OT Two things

Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him.

Another good example is a tax accountant. When I hire one, he is competing
against me (for what I would have gotten as a refund without him) and
against the Gobmint. I figure that if I might get a $500 refund without him,
and a $1500 refund with him, its worth it, even if I have to pay him $600 to
do it for me. Same with the lawyer: If I'd get nothing without him and get
$100,000 with him, but pay him half, its still worth it.

--riverman

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

Perceptive argument. The only serious flaw is the implication that the
system is need of reform because it favors the rich. Nice idea, but it
wouldn't work, you know. The problem really isn't that the legal system
favors the rich.......it's that being RICH favors the rich.......because
they're rich. There are variations on a theme, of course, but in essence
there is only one solution to the problem and it is temporary at best,
highly fallible and (as history has demonstrated) always very messy.


I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Probably more complicated than that......humor always is.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:


anyway...off to work for a while, then heading east to see if i can have
a talk with a few puppy drum...


Well then, by the time you read this you will doubtless have earned
congratulations on a day well spent.......or condolences......for something
or other. In either case, I offer mine.

Wolfgang
who planted raspberries today!

the puppy drum weren't talkin...

rasberries? hmmm...seems appropriate. g

jeff

i don't think the context of my statement to jon was such a comparison.
as i recall, he was talking/complaining about the inability of a lay
person to handle court or legal matters.

jeff



Willi wrote:




I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well.

Jeff Miller wrote in news:eq%fc.25518$XP2.23164
@lakeread06:

actually, the trend since the 70s has been away from "legalese" in
contracts, legal writing, and court matters - thanks mainly to sensible
folks who also happened to be lawyers and law profs. still, there are


Apparently lawyers can't afford keyboards with an upper case!!

Scott

"Ken Fortenberry"
The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?


Difficult to answer. Since the divorce took place subsequent to the death
(indeed I would have argued in a separate suit that the divorce was caused
by the death) the father is still considered to be a part of the immediate
family.

Had the divorce occurred prior to the death, the father would have been
typically, SOL.


been there, got that t-shirt

john

Willi wrote in message ...
Jeff Miller wrote:


I don't think that comparing lawyers with most other professionals works
very well. When people get involved in the legal system and have
to employ a lawyer, they are involved in a "competition." One side will
win and the other will lose. There are often compromises made but these
compromises are arrived at in an adversarial situation. The stakes
involved in these "competitions" are usually very high.

I don't know of any other situations where an average person hires
someone to "compete" for him. When you hire most other professionals,
finding someone who is competent is going to give you the results you
desire. However, if the lawyer you employ is merely competent and the
other side has an outstanding lawyer, you are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is one weakness of our judicial system, justice is too dependent on
the quality of the lawyer. Because of this, our system favors those with
money and puts poor people at a serious disadvantage. It is also VERY
difficult for the average person to evaluate the competency of a lawyer
because it is unusual for the average person to get into a situation
where a lawyer is needed and they have no experience in this area.

I think the main reason that lawyers are the butt of so many jokes is
because our justice system is money driven and adversarial in nature.

Willi


My $1,200 an hour lawyer will beat your $200 an hour lawyer every
time.
Justice may look like shes holding a sword in her right hand but it's
really stuck in the ground and every once in a while that hand goes
behing her back, palm up. It's important to distinguish between the
justice system and the legal system. One is struggling the other is
running rampant fueled by greed.
Civilizations can get by without doctors, engineers, accountants etc.
but they won't last long or arrise to greatness without justice.
Want to **** off a lawyer? Next time your called to jury duty insist
on your right to question witnesses.

BJ Conner My $1,200 an hour lawyer will beat your $200 an hour lawyer every
time.

utter bull****. far more times than not, in criminal cases, trial
judges will side with a prosecutor who is making far less than his
experienced, talented opponent, even when the judge knows that the court of
appeal will overrule his decision, for the simple reason that they tend to
be prejudiced against the accused. that is just one of many injustices that
occur in our system of justice because of the refusal of trial judges to do
their duty.


Want to **** off a lawyer? Next time your called to jury duty insist
on your right to question witnesses.

in addition to ****ing off lawyers, such conduct, if pressed to the
extreme, will get you a contempt of court citation; and, in your case,
sufficient evidence of the content of your posts to this newsgroup being
presented to the court, you will likely be immediately committed to the
local nuthouse.

wayno

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
m...
Jeff Miller wrote in message
news:eq%fc.25518$XP2.23164@lakeread06...

That's like saying I can voluntarily refuse to pay over $1.25 for
a gallon of gas. If I need gas and every station is selling for
$1.69, I pay $1.69.


Screw this legal mumble jumble, Miller and Harrison have too thin a skin
about this but BJ sure serves up more gopher balls than the St. Louis
pitching staff but it ain't worth the agravation........ but I'm am very
interested in where you're getting gas @ 1.69/gal.....1.97 in Indy yesterday