Or are they rats?
It’s a multiple choice question.
89 Replies to “Are Lawyers Rats?”
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
*
*
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