Can lawyers be happy?

[Malthus]

[Yeah, it is pretty shitty, but how can you "prove" they are acting in bad faith? The legal process takes time, they have the right to ask for depositions, things get delayed, etc., etc.

Way it works here is that the judge hears arguments as to costs and says something like 'in my discretion as to costs, I find that the acts of the Insurer in delaying this case were egregious enough to warrant an award of costs against them on the indemnity scale'. Or in a truly egregious case "I award punitive or aggrivated damages".

This works because judges have seen hundreds of trials and know the difference beyween legitimate requests and bullshit delay tactics, and generally have little sympathy for the latter (which wastes their time, as well as the plaintiffs').

[crazy canuck]

Arguably it's in the lawyers' best interests to carry on as they'll get more work

A lawyer that carried on litigation not in their clients best interest wouldn't have many clients

[Neil]

The starting point of the adversarial legal system is that everyone deserves needs representation. 

And that's the problem right there.

[Berkut]

That only works though if the court or someone can really prove it is happening, which is nearly impossible in any practical sense.  At least that is what she was told by her lawyers.

I am not sure why  that would be.  Bad faith conduct is pretty easy for a Judge to figure out on the facts you set out. 

But this is clearly in the long and short term interests of their clients, so as an example that disproves the claim that one acting in the long term interests of your clients is "always legal and ethical" it works rather nicely.

Not at all.  If your characterization is accurate the defendant could be exposing itself to punative damages which in the US can be quite large. 

Except that apparently they are not, since in fact they are doing this and it is considered pretty normal practice.

Something not in either their short term or long term interest.  Because the manner in which litigators conduct themselves will always be open to scrutiny in open court we have an added incentive to act ethically to protect the interests of our clients.

Gee, that sure sounds swell. I am sure that is exactly how it works in practice.

Friend of mine when I was in high school, and his father was paralyzed permanently from the neck down in a swimming accident at a pool during a private party hosted by his mothers nursing company.
I don't think it was at all ethical to try to pin damages on them

I disagree, and so does a lot of case law.  This gets back to BB's statement that anything you think is right is ethical and anything you think is wrong is unethical.
[/quote]

You disagree because you define "ethical" as "that which I can get away with". Which is exactly my point. It is your "useful fiction".

[Sheilbh]

I don't claim there is one - I am just saying that the idea that acting in your clients best interests is always legal and ethical is a fiction (and vice versa) is a fiction.

I think that's true, but I also think it's kind of tautological. Anyone acting in their best interests wouldn't necessarily act legally or ethically - that's why there are laws and why lawyering is a regulated profession. And acting in a client's best interests is part of that regulation and ethical underpinning, so the lawyer doesn't think of their own interests first and if there's a conflict between their interests and their client's that they drop out.

[Berkut]

[Yeah, it is pretty shitty, but how can you "prove" they are acting in bad faith? The legal process takes time, they have the right to ask for depositions, things get delayed, etc., etc.

Way it works here is that the judge hears arguments as to costs and says something like 'in my discretion as to costs, I find that the acts of the Insurer in delaying this case were egregious enough to warrant an award of costs against them on the indemnity scale'. Or in a truly egregious case "I award punitive or aggrivated damages".

This works because judges have seen hundreds of trials and know the difference beyween legitimate requests and bullshit delay tactics, and generally have little sympathy for the latter (which wastes their time, as well as the plaintiffs').

Again, this is 100% reliant on there being a system in place to handle that problem, hence it is not fundamental in the manner claimed.

I am basically saying that there are plenty of loopholes in the laws and procedures that lawyers can and will use to further the best interests if their clients in a manner that is not ethical.

Your response is that those loopholes can and should be closed. Well, yeah - that goes without saying. Hell, trying to close "loopholes" is pretty much what the entire legislative and legal system does non-stop.

But the loopholes end up with loopholes, and the lawyers continue to make money figuring out how to further their clients interests, in many, many cases in a manner that is not very ethical, and yet is still perfectly legal.

Back to my basic point -

CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That is not always true. Sometimes a clients long term interests are best served by acting in an unethical manner. If in fact the system is not sufficiently robust enough to punish that unethical behavior, then you will see it happening. Or if the system recognizes that in many cases allowing unethical behavior in a particular case is better than the damage done to the system as a whole if said behavior was not allowed, then it will happen as well.

[Barrister]

Arguably it's in the lawyers' best interests to carry on as they'll get more work

A lawyer that carried on litigation not in their clients best interest wouldn't have many clients

A certain lawyer in this town (who will absolutely not be named by me) is well known for running lengthy pre-trial applications - up until his clients run out of money, at which time they drop him and get a cheaper lawyer.

But this isn't so much an example of a lawyer acting unethically, as for the lawyer and client having mis-matched priorities.

[Berkut]

I don't claim there is one - I am just saying that the idea that acting in your clients best interests is always legal and ethical is a fiction (and vice versa) is a fiction.

I think that's true, but I also think it's kind of tautological. Anyone acting in their best interests wouldn't necessarily act legally or ethically - that's why there are laws and why lawyering is a regulated profession. And acting in a client's best interests is part of that regulation and ethical underpinning, so the lawyer doesn't think of their own interests first and if there's a conflict between their interests and their client's that they drop out.

No argument from me - remember that my entire point is simply to point out that Beebs claim was a fiction. I am not trying to argue that the system should be fundamentally changed - I accept that in particular cases it will happen that lawyers will do things that are not very ethical in the furtherance of their clients interests, and in fact I agree with the OP that for some lawyers, that could be an issue that effects their emotional contentment with their profession.

[crazy canuck]

The starting point of the adversarial legal system is that everyone deserves needs representation. 

And that's the problem right there.

Yeah, the inquisitional model of justice is soooo much better.

[Neil]

Arguably it's in the lawyers' best interests to carry on as they'll get more work

A lawyer that carried on litigation not in their clients best interest wouldn't have many clients

A certain lawyer in this town (who will absolutely not be named by me) is well known for running lengthy pre-trial applications - up until his clients run out of money, at which time they drop him and get a cheaper lawyer.

But this isn't so much an example of a lawyer acting unethically, as for the lawyer and client having mis-matched priorities.

[Neil]

The starting point of the adversarial legal system is that everyone deserves needs representation. 

And that's the problem right there.

Yeah, the inquisitional model of justice is soooo much better.

That would appear to be the case.

[Capetan Mihali]

Yeah, the inquisitional model of justice is soooo much better.

That would appear to be the case.

I'm on the fence, honestly.  It's taken as an article of faith over here that the adversarial process is great, but I'm not sure that regular people in continental "inquisitorial" systems have worse access to justice than Anglo-adversarials do. 

[Savonarola]

So lawyers can't be happy or ethical, suicide is not painless and Malthus wishes he was a member of the idle rich.  Is that what we've decided on? 

[alfred russel]

I used to do quite a bit of work for an insurance services company (they adjusted claims), and obviously they got sued all the time. Their general counsel explained their policy to me--they would work with the client to resolve disputes to prevent litigation, but once a case was filed, they would aggressively defend themselves. This was especially the case if the plaintiff's attorney was new to suing them. The point was to make clear that they were not an easy mark to the plaintiff's bar and deter future lawsuits. I would guess that could look like what Berkut is describing in practice.

[Capetan Mihali]

suicide is not painless

While I don't dispute that, it may be both happy and ethical, as well as popular among the idle rich.  And, well, it "brings on many changes."  Can you tell the lyrics were written by a 14 year old?

EDIT:  From Wikipedia: "The song was written specifically for Ken Prymus (the actor playing Private Seidman), who sang it during the faux suicide of Walter Waldowski (John Schuck) in the film's "Last Supper" scene.[1][2] Robert Altman had two stipulations about the song for Mandel; first, it had to be called "Suicide Is Painless", secondly, it had to be the "stupidest song ever written".[3] Altman tried to write the lyrics himself, but found that it was too difficult for his 45-year-old brain to write "stupid enough".[4] Instead he gave the task to his 14-year-old-son, Michael, who apparently wrote the lyrics in five minutes.[5][6]"

  Altman's done some pretty stupid things (some of which I like quite a bit -- like Short Cuts) but nothing quite that sublimely stupid.