OT Two things

"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