"Interview With a Lawyer" (hopefully more) - Page 2

On March 09 2015 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
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.

One single lawyer has of late years found means to
live here, but his best fortune proceeds more from
having married one of the wealthiest heiresses of the
island, than from the emoluments of his practice : how-
ever he is sometimes employed in recovering money
lent on the main, or in preventing those accidents to
which the contentious propensity of its inhabitants
may sometimes expose them. He is seldom employed
as the means of self-defence, and much seldomer as the
channel of attack; to which they are strangers, except
the fraud is manifest, and the danger imminent. Law-
yers are so numerous in all our populous towns, that
I am surprised they never thought before of establishing
themselves here: they are plants that will grow in any
soil that is cultivated by the hands of others ; and when
once they have taken root they will extinguish every
other vegetable that grows around them. The fortunes
they daily acquire in every province, from the mis-
fortunes of their fellow-citizens, are surprising! The
most ignorant, the most bungling member of that pro-
fession, will, if placed in the most obscure part of the
country, promote litigiousness, and amass more wealth
without labour, than the most opulent farmer, with all
his toils. They have so dexterously interwoven their
doctrines and quirks with the laws of the land, or rather
they are become so necessary an evil in our present
constitutions, that it seems unavoidable and past all
remedy. What a pity that our forefathers, who happily
extinguished so many fatal customs, and expunged
from their new government so many errors and abuses,
both religious and civil, did not also prevent the intro-
duction of a set of men so dangerous ! In some provinces,
where every inhabitant is constantly employed in tilling
and cultivating the earth, they are the only members
of society who have any knowledge ; let these provinces
attest what iniquitous use they have made of that knowledge.
They are here what the clergy were in past
centuries with you; the reformation which clipped the
clerical wings, is the boast of that age, and the happiest
event that could possibly happen ; a reformation equally
useful is now wanted, to relieve us from the shameful
shackles and the oppressive burthen under which we
groan; this perhaps is impossible; but if mankind
would not become too happy, it were an event most
devoutly to be wished.

On March 10 2015 02:28 Pino wrote:
Deontological problems for members of the bar in France feel to me like they are handled well better.

No self reporting bullshit. Clear rules regarding lawyer's responsibility. And also several obligations regarding my work ethic. I dunno the exact rules but felony (not necessarily through my work and against my client) seems like a clear cause of disbarment.

Client privilege prevents me from reporting any crime or fact I hear from a client, unless he allows me to do so. And I live perfectly fine with that, even when it deals with ugly things, which has already happened to me. The thing is you've got to consider that you defend a man, not the crime. And your line of defense will depend from the facts. You will not fight for acquittal if you can't.
If the case happens that you know your client committed something ugly, and you can still hope for acquittal, it only means investigators sucked balls. So that's not really your fault. Such a case never happened to me in such a way, so I don't really know how I would feel.
2 weeks ago I had a case where 2 guys were declared not guilty of rape charges. Everyone in the court knew something weird/unclear happened, but there were not enough evidences. Since it's kind of a very high principle that doubt must benefits to the accused, I was kinda fine with it.

One exception regarding money laundering, I have to tell it to the chairman of the bar who then will have to deal with it (the lucky guy)

However, if I happen to violate my deontological rules (lack of respect of client privilege ; over billing undone work etc.) I will be first judged by my peers. In case of appeal by a judge.

I hope I cleared some questions regarding lawyers mentality and how we deal with everyday ethical matters.

On March 10 2015 04:35 Pino wrote:


Rules differ vastly across countries, even across bars.

Even the conception of justice is different between anglo-saxon and romano-germanic systems.

Bar rules are related to a whole concept of the profession that dates back to several centuries. Thus you definitely can't compare what Phreak and I are saying since we have very different jobs.

On March 10 2015 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar journal is our local rag where we can see all suspensions, disbarments, etc. you can see here the kind of stuff that is necessary for you to be removed from the profession (i.e., disbarment). i especially like the only interim suspension for the dude who was caught with child pornography.

http://www.calbarjournal.com/March2015/AttorneyDiscipline/Disbarments.aspx

On March 11 2015 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is it possible to see if any of those criminals/lawyers went to jail/prison?

On March 11 2015 05:47 dAPhREAk wrote:

i am sure it is possible, but i dont know an easy way of doing it.

On March 11 2015 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
California has over 200,000 active (I think) members. These "bad apples" account for a very small proportion of the total. That being said, these are the ones who got caught and were punished. Many more get away without punishments.

I have been unpleasantly surprised that even in one of the states where bar passage rate is relatively low (~50-60%), we still have such shitty lawyers though.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial char, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality.”

So which professions (other than axe murderer) do they disproportionately gravitate towards — or away from?

On March 11 2015 08:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont have any statistics on the rate of offending for lawyers vs. other professions, so i don't know. given that substance abuse is so prevalent in the profession, i would not be surprised if there was a significant percentage of offenders.

i am not sure how Mr. Dutton came up with those lists so have no comment about them, but my gut reaction is it sounds like bullshit. i also find his groupings odd. so, civil rights lawyers are grouped with business lawyers as +psychopath? pro bono death row lawyers are grouped with oil lawyers? i also find the distinction between surgeons and doctors amusing.

i would be curious to see an actual list of known psychopaths and their professions.

On March 11 2015 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


You have mentioned substance/client abuse a few times now so I am curious whether you (or other lawyers) think that there should be increased policing of lawyers to try to root out abuse both of substance and client? As it seems you agree with the inclination that they are not much less likely to commit these violations than the people who are currently more frequently and thoroughly policed (and they often end up helping to punish)?

If anyone can come up with the statistics being discussed it would be greatly appreciated.

Found something from the Smithsonian on his work

Psychopath info

It appears that one part of the general issue is a misconception that all psychopaths are criminals (or would be if convicted).

On that, a quick question. Is someone only a criminal if they get legally proven so or is someone a criminal when they break the law regardless if they get caught? I am asking in the legal sense and the personal sense if they are different.

On March 11 2015 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:

the incidence of substance abuse (mostly alcohol) is higher in the legal profession than any other profession supposedly. the ABA and state bars have been trying to get help for substance abusers with varied level of success. substance abuse courses are required for cal attorneys every three years (along with other continuing legal education). as for policing, every lawyer has a responsibility to "police" attorneys under their purview, and partners are responsible for other partners. however, that doesnt really help much with solo practitioners, nor is it likely that a responsible attorney is going to turn their associates or partners into the authorities since it will harm their own practice. the likely result is just terminating the associate or disassociating the partner from the law firm. also, what do you do about functioning substance abusers, which is a real thing. if you are talking about more oversight from outside agencies, i cant think of any functioning regulatory body that would be able to do that until the lawyer fucks up (i.e., DUI/DWI).

you are only a criminal if you are convicted or plead out in the legal sense. thats why people standing trial are referred to as the accused. common parlance rarely has anything to do with the law since people watch too many cop shows.

On March 11 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


Would the police not work?

Should law firms not be punished for covering for people committing criminal acts, even if it is to prevent harming their firm?

Functioning users get put in jail/prison all the time? Why would/should it be different for lawyers?