- NEW!
by LittleMissSunshine on July 8th, 2008
Do I need a certification in public accounting to be a tax attorney?
by Answerbag Staff on May 15th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What education&training is required to become a lawyer?
by Answerbag Staff on April 30th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What states do not require a law degree to take the bar exam?
by Answerbag Staff on May 12th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What does a wrinkled District Attorney look like?
by Tondoteottotote on January 16th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
It's unprofessional for a judge to become emotional but judges are human too. Why can't we have computer judges to eliminate the risk?
by Marky Mark on December 15th, 2011
| 5 people like this
You're reading Why do people hate lawyers so much?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Law schools have a monopoly on granting who may be eligible to represent others in a court of law. Perhaps if non-grads may take the bar exam and practice law afterwards, then lawyers would be cheaper. They might even be more humble.
The schools are failing miserably in filtering out people who are unconcerned with equality, fairness and upholding a legal system which SERVES the people.
They often mill out students who believe it is their right to live in a house that they did not build, drive an expensive car they did not weld, not break a sweat at "work" and drop more money at one restaurant meal than a working person would spend on food in a week. And why? For parroting legal precedent and procedures which have little or nothing to do with equity or other democratic ideas?
Once a new lawyer is saddled with $100K+ of student loan debt and all the greed that led him or her to the profession, they may convince themselves that they have little choice than to overcharge.
by failed_stoic on September 29th, 2008
You seem to not understand supply and demand. America has an overabundance of lawyers. Many lawyers work for cheap. Yet despite this, there is still a demand for higher priced lawyers.
***
And if all lawyers do is "parrot legal precedent and procedure," then why bother hiring one? It sounds like you think there is no value to this?
by Anonymous on December 4th, 2008
Real world economics does not boil down to supply and demand curves. Wouldn't it be nice if everything could be measured in goods that represent wish (or demand) and wish fulfillment. There are lots of unfair power structures that have a huge impact on the economy.
...
Why bother hiring one? Because maybe they could get the judge, who is also a lawyer, to make money for you or save money for you.
by failed_stoic on January 23rd, 2009
Sure it does. I can prove it. Advertise your house for sale for $100k more than it is worth and see how many offers you get. Now advertise it for $1, and see how many offers you get. The sole reason for the more offers is because at a lower price, there will be higher demand for your property.
***
And now let me point out your contradiction. You state: "Because maybe they could get the judge, who is also a lawyer, to make money for you or save money for you." So you now admit that the lawyer has value (i.e. the capability of doing something that you are not capable pf doing on your own).
by Anonymous on January 23rd, 2009
It takes allot more work to build a house then to get someone to overpay you to circulate documents because they are scared about something.
by failed_stoic on January 23rd, 2009
We are not talking about building a house. We are talking about selling a house that is already built. FYI: The fact that you have to keep changing the subject should be your first clue that your view has no merit.
by Anonymous on January 23rd, 2009
If a lawyer threatens to take away property, freedom, excuse someone from contract performance, or split up a family, then another lawyer also gets a job to represent the other side. Should demolition crews destroy houses to increase the demand for carpenter labor? This is how lawyers get away with doing nothing but circulating papers and parroting things that other lawyers said. Do we need more houses or documents with legalese?
...
Good scientists try to make difficult concepts easy to understand. "Good" lawyers try to make easy concepts difficult to understand.
by failed_stoic on January 26th, 2009
In addition, that fact that you have to keep contradicting yourself should he another sign that your view lacks merit. You write: "then another lawyer also gets a job to represent the other side." But wait, lawyers are not needed in your world view. According to you, anyone can do legal research and write briefs.
***
And FYI, lawyers are a service provider. They do not randomly demand to take property away. Rather, they simply apply the law to their clients case. It is the litigious public that decides to fight. For example, if you fail to pay your mortgage, you have agreed to allow the bank to foreclose on the property. So if the bank decided to foreclose after non-payment, why would you hire a lawyer? It is only because you would now want to renig on your contract that lawyers would even get involved.
by Anonymous on January 26th, 2009
The other lawyer gets a job on the other side because the client is scared, not because the client needs the lawyer. People do not do their best of thinking when they are mugged, or when things they have worked on for years might be taken. Lawyers thrive off of fear.
...
I guess I am mad because two lawyers (one in particular) really screwed me over big time. Believe it or not I liked most of the lawyers I met. I could see how circulating papers in exchange for primary social goods (and then some) is a much better route to go down then decades of back-breaking labor for much less compensation. Moreover, laborers suffer from alienation that is inherent in the production process. Whereas, lawyers regulate themselves, albeit not very closely.
by failed_stoic on January 26th, 2009
There you go contradicting yourself again. How could you have been screwed over by a lawyer if you insist on representing yourself? And what does being scared have to do with anything? Are you saying that people get so scared when the are sued, they simply cannot think straight to represent themselves? If so, then that alone proves there is value in hiring a lawyer.
***
Out of curiosity, are you ever going to make a comment that actually supports your view?
by Anonymous on January 26th, 2009
How did I contradict myself? It is not possible to be an advocate for one's personal tort case, and be a victim of a lawyer's scam in a totally unrelated matter?
...
I was able to represent myself because I was not scared. I was doing the research for the same reason why all lawyers do it -- easy money. It was not like I would have ended up being electrocuted if I lost the tort case.
by failed_stoic on January 26th, 2009
I can do things like win stupid court cases, but I could never do something useful like build a house, sewage system, car, grow food ...
by failed_stoic on January 26th, 2009
It is not possible to be the victim of an attorneys "scam" if you don't hire the attorney in the first place. So why did you hire an attorney if you can simply do the work yourself? Moreover, how were you possible scammed if you did your own research beforehand?
***
Remember, your premise is that lawyers have no value because they do what anyone can do. Yet you keep on providing examples of how lawyers are valuable to clients. And FYI: part of the role of an attorney in trial is to persuade a trier of fact. Considering you cannot make an argument without contradicting it, you would probably be best to hire a professional.
by Anonymous on January 26th, 2009
I don't know how I would do in front of triers of fact. The few times I was desperate enough for money to do lawyer work and expect to be paid for it, I persuaded the defendant companies to settle.
...
It was a scam of a lawyer who was not acting in the capacity as a lawyer when the person committed the scam. I did not hire him, but unfortunately this person was part of a project on which I was working. That is really all I am going to say about it.
by failed_stoic on January 26th, 2009
As a person who works in the legal field I am highly insulted by Anon's comments. Most lawyers, believe or not, are relatively decent people. I think a lot of people get jealous of the fact they tend to make good money. Whatever.
by LittleMissSunshine on January 27th, 2009
Well, a lawyer would have researched the situation and avoided being scammed. You can only be scammed if you don't know the law. And LittleMissSunshine, how are you insulted by my comments? I am an attorney and I have made no comments that state or imply lawyers are not decent people. In fact, I have defended against those false claims made by failed)stoic.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2009
Anonymous, please reread the writing, "It was a scam of a lawyer who was not acting in the (gender neutral term, but the genitive case (possession) is lost) capacity as a lawyer..." You could study the U.C.C. and restatement of contracts for the next ten years without finding anything apropos to the conflict that I had with the attorney. Stealing surplus labor is legal. As for stealing ideas, I guess you could file for a patent with every incremental bit of "distinct" progress made towards a trinket, but not all of us want to reach that level of dependence on the USPTO.
...
I am not jealous of lawyers. That would be hypocritical for me personally because I've occasionally fed from the same troughs that lawyers do. Lawyer work is easy money when juxtaposed with supporting one's self through book royalties or calibrating engineering devices to recreate a recent technological advance on a shoestring budget. Manual labor strains the body; service sector employment weakens dignity.
by failed_stoic on January 27th, 2009
Glad you feel that way. Again, we all have the right to our opinion, even when that opinion is just wrong. But all is said that needs to be said when you state that you you know the law yet you were still scammed, which is simply not possible if you actually knew the law.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2009
If someone pick pocketed me, my understanding that that activity is unethical and illegal would not really help me. Whether you know this or not, the law can not repair all social ills that have plagued civilization since its inception. Any lawyer that tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying. I posit that to be a successful lawyer you can be ethical or you can be logical, but you can't be both.
by failed_stoic on January 27th, 2009
True, but you were scammed, not pick pocketed. A scam requires deception, which lawyers avoid by doing some research.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2009
You should blame people who are shot in the streets for not carrying a weapon while you are at it. You should blame victims of house burglaries for: not having bars on their windows or having windows at all. Let's also blame people who were in a plane when it was hijacked for trusting all the other passengers of that particular flight. Murders, home invasions, and hijackings require deception too. I am sure these victims would have taken preventative measures if they knew what was going to happen to them. Sadly for them, they assumed that all other people hold the same standards of conduct that they hold themselves to. Fortunately for me, the lawyer who scammed me did not do something that heinous, either out of conscience (not as likely) or fear of being caught (more likely).
...
I guess that is why I don't support the lawyer union -- they claim that truth and logic is on their side, but it simply isn't.
by failed_stoic on January 28th, 2009
Blaming these people would make no sense. These people were victims of crimes accomplished by force or fear. A scam is accomplished by taking advantage of your ignorance. You can try to rationalize it any way you want, but you were deceived by your ignorance.
***
What lawyers union? Lawyers generally do not have unions.
by Anonymous on January 28th, 2009
What I have in common with them is that we both hold ourselves to a level of civility that leads us vulnerable to less scrupulous people. You should not generally blame victims for giving society at-large the benefit of the doubt.
...
Lawyers do not have an officially recognized union, but it seems like they will support the stupidest conclusions merely because they were uttered by other lawyers. State bar associations have many things in common with unions.
by failed_stoic on January 28th, 2009
I don't. You cannot blame a victim who was robbed, mugged, burglarized, or otherwise harmed through illegal use of force or fear. But you can certainly blame someone who is scammed trough their own ignorance.
by Anonymous on January 28th, 2009
You are ignorant. You don't know the facts of my situation. Did it ever occur to you that some people might not chase after a remedy for every wrong in their life even if they were not at fault. Sometimes the best approach is to cut one's losses and move on.
--
In a different instance of this, I had a bike stolen from me that was valued at about $400.00. I knew the person who stole the bike. I could have filed a criminal complaint and demanded to go to small claims court. I was entitled to seek redress regarding this matter. However, I simply stopped associating with the person and purchased another bike.
by failed_stoic on August 10th, 2009
Huh? What did this have to do with the conversation at hand?
by Anonymous on August 11th, 2009
that sometimes people drop matters even if they could pursue a remedy
by failed_stoic on August 12th, 2009
Yes, that is what you said. Again, what does that have to do with this conversation?
by Anonymous on August 13th, 2009
I forgot, you are a lawyer. It might be too dificult for you to understand.
by failed_stoic on August 14th, 2009
Yes, it is too difficult for me to understand. Of course, that is because I only understand logical and coherent statements. The fact that you cannot make a statement on topic is a reflection of your ineptitude, not my ability to understand.
by Anonymous on August 16th, 2009
Well... I USED to not hate lawyers. Until I was verbally abused something ridiculous by the one I work(ed) for. She was charging clients $250 an hour for the services I provided as a paralegal. This was not anything unusual. I wrote memos and briefs, conducted interviews, etc. She paid me $15 an hour and pocketed the rest. The only reason she could even pull this horse crap is because I live in Southeastern Michigan, where the economy is awful. One day last week she sat me down in her office. I was expecting a compliment as I had been working really hard. I was helping refer clients to her, helping make her advertising dollars stretch further, helping scan files so we could transfer the old ones out to storage and not charge $500 each time some poor sap wanted their documents. She didn't care. She fired me and replaced me with her daughter, who is starting law school. Cute huh?
by LittleMissSunshine on August 27th, 2009
It sounds like you should hate employers, not lawyers. This scenario happens in every business.
by Anonymous on August 27th, 2009
Funny. It's never happened to me when I wasn't working in law. The legal field attracts all the effed up a-holes of the world. It's pretty much common knowledge. Like all of the nerds who got wedgies on a regular basis in junior high uniting as one. It's cool though. Luckily I have my looks to fall back on. :)
by LittleMissSunshine on August 27th, 2009
So you really think that if you working for a dry cleaner as opposed to a lawyer, and your bosses daughter needed a job, your boss would have kept you over her daughter?
by Anonymous on August 28th, 2009