyers chose not to do so - they are rats.

Now, murray, your next semantic twist is to try to fob off all blame for our current lack of justice, on to the politicians, who 'make the laws'. Nice try - but, it's invalid. You see, the theoretical level (the laws) must be moved into actual reality by the lawyers and judges. The corruption of justice isn't at the theoretical level - but at the ACTUAL LEVEL - in the courts and legal actions.

This is where lawyers claim that their clients are not responsible for beating up X and robbing X - because 'society failed to provide my client with a secure home'..or..whatever. Where lawyers claim that their clients weren't 'street racing' and so, could not be faulted for killing a taxi driver -as they raced along at 120 km..because the had 'not intention of killing anyone'.

This is where judges will release a thug, who immediately goes out and kills someone - because that judge, a lawyer, .....etc etc.

So - murray, your semantic twists, that well-known legal basis of 'winning' are fibbles in the wind. You know what really matters? Truth. And justice. Not semantic frippery. That's why so many of us consider lawyers as rats. Because they have moved out of reality and live in a world of flippant semantic contempt. Contempt for us, who want to live within facts and truth. Contempt for our society, which requires justice for its people.

rattus rattus
Black Rats - the worst

They are rats indeed, and well done Kate.

Highly overpaid rats I might add, that feed off society.

I know one such rat in town who literally brags about his success at getting known criminals off the hook.

In fact it is amazing how the legal profession has been able to get away with what it gets away with for so long.

Just goes to show how powerful a well-managed "club" can be.

And don't let any lawyer fool you, they are 99% in it for the money, not because they actually believe in their hearts they are doing society any good.

Lawyers, and only lawyers - be they writing law, arguing law or interpreting law - have been instrumental in the separation of "law" and "justice".

Really? How so? Can you cite examples of this separation,and give your definition of what constitutes law, and justice?

Manuel,

If a lawyer gets a client off a charge on a technicality when that client is guilty, justice has been separated from law.

No written law passed by parliament states that thy guilty shalt be set free if thy commas are not all in place and thy i's all dotted. No, these were the result of legal precident by lawyers. Keeping in mind that judges are lawyers, too.

Questions?

I would think that rodent-like qualities are no more prevalent in lawyers than plumbers, politicians or right-wing bloggers.

Re: Omar Khadr

It's a damn shame that the US Special Forces team that captured the wounded young Khadr in Af-stan(after he'd just murdered a Green Beret via a hand grenade attack)didn't do what he screamed at them to do, namely finish him off.

5.56 mm. Justice...and all this expense and trouble avoided.

Re: Vitruvius (sp?) "Everybody hates lawyers, except the one that successfully defends them."

Count me in there. My (new) lawyer just saved me more than $100K. So lawyers are in my good books as of now!!! I'll never sign a major contract without consulting a good one.

But I've had experiences with lawyers in the past that officially worked for me, but brought the truth to the expression "it's not your lawyer versus their lawyer, it's the lawyers versus the two of you."

When you spend two years to get a decent, fair settlement from someone who has severely wronged you, only to have the entire settlement go to your legal fees, it makes you wonder if the "rats" might have grounds for a slander suit against the magazine that compared them.

Jimbo,

Interesting point, but I think overwhelmingly lawyers do more harm than good.

Look at the typical divorce proceeding. They feed off it.

Look at their fees, often way out of whack with what other educated people earn.

Most lawyers I know in town here take Friday's off all summer long to play golf, ride the boat, go to the cottage (more like second house). Tough life indeed.

I think the real problem with the law profession is that they run a sort of monopoly. Find me a lawyer who will take the time to explain the law to a laymen in normal English. They won't do it, and the reason is because if the curtain was pulled back many people would realize that there are huge layers of unnecessary complexity in the law and law procedure which serve little other purpose than to create work for more lawyers.

Saw same thing here in BC when pharmacists wanted the right to prescribe basic drugs. The docs nearly went nuts, and that's because in their guts they knew the pharmacists had the skills to deal with basic prescriptions, and would do it for half the price and just as well.

Most other professions have gone through phases of increased competition at one point or another, where outside forces have come along and found a better way to do things, causing such professions to reinvent themselves, work smarter, deliver better service, etc.

The legal profession has had no such thing to worry about, and so has become a giant leech on society that survives off the status quo.

Of course some lawyers will scoff at that notion but that's because they are not living in a realistic world. Their culture and the way they are trained doesn't permit them to ask questions such as "how could I deliver this same service more efficiently"

I make a contrast to engineers for example, who are constantly trying to find better and more efficient ways to do things. AND who are not one bit afraid to be challenged by competitors, AND who are more than happy to share their ideas on how to do things better.

Though I love a good debate, I really can't find any way to defend lawyers overall. And I have to agree with your points regarding engineers.

I guess I'm just fortunate I've found an excellent lawyer I can trust.

manuel - there are no commonalities in your 'set' of 'plumbers, politicians and right-wing bloggers' other than that they are, presumably, all human beings.
So- what's your point? If the commonality is that they are human beings, and you define them as rats, then - you, as also a human being, are also a rat.

Now-stop playing with semantics like a lawyer, and think about the problem - which is, that lawyers are not interested in the 'final goal' of truth or justice, but merely in winning their case. If their client is a crook, a murderer, a mafia boss etc - that's irrelevant to them; all they are interested in - is winning their case.

That fact - that lawyers have separated reality into two realms - (1)truth/justice - which they ignore; and (2)winning their case - which is their only focus - means that they are corrupt rats.

A plumber, by the way, can't get along very well if his work is so shoddy that his repairs and construction fall apart; he'll be replaced in the free market.
A corrupt politician may survive - he's similar to a lawyer.
Right wing bloggers? Kindly explain or you are guilty of semantic frippery.

The trouble with lawyers is that they are effectively unaccountable; they protect each other; it's almost impossible to get one disbarred - and many, many should be disbarred.

Two research scientists who hadn't seen each for some time bumped into each other at a conference.

"Gerry! Howthehellareya?! What's new? What are the lab rats telling you these days?" says the first researcher, Bob.

Gerry: "Bob, you old hound dog! Howareya, buddy. I'm good. But you know we don't use rats any more. Don't tell me you're still using rats?"

Bob: "How else can you gather data?"

Gerry: "We use lawyers these days, Bob."

Bob: "Lawyers! How come?"

Gerry: "Well, a few reasons. It's supply and demand for one thing -- there are just way more lawyers around than rats, so they're cheaper.

"Secondly, the researchers just don't feel as bad experimenting on lawyers.

"But the main thing is, Bob, there's some things a rat just won't do."

This honourable solicitor is available to file a class action libel suit on behalf of all rats, against those who equate lawyers and rodents.

Oops, gotta run. Just saw an ambulance rushing by!

I've read Alberta is rat free. But Albertans would gladly be overrun by rats, swarmed by mosquitoes, and plagued by locusts in exchange for eliminating lawyers!

Lawers and Ministers are not rats, sure, but they dont tell all... Here is an example:

Lawyer and Minister Michael Fortier said, about the big federal lawsuit launched to recover our stolen money from Groupaction, Lafleur and others :

"We're going to continue to do what's necessary with our lawyers to try to recover all of the money that we believe we're owed," said Public Works Minister Michael Fortier. (Canadian Press, Wed Jun 27, 6:09 PM)

Here is what the tax-payers don't know :

PC Minister Michael Fortier, Ottawa, is the brother-in-law of one of the two senior associates of the law firm Pothier Delisle in Quebec and Montreal (recently transformed to Morency Associates), Me Pierre Delisle. (Me Delisle is married to ex-minister Margaret Fortier-Delisle in Charest’s government)

This same law firm is the one since March 2005 defending Groupaction, Jean Brault, etc. in the Federal lawsuit. Minister Michael Fortier is fighting to recover 60,000,000$, while his brother-in-law, until September 2006, time at which he left suddenly his law firm --today known as Morency Associates--, was and is fighting TO STOP Michael Fortier from recovering the stolen money ! (Superior Court Number 500-17-024768-056)

Moreover, Groupaction, Jean Brault, Lafleur etc., as in the past, continue to have their companies’ addresses at Pothier Delisle (today Morency Associates), 500 Place d’Armes, suite 2420, Montreal.

Very easy to verify the above information: all is in public documents.

Tks

How many people actually know the residential school claim was declared by the courts to be out of time or statute barred against the crown. Yet the taxpayers are on the hook for 2 billion dollars and the Liberal lawyers instead of paying court cost are receiving millions of dollars. Thank you former Liberal government.

How many people actually know the residential school claim was declared by the courts to be out of time or statute barred against the crown. Yet the taxpayers are on the hook for 2 billion dollars and the Liberal lawyers instead of paying court cost are receiving millions of dollars. Thank you former Liberal government.

My young child, pets, and husband are homeless now because of lawyers...We had to live in our sub compact car until we all got sick... As a family, we are trying to fight to keep our family home due to a mortgage fraud (thanks to lawyers). Is there any help out there for us victims? Email us if you can help mortgagefraud@gmail.com

This is not fair to us Canadians...
Lawyers are allowed to use untrue information
to deceive our judges…

This twisted information manipulated child custody.

Rob Rehm, McMan twisted the truth
to prepare an untruthful exhibit

Michael Dolan, a Medicine Hat Lawyer
presented this Lie, and I am not a pedofile...

This misled one of our judges,
The Honorable Justice Mr. C.P. Clark
As a result me and my sister have not met
and this is/has prevented my daddy
from being in her life…
Children do not deserve this...
Children deserve love, nurturing, and care
from both parents & sibblings.
Please see my complete profile - click here

Please see my blog at, http://dolanpresentedalie.blogspot.com