|
Let me start by explaining the title a bit. I personally don't mean to use it to draw the reference between blood sucking fiends and lawyers  I mean to use it to reference my feelings as "the interviewer".
That is to say that I have a particular envy/awe/fear of lawyers. I, like most argumentative children considered pursuing it as a profession. While the 'busy/paperwork' part of the job/educational path was never something that appealed to me (I doubt I'm alone on that in any professional path), the argumentative/life changing side appealed to me.
The reason for my questioning of daphreak was inspired by a sincere curiosity, about what I perceive as a personal (meaning my own) deficiency, that doesn't allow me to see things the way I needed to in order to pursue said path. Plainly speaking, I'm asking questions that no one I had access to during my educational path could answer even remotely as well as daphreak has so far (forgiving that I might not have been able to articulate my questions as well back then).
So I wanted to open with a good faith effort to show I don't come into this looking to score points or anything. I am sincerely curious and am only seeking to better understand. If I appear to be attempting to score some political points here it is not intentional and I will not fight being called out on it.
No one is obligated to participate, nor once they participate, are they obligated to continue participating. I already appreciate indulging me this far. That being said, I may ask some pointed or tough questions that may be seen as aggressive. However, my intention will be simply to get a more concise and/or possibly introspective answer. If my question is too sharp or whatever feel free to ask me to rephrase or try to paraphrase what you think I'm asking with a better tone. I only request you try to do it in a non-confrontational way, in an effort to de-escalate if I overstep.
I'm genuinely curious about some things but this is as far as I've got time for at the present moment. So I'll put a link to the conversation that inspired this and come back with some more questions shortly. If any participants (this is obviously open to others although I'd ask they keep it relevant) have any questions they can ask them and I will respond when I return.
Conversation that inspired blog
EDIT: I suppose I should add specifically that I mean to attempt to set aside our political differences as much as possible here.
 
|
not sure how many lawyers there are on tl; i only know a couple, but there are a couple of law students and then there is plansix. if you have a question, i wont be shy.
|
On March 07 2015 09:47 dAPhREAk wrote:
not sure how many lawyers there are on tl; i only know a couple, but there are a couple of law students and then there is plansix. if you have a question, i wont be shy.
Yeah students work too, as many questions will relate to how people learning to be a lawyer are building their understandings. Can I presume by your willingness to participate we can agree on where we are starting from (regarding trying to leave our political differences at the proverbial door and respecting that the others are trying to do the same)?
|
i'll play nice in this thread.
|
On March 07 2015 09:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll play nice in this thread.
I appreciate it, and hope others follow that example, no matter where they find themselves politically.
|
I'm on spring break for the next week but I'll add what my 1L self is able to.
|
On March 07 2015 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote: considered pursuing it as a profession. While the 'busy/paperwork' part of the job/educational path was never something that appealed to me (I doubt I'm alone on that in any professional path), the argumentative/life changing side appealed to me.
ditto!
I like the potential of this.
|
Lawyer in France here, feel free to ask anything.
|
The funny thing is, I myself am currently applying to law schools (wish me luck!), but it's not at all because I am argumentative, quite the opposite really, at least in personal settings. I'm quite comfortable with negotiation and debate, and I'm also drawn by the life changing part. The busy/paperwork thing, well, I think you get that in any job and you do have to pay your dues somehow. Hopefully I can glean a few things from this thread as well 
|
I'm a law student. Happy to answer what I can.
|
I appreciate everyone stopping in and being willing to contribute. I guess I want to start kind of where I left off.
On March 07 2015 09:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 08:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2015 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
i am not sure if my answers were consistent or not.
i consider myself a "good" lawyer and i break the law on a daily basis. i think you need to be more specific if you want a real answer. Time for you to self-report. CalBar applies a generous slap to the wrist to drunk drivers and people who steal their own clients' money. i am sure they don't care about my traffic infractions.
Your previous response seemed to indicate you don't think self reporting on things like traffic violations are what CalBAR or ABA in general are worried about.
That made me curious where individuals personally draw the line of self-reporting or if it's ever anything they would even do, unless it was to reduce the punishment for something they were already/inevitably caught for? Self reporting isn't really something I consider as a citizen in general.
I don't want anyone to share anything they aren't comfortable with so they can speak in general if they wish. I also don't expect you to speak for all lawyers so you don't have to speak to those aspects of questions either.
I have obligations so I won't be able to keep up tonight but hopefully this can help get the conversation started.
A story about the best/worst lawyer you have met and about why you think they were great/terrible would be some interesting things to get started with too. (you can use pseudonyms if you wish)
|
self reporting requirements. i have never had to consider the issue, but doubt i would self report unless i was required to do so.
http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/Archive.aspx?articleId=90808&categoryId=90536&month=3&year=2008
worst attorney i ever met. his fucking law firm is called "Low Price Legal Advice" and its worth every penny he costs. =P
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/182284
because of this:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/11-O-10944-2.pdf
and he was told to cease and desist by the Cal. Attorney General re mortgage issues because he wasn't complying with the law. he wrote them a letter back telling them the law was vague and that he would help them interpret it if they want. he posted it on the internet (scribd), but i cant find it now.
he also had a client who refused to take the oath without qualification because the guy was certifiable. attorney didnt pull him aside and force him to do it. then when court criticized him, he tried to argue with the court. his client eventually had to take the real oath.
just all around bad attorney.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
You wrote a lot about "curious" and "questioning" but didn't ask any questions...
|
On March 08 2015 16:04 Chill wrote:
You wrote a lot about "curious" and "questioning" but didn't ask any questions...
Then what did daPhreak answer? lol
Sorry if the questions weren't up to par? I unfortunately came across the opportunity to start this when I had the least time to tend it but I am genuinely curious about the legal profession so I'm doing what I can.
I have to be up in a couple hours so I'll read what I can and be back tomorrow.
This bad lawyer sounds interesting though thanks for the links.
|
On March 08 2015 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 16:04 Chill wrote:
You wrote a lot about "curious" and "questioning" but didn't ask any questions... Then what did daPhreak answer? lol Sorry if the questions weren't up to par? I unfortunately came across the opportunity to start this when I had the least time to tend it but I am genuinely curious about the legal profession so I'm doing what I can. I have to be up in a couple hours so I'll read what I can and be back tomorrow. This bad lawyer sounds interesting though thanks for the links.
Being concise is considered a great quality among lawyers, unless you want to troll the opposing party or just gain time.
You should go straight to the point 
|
On March 09 2015 01:26 Pino wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 20:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 08 2015 16:04 Chill wrote:
You wrote a lot about "curious" and "questioning" but didn't ask any questions... Then what did daPhreak answer? lol Sorry if the questions weren't up to par? I unfortunately came across the opportunity to start this when I had the least time to tend it but I am genuinely curious about the legal profession so I'm doing what I can. I have to be up in a couple hours so I'll read what I can and be back tomorrow. This bad lawyer sounds interesting though thanks for the links. Being concise is considered a great quality among lawyers, unless you want to troll the opposing party or just gain time. You should go straight to the point
There isn't a single point. I'm not trying to prove anything? I'm just curious.
"CalBar applies a generous slap to the wrist to drunk drivers and people who steal their own clients' money. i am sure they don't care about my traffic infractions."
What do you mean by 'slap on the wrist'? What do you mean by 'steal their own clients money'? I ask for clarity because that sounds ridiculous on it's face.
I guess I understand drunk driving to a degree, but stealing from your client sounds like something that should get you disbarred?
|
calbar rarely gets involved in ethical violations, which is supposed to be their job. they focus on major infractions, which tend to be felony convictions and stealing your clients' money. substance abuse is very high among lawyers so i said DUI/DWI. the other major infraction is stealing your client's money. this usually comes in two forms, but is not exclusive. 1. many lawyers charge a retainer and the lawyer will take the money but not actually do any work and let the case languish. 2. the more common is that lawyers will fail to separate their money from their clients' money (i.e., they will deposit a settlement check in their own personal bank account and use it, deposit a retainer in their own personal bank account and use it, etc.). you are supposed to have a separate bank account for client money. see below, which i randomly pulled off google. iolta accounts are very popular.
http://research.lawyers.com/attorneys-responsibility-for-client-funds.html
|
After looking through the ask/answer thread, I think Thieving Magpie summarized your question (his post) and why people are having a difficult time answering you. It would've been more concise, and in my opinion better, to have replaced your entire OP with a direct question (the first ~4 lines of Thieving Magpie's post) and a link to where the discussion started. Your blog post reads like you're beating around the bush because you don't want to step on anyone's toes.
I could literally replace everything you wrote in the first post of this thread with
I want to have a discussion about morals/ethics in the field of law with people who have a background in the subject, please don't get mad at me when I ask questions. The question that started the discussion is "When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?" Here's a Link to where the discussion started.
That quote is 86 words, your blog post is 437. Expanding on points is great but a person shouldn't be able replace 437 words with basically "I want to have a discussion please don't get mad at me" + + Show Spoiler +
|
On March 09 2015 05:37 Parametric wrote:After looking through the ask/answer thread, I think Thieving Magpie summarized your question ( his post) and why people are having a difficult time answering you. It would've been more concise, and in my opinion better, to have replaced your entire OP with a direct question (the first ~4 lines of Thieving Magpie's post) and a link to where the discussion started. Your blog post reads like you're beating around the bush because you don't want to step on anyone's toes. I could literally replace everything you wrote in the first post of this thread with Show nested quote +I want to have a discussion about morals/ethics in the field of law with people who have a background in the subject, please don't get mad at me when I ask questions. The question that started the discussion is "When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?" Here's a Link to where the discussion started. That quote is 86 words, your blog post is 437. Expanding on points is great but a person shouldn't be able replace 437 words with basically "I want to have a discussion please don't get mad at me" + + Show Spoiler +
You're not familiar with the history between myself and the people I was referencing so I can understand why you wouldn't get why I thought I should make it very clear that the intention of the blog was just to learn some things related to lawyers and their ethics/morality/perception on the law/etc...
Your post from me would of sounded like I was baiting/trying to score points.
But I have no intention for this to turn into a critique of my questions, as that certainly isn't the point. If my questions aren't what people want, they are under no obligation to participate. I specifically made it a blog and not a general thread so it would be less likely to attract people who just want to critique the thread itself. Particularly the ones that are neither a lawyer/law student or intending to ask questions in the spirit of the thread.
Back on topic:
As a former Realtor I'm familiar with escrows and commingling of client funds so that is less bothersome to me (as circumstances are more ambiguous as to whether anyone actually gets damaged), but taking someones money then not doing what they paid you for seems like it should be career ending?
Is the feeling that it shouldn't be or that the punishment isn't severe enough or something else altogether?
|
its frequently not career ending because the people being abused tend not to be sophisticated or financially well off enough to do anything about it. think of the poor and elderly for teh most part. one prime area for abuse is people taking money, promising to help sort out mortgages so that people who can no longer afford it can stay in their homes, and then coming back and saying the mortgagor refuses to budge although the attorney really didnt do anything. this is a prime area of abuse in the last decade and a focus of CalBar.
i feel attorneys who steal their clients fund should be treated like any other person who commits theft plus extra since they are considered fiduciaries. CalBar tends to be more lenient and forgiving than I.
funny story though, i got $7500 in sanctions against an attorney last year. he was supposed to self report, but i doubt he ever did. we debated reporting it to CalBar just because he is an ass, but elected not to get involved. he has extensive history so may have received more than a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ev3UjXJ.jpg?1)
