|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2018 08:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 08:34 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use? Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island. how well do they crack down on attorneys who are simply insufficiently competent? That's an area where state bar association cultures differ wildly. Some states crack down on bad lawyers real hard with robust, active disciplinary pipelines whereas others spend all their resources going after the unauthorized practice of law (think form preparers), to name two attitudes.
There's no shortage of shitty lawyers in any state. Where you're most likely to find these attorneys is in family law and criminal law. But their shittiness isn't necessarily cause for sanction or disbarment. Despite their lack of technical proficiency, they still often get good results for their clients. In a weird way, a crappy attorney can even create special complications and headaches for competent opposing counsel.
|
I never understood the moral/ethical justification for the quality of your legal representation being directly connected to your bankroll.
Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same quality of legal representation, regardless of income? Or is there something going on in people's heads that leads them to the conclusion that poor people deserve worse representation than wealthy people in court?
That seems like a fundamentally broken system from it's onset.
|
For all the American lawyers in the thread, what's the justification for required postgraduate law school only being a thing in the US? Do you agree?
|
On March 06 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
I never understood the moral/ethical justification for the quality of your legal representation being directly connected to your bankroll.
Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same quality of legal representation, regardless of income? Or is there something going on in people's heads that leads them to the conclusion that poor people deserve worse representation than wealthy people in court?
That seems like a fundamentally broken system from it's onset.
Because lawyers shouldn't be forced to be slaves to the legal system? And they should be paid in accordance with market principles? Stated another way, my rights matter, too.
|
There is a joke in law:
The second hardest thing in law is winning a case.
The hardest thing in law is getting paid.
Edit: also we working under the "American rule" where everyone pays for their own attorney, win or lose(exceptions exist depending on state laws)
|
On March 06 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
I never understood the moral/ethical justification for the quality of your legal representation being directly connected to your bankroll.
Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same quality of legal representation, regardless of income? Or is there something going on in people's heads that leads them to the conclusion that poor people deserve worse representation than wealthy people in court?
That seems like a fundamentally broken system from it's onset.
Is this really its own problem or just a symptom of wealth inequality? Rich people can afford more and better everything.
|
On March 06 2018 09:12 jalstar wrote:
For all the American lawyers in the thread, what's the justification for required postgraduate law school only being a thing in the US? Do you agree?
I think law should require postgraduate education (particularly in an adversarial legal system such as ours) given its relative complexity and difficulty. As has been pointed out already, there's an abundance of crappy attorneys out there already, and eliminating the graduate school requirement, thereby allowing even more, unqualified people to be attorneys, would only worsen that problem. Additionally, the legal labor market is overcrowded anyway, so the last thing that we need is more attorneys.
The real problem with most law schools is that they don't teach their students anything practical. As Plansix alluded to earlier, most law school graduates are utterly worthless when they are fresh out of law school. They don't know how to be attorneys, and it generally takes years after graduating law school to develop those skills. If law schools offered more practical coursework for law students instead of forcing them to study arcane areas of law that they'll never need or use during the careers, their graduates would be better prepared to enter the workforce. Besides, the bar exam does a good enough job forcing students to learn substantive law anyway.
|
On March 06 2018 09:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
I never understood the moral/ethical justification for the quality of your legal representation being directly connected to your bankroll.
Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same quality of legal representation, regardless of income? Or is there something going on in people's heads that leads them to the conclusion that poor people deserve worse representation than wealthy people in court?
That seems like a fundamentally broken system from it's onset. Because lawyers shouldn't be forced to be slaves to the legal system? And they should be paid in accordance with market principles? Stated another way, my rights matter, too.
I don't agree with xDaunt on much but this I am with him 100%
If you are the best in something you better damn well be paid like it.
|
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls."
|
On March 06 2018 09:23 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
I never understood the moral/ethical justification for the quality of your legal representation being directly connected to your bankroll.
Shouldn't everyone be entitled to the same quality of legal representation, regardless of income? Or is there something going on in people's heads that leads them to the conclusion that poor people deserve worse representation than wealthy people in court?
That seems like a fundamentally broken system from it's onset. Because lawyers shouldn't be forced to be slaves to the legal system? And they should be paid in accordance with market principles? Stated another way, my rights matter, too. I don't agree with xDaunt on much but this I am with him 100% If you are the best in something you better damn well be paid like it.
Not arguing about pay, arguing about whether rich people having exclusive access to the best legal professionals is really justice at all. Or rather just a pantomime of justice.
|
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked.
|
On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls."
I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment.
|
On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked.
I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees.
In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god".
EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes.
|
On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment.
They are corporate clients. Fees don’t work like that sadly. I would love retainers, it would make my life so much easier.
|
On March 06 2018 09:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. They are corporate clients. Fees don’t work like that sadly. I would love retainers, it would make my life so much easier.
I have corporate clients, too. And I get retainers and credit cards from all of them. Now, if you're dependent upon a few large clients (like insurance defense attorneys are), then you just have to expect to get bent over on fees.
|
Gahahaha
Erin Burnett just told Nunberg that she smells alcohol on his breath. This guy is losing his shit. This is the best television ever.
|
On March 06 2018 09:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:42 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. They are corporate clients. Fees don’t work like that sadly. I would love retainers, it would make my life so much easier. I have corporate clients, too. And I get retainers and credit cards from all of them. Now, if you're dependent upon a few large clients (like insurance defense attorneys are), then you just have to expect to get bent over on fees.
Pretty much the last part. The litigation and title work I deal with is a small fraction my firms work. So they try to roll us on it all the time.
|
On March 06 2018 09:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. They are corporate clients. Fees don’t work like that sadly. I would love retainers, it would make my life so much easier.
I am imagining you walking around with two men with armor and swords on horseback collecting legal fees
|
On March 06 2018 09:56 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:42 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. They are corporate clients. Fees don’t work like that sadly. I would love retainers, it would make my life so much easier. I am imagining you walking around with two men with armor and swords on horseback walking around collecting legal fees
That would be way better. It’s mostlh responding to passive aggressive emails about “not being approved to bill for that.”
|
5930 Posts
On March 06 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Gahahaha
Erin Burnett just told Nunberg that she smells alcohol on his breath. This guy is losing his shit. This is the best television ever.
Its sort of inhumane watching him go like this. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Sometimes it feels like he's completely broken down. Sometimes it feels like he really hates Trump and his associates right now and wants to stick the boot into them on live TV knowing he'll be watching every second. And the majority of the time it feels like he holds some belief that if Hillary Clinton could get away with her EMAILS, he can too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
