hockey only conference

ugarte · February 21, 2003, 05:16:31 PM

Actually, since we are now speaking for Beeeej, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all.

I think he was pointing out that within the canons of legal ethics, a litigant (and more importantly, for contempt purposes, counsel) can not hide directly contrary authority. I suspect many would not have realized that, given the low esteem in which the profession is often held.

As I was alluding to, and CULater elaborated, very little is "directly contrary." To the extent that the facts of the case at hand can not be used to finesse the contrary authority to a point that it is distinguishable, you just aren't trying hard enough (or you should start thinking very hard about settlement.) And maybe that explains a lot of the low esteem (but wary respect/fear).

ugarte · February 21, 2003, 05:20:13 PM

:-(

Beeeej · February 21, 2003, 05:28:10 PM

Exactly. In fact, I've learned very quickly that the most important skill in legal writing is known as "distinguishing" - the art of saying "that case doesn't apply to this one" and getting the judges to believe it. I handed in my first moot court brief this morning, and I'm actually quite proud of how well I distinguished some pretty heavy hitter precedents.

Beeeej

Beeeej · February 21, 2003, 05:36:49 PM

[q]Actually, since we are now speaking for Beeeej, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all.

I think he was pointing out that within the canons of legal ethics, a litigant (and more importantly, for contempt purposes, counsel) can not hide directly contrary authority. I suspect many would not have realized that, given the low esteem in which the profession is often held.[/q]

Exactly. Sorry, Greg, but you were interpreting what I'd said almost exactly opposite to the point. Consider my slightly earlier post, on "distinguishing," a de facto reply to this most recent post of BRA's.

Beeeej

Greg Berge · February 21, 2003, 05:46:28 PM

> And maybe that explains a lot of the low esteem (but wary respect/fear).

If you're talking about public perception, lawyers are in this regard perceived as being roughly comparable to muggers. The wary respect/fear is comparable to crossing the street when you see somebody potentially dangerous approaching. The wariness is the strong intution that whether or not you will be sandbagged in a case has nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with how much you can afford to spend in your defense. To what degree a highly-compensated profession has in fact deliberately fostered this attitude in order to drive up fees is, shall we say, an interesting idea.

Not saying that public perception is justified one bit. But let's be serious -- this is an ill-respected profession not because of a lack of appreciation of clever legal strategies, but rather because people have little faith that justice is served, and therefore recognize themselves to be potential vicitms even when they do nothing wrong.

ugarte · February 21, 2003, 06:03:05 PM

Greg wrote:

QuoteThe wariness is the strong intution that whether or not you will be sandbagged in a case has nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with how much you can afford to spend in your defense. . . Not saying that public perception is justified one bit.

Yeah, no kidding. Except that it is clear that you do think the public perception is at least somewhat justified, but in a some-of-my-best-friends-are-lawyers sort of way. That's OK. So do I.

[q]To what degree a highly-compensated profession has in fact deliberately fostered this attitude in order to drive up fees is, shall we say, an interesting idea.[/q]
Sorry, Greg. This is just nonsense. People believe that you can buy justice because history has taught us you can buy justice. When a litigant pays for enough lawyering to overwhelm the opposition, that proves that doing so works, not that lawyers are fostering a false illusion to fatten their own wallets.

No, lawyers are manipulating a flawed system to fatten their own wallets. It ain't better, but it is different.

Greg Berge · February 21, 2003, 06:18:35 PM

So, apparently 1000 years of the development of legal theory has taken us all the way from "might equals right" to "money equals right."

Some of my best friends are, indeed, lawyers, and their stories of the utter lack of ethics within firms are in part what my cynicism about motives is based on. If it makes you feel any better, I do not think the people who start out on the long road to becoming lawyers are in any way more ethically impaired than the rest of us. I do think that circumstances create realities, and a few decades' of the sort of rationalizations that appear earlier in this thread would wear down a saint, let alone an average Joe or Jane with feet of clay.

Oh, and all professions manipulate their clientele to max our profits, so yeah I guess I refuse to believe that lawyers are in some way exempt. There are plenty of ways to prime a market, and instilling a climate of fear of random consequences is a time-honored one. It is hardly just lawyers who do so. The stock response is "the only thing more unpleasant than having one is not having one." We are, in essence, hostages.

Greg Berge · February 21, 2003, 06:24:20 PM

Not sure what any of the above has to do with hockey, though.

ugarte · February 21, 2003, 06:36:34 PM

So now you are complaining about thread drift? ;-) (That's why I changed the subject line for my last entry.)

Greg Berge · February 21, 2003, 06:47:10 PM

LOL. Believe me, I wouldn't dare. ::laugh::

I had the feeling you were somewhere nearby Ithaca, bra. How come you aren't at the game?