I saw this title and couldn't help but thinking of Ide:
QuoteCan Lawyers Be Happy?
On Monday, CNN published a piece about lawyer suicides. It illustrates several tragic stories about lawyers and cites harrowing statistics that show that lawyers suffer from high levels of depression, and far too often take their own lives. Among professionals, lawyers rank 4th in suicides, behind dentists, pharmacists and doctors. I saw that story yesterday, and was thinking about it all day. Every lawyer knows many colleagues who are dissatisfied with their careers. Most of us know one, if not several, who have taken their lives. The CNN article got me thinking about the title question "Why are so many lawyers killing themselves?."
Some of the dissatisfaction that I see lawyers have in the practice of law, is, I believe, a product of the old ways of thinking, taught by law schools and reinforced by lawyers who have been there, done that. Some of these voices tell you that you have to choose between your own happiness and that of your clients. The implication is that you have to martyr yourself in order to be an honorable lawyer
As lawyers, the clients that we accept must come first. We must protect their legal and financial interests. But we must find a way to do so without compromising ourselves and our values, and without devaluing ourselves and becoming martyrs. When we don't, our lives in and out of the law are unbalanced.
It's not easy, achieving balance.
Law is often about advocating for imbalances. When you win, somebody else usually loses. And winning is often a zero-sum game in a world with shades of grey, and with human dynamics that go far deeper than the admissible evidence. I believe that ignoring this causes wear and tear on some lawyers. Maybe all lawyers. Is this imbalance an occupational hazard?
A true victory which, by the books, looks pure and righteous, is rarely what it appears to be. Money changes hands. People go free. People are executed. All this occurs at the end of a game played with people's lives by rules created by people who, to paraphrase Steve Jobs, "are no smarter than you or me." Their reasoning may have been flawed, thinking unclear, or motives and influences impure. And yet that reasoning can, and does, decide the fates of real human beings.
As law students we were told that if we play by those rules we are "doing justice." The truth is that what we were told was wrong. Judgment is not justice. Deference to the rules of the justice system is often at odds with justice, and discernment and honor sometimes play no part in the outcome. Deference to the "system" is often at odds with basic human happiness.
The contradictions of being a lawyer are enough to alter the life-course, and mental, emotional and spiritual makeup of those who enter the profession. I'd love to hear from lawyers reading this post who believe that the law has not changed them in some profound and fundamental way.
Some academics have argued that the business of law, and the practice of law, are fundamentally inconsistent, and that one must suffer in proportion to the other's success. While this may be true for lawyers who lack the right business tools, it's not a foregone conclusion. It's just one obvious case to talk about, and one of which most lawyers are aware. It's fodder for older and established lawyers with something to protect. And it's a big lie. Part of feeling accomplished and appreciated in the law, at least in private practice, is making a good living. It's cake that you can have and also eat.
Despite law schools' failures in preparing lawyers for the business aspects of private practice, there are great ways to effectively and efficiently build a law firm that is financially rewarding and puts the clients' best interests first. The business conundrum is easily solved for lawyers who have the desire to solve it. It is possible to have a financially rewarding practice and always put the client's best interests first. I know many good attorneys who are serving their clients very well and making great livings doing it. But even when this part of the puzzle is solved, it may still not be enough. Being a great lawyer does not make you a great business person. And being good at business without being a good lawyer is a danger to the legal profession and society as a whole. You have to want to work at both to be good at both. But they are not mutually exclusive.
Some lawyers have an ability to separate themselves from the inherent insanity of the justice system. To essentially not bring their work home with them. For those who can't help but bring work home, other symptoms may appear. Anxiety. Depression. Family problems. Addiction. Self-loathing. A sense of constant fight or flight. We all react to stress differently. Some lawyers may lose their moral or business compass. Some become bullies. Or any number of other things they wouldn't have listed on in their top 100 "what I want to be when I grow up" list.
Often times, the judgment that we lawyers foist upon each other is simply a product of endurance. Each lawyer has a limited amount of endurance to spend. Some have more than others. Those with less efficient practices, and coping mechanisms, naturally burn through their endurance faster.
Whether we, as lawyers take overt action that results in our own untimely deaths, or live a life of stress that is inconsistent with who we are at our cores, I suspect that the numbers of (slow) lawyer suicides are far higher than the statistics bear out. This is not to minimize the tragedy that is any, and every, loss of physical human life, but rather to point out that many lawyers, although still breathing, are not really living. It can really mess with your mind to apply a "but-for" analysis to the things that can kill lawyers slowly (through stress, chemical addiction, or that cause lawyers to remain alive biologically while no longer truly living or enjoying their lives.
"But for the constant conflict during my days as a lawyer, might I have done ________?"
"But for the years of nasty phone conversations over meaningless insurance settlements, might I have avoided that _______ problem."
As the "Before The Law" parable, written by Kafka and read in the video below by Orson Wells says:
"This door was intended only for you. And now, I am going to close it."
The worst thing we, as lawyers, can do is give our power and our voices away. Who has taken your voice? Was it that old law prof? Was it a senior partner when you were a 2nd year associate? A judge? A mentor?
What's keeping you, as a lawyer, from either living the life you truly want and deserve within the law, or from moving on to something else that you'll love? What's keeping you from being happy?
This sounds like a great deal of poorly-written nonsense to me; but I'm interested in what the Languideshian lawyers have to say. Are you happy? Has the contradiction of being a lawyer altered your life-course, and your mental, emotional and spiritual makeup? Do you believe that the law has not changed you in some profound and fundamental way?
:hmm:
I'd say Malthus at least is good at pretending to be.
tldr. Why would we care if lawyers are happy?
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 12, 2014, 11:43:20 AM
tldr. Why would we care if lawyers are happy?
Exactly, most people like to think lawyers are unhappy so every once in a while we like to put out these sorts of pieces to reinforce the view.
I am afraid I may have already said too much.
CC otoh clearly suffers from ennui.
The article sounds like pretentious twaddle.
Truth is, lawyering is like any other profession: at the top end, long hours and lots of stress. Most people are made unhappy by working a lot and being under stress. The upside is that the work (again, at the top end) is often intellectually interesting, and the pay is good - both things that generally make people happy, overall.
I can certainly bitch and complain with the best of them. The worst part is the difficulty in getting away from it - the endlessness.
Why are dentists committing suicide?
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
Catastrophic hallitosis :(
The very beginning is correct - rates of suicide, depression, and substance abuse for lawyers is dramatically higher than the wider society. Loads of lawyers aren't "happy".
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
In my opinion, the problem with the profession is far less prosaic. It's greed and the focus on money, causing lawyers to work really excessive amounts of hours, have no life balance, and eventually burn out. Even those lawyers who try to establish a reasonable work load are looked down upon by their peers and may be forced out of law firms because they're not "profitable" enough.
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I've read it's because they feel the stress of causing a lot of pain.
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I suspect it isn't so much that these medical types are more suicidal, so much as that if a medcal type wanted to commit suicide, they know how to do it and have the stuff to do it with easily and painlessly.
If a dentist wanted to off himself, all s/he'd need to do is put on a nitrous oxide mask without the oxygen mix.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
The very beginning is correct - rates of suicide, depression, and substance abuse for lawyers is dramatically higher than the wider society. Loads of lawyers aren't "happy".
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
In my opinion, the problem with the profession is far less prosaic. It's greed and the focus on money, causing lawyers to work really excessive amounts of hours, have no life balance, and eventually burn out. Even those lawyers who try to establish a reasonable work load are looked down upon by their peers and may be forced out of law firms because they're not "profitable" enough.
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
I certainly don't think money is a be-all and end-all of happiness, but I think it flies in the face of reason to assert that having more isn't something that generally makes people happy, all else being equal. It is just that the extra effort required to earn that "more" may not be 'worth it' in terms of happiness (that is, the extra hours and stress are not fully compensated by simply havng more money).
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 12, 2014, 11:43:20 AM
tldr. Why would we care if lawyers are happy?
This is Languish; caring is what we do. :)
(Plus I thought it might help Ide to validate some of his more questionable life decisions.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I've read it's because they feel the stress of causing a lot of pain.
A lot of dentists are people who couldnt get into medical school and so settled for denistry (many would be medical students also apply to denistry just in case they dont make it into medicine). As a result they start out with diminished job satisfaction. Add on to that the pain issue, nobody liking them (probably worse than lawyers) and the fact their day to day function can be boring as hell - oh goody another filling - and you get a pretty unsatisfactory professional experience.
Oh look, Canadians are happy.
I believe I personally would be unhappy as one. That kind of work has to take a toll on you personally. As long as we're talking criminal law. Corporate and contract stuff seems like it would be ok.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I've read it's because they feel the stress of causing a lot of pain.
A lot of dentists are people who couldnt get into medical school and so settled for denistry (many would be medical students also apply to denistry just in case they dont make it into medicine). As a result they start out with diminished job satisfaction. Add on to that the pain issue, nobody liking them (probably worse than lawyers) and the fact their day to day function can be boring as hell - oh goody another filling - and you get a pretty unsatisfactory professional experience.
Yet doctors still kill themselves at a very rate compared to the general public...
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 12:44:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I suspect it isn't so much that these medical types are more suicidal, so much as that if a medcal type wanted to commit suicide, they know how to do it and have the stuff to do it with easily and painlessly.
If a dentist wanted to off himself, all s/he'd need to do is put on a nitrous oxide mask without the oxygen mix.
In America we have handguns -- anybody who wants to has about a 95% chance of success in a suicide attempt.
Based on what I recall, doctors et al really are more suicidal than the general public, or professionals generally. The question of why is ripe for speculation.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 02:48:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2014, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I've read it's because they feel the stress of causing a lot of pain.
A lot of dentists are people who couldnt get into medical school and so settled for denistry (many would be medical students also apply to denistry just in case they dont make it into medicine). As a result they start out with diminished job satisfaction. Add on to that the pain issue, nobody liking them (probably worse than lawyers) and the fact their day to day function can be boring as hell - oh goody another filling - and you get a pretty unsatisfactory professional experience.
Yet doctors still kill themselves at a very rate compared to the general public...
Yeah, those are the ones that fall under Malthus' theory of ready access to the means and all the knowledge.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 02:51:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 12:44:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I suspect it isn't so much that these medical types are more suicidal, so much as that if a medcal type wanted to commit suicide, they know how to do it and have the stuff to do it with easily and painlessly.
If a dentist wanted to off himself, all s/he'd need to do is put on a nitrous oxide mask without the oxygen mix.
In America we have handguns -- anybody who wants to has about a 95% chance of success in a suicide attempt.
Based on what I recall, doctors et al really are more suicidal than the general public, or professionals generally. The question of why is ripe for speculation.
Seems to me that shooting yourself is a fairly violent and potentially painful act. Doctors dont need to take that route.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 02:51:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 12:44:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2014, 12:30:35 PM
Why are dentists committing suicide?
I suspect it isn't so much that these medical types are more suicidal, so much as that if a medcal type wanted to commit suicide, they know how to do it and have the stuff to do it with easily and painlessly.
If a dentist wanted to off himself, all s/he'd need to do is put on a nitrous oxide mask without the oxygen mix.
In America we have handguns -- anybody who wants to has about a 95% chance of success in a suicide attempt.
Based on what I recall, doctors et al really are more suicidal than the general public, or professionals generally. The question of why is ripe for speculation.
Handguns are messy and gross. Many people are squeamish about using them on themselves. Plus, there is the horror of attempting it and screwing it up, which appears to happen surprisingly often.
Doctors also have higher rates of depression, (possibly) higher rates of substance abuse, and higher divorce rates. Perhaps these are not totally unrelated to the suicide question?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410643_2
I don't get why, under CC's theory, dentists kill themselves because they're widely-despised failures (yet highly-paid professionals) but doctors do it just cause they know where the meds are kept. Why don't nurses have such high suicide rates? They administer dangerous drugs more directly than any doctor except an anesthesiologist.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 02:54:58 PMPlus, there is the horror of attempting it and screwing it up, which appears to happen surprisingly often.
It really doesn't, as long as no one is immediately available to render assistance. The fatality rate is over 95%, far and away the most effective. Anyone doing it in a controlled, moderately-informed manner probably has a higher chance still. Which is the main reason (in the US) men kill themselves in much greater numbers than women, even though women make more suicide attempts.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 02:58:31 PM
Doctors also have higher rates of depression, (possibly) higher rates of substance abuse, and higher divorce rates. Perhaps these are not totally unrelated to the suicide question?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410643_2
I don't get why, under CC's theory, dentists kill themselves because they're widely-despised failures (yet highly-paid professionals) but doctors do it just cause they know where the meds are kept. Why don't nurses have such high suicide rates? They administer dangerous drugs more directly than any doctor except an anesthesiologist.
Nurses cant prescribe so they cant get the drugs for themselves. Also nurses are still mainly female and females are less stupid than males.
And yet, people still fail quite a lot of the time to successfully suicide (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html).
Quote
Attempted Suicides
There are approximately 750,000 suicide attempts each year.
An estimated 5 million living Americans have attempted suicide.
More females attempt suicide than males.
(3 female attempts for each male attempt.)
It seems women especially can't do it right.
Quote
Actual Suicides
1.3% of all deaths are from suicide.
On average, one suicide occurs every 17 minutes.
On average, an elderly person dies by suicide every 1 hour and 37 minutes.
On average, a young person (age 15-24) dies by suicide every 2 hours and 12 minutes.
Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death for all Americans.
Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15-24 year olds.
(1st = accidents, 2nd = homicide)
Suicide is the fifth leading cause of death for young people aged 5-14 year olds.
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students.
Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for males.
Suicide is the nineteenth leading cause of death for females.
More males die from suicide than females.
(4 male deaths by suicide for each female death by suicide.)
More people die from suicide than from homicide.
(Suicide ranks as the 11th leading cause of death; Homicide ranks 13th.)
73% of all suicide deaths are white males.
80% of all firearm suicide deaths are white males.
Among the highest rates (when categorized by gender and race) are suicide deaths for white men over 85. (54 per 100,000)
And old dudes are using it as a retirement plan I guess.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2014, 03:01:03 PMNurses cant prescribe so they cant get the drugs for themselves.
Seriously? Nurses manage to develop drug addictions in their professional capacity without the ability to prescribe. Why can't they use the same methods, e.g. shorting a patient's dosage or illicitly taking medicine from the cabinet, to stockpile a fatal dose?
Doctors don't generally write for themselves anyways. I'd be really shocked if more than a trivial amount of doctor suicides were via their own prescriptions. "Here, fill this prescription for me: 100 Nembutal, take as needed for..."
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 03:00:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 02:54:58 PMPlus, there is the horror of attempting it and screwing it up, which appears to happen surprisingly often.
It really doesn't, as long as no one is immediately available to render assistance. The fatality rate is over 95%, far and away the most effective. Anyone doing it in a controlled, moderately-informed manner probably has a higher chance still. Which is the main reason (in the US) men kill themselves in much greater numbers than women, even though women make more suicide attempts.
Apparenly, not so.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/firearms/reliability
QuoteAs mentioned in the section Most lethal methods of suicide, studies have shown firearms to be between 73% and 92% effective to achieve a lethal outcome in suicide.
The dangers if you do fail are severe.
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/firearms/dangers-failing
QuoteIf using a firearm to the head, the most common danger is missing the important parts of the brain. Aiming under the chin with a shotgun can blow off parts of the face causing massive disfiguration, plus a hole through the windpipe, and still not be fatal. Shots to the front of the head may impair brain function (possibly causing paralysis) or affect personality, but still leave the parts of the brain that control bodily functions intact. Shooting through the temples can miss the brain by passing below it, but still sever nerves that go to the eyes, causing blindness. Stone1 goes into greater detail of the dangers of unsuccessful attempts. The prognosis for those failing using this method are rarely good.
For those aiming at other parts of the body, McKinley, Johns and Musgrove2 studied spinal cord injuries from gun shot wounds and other injuries caused by gunshots to the neck, chest, abdomen and back. Oparah and Mandal3 studied gunshot wounds of the chest.
Common outcomes include pain, infection, damage to the colon or intestines (possibly requiring removal and a colostomy bag), damage to diaphragm, liver, spleen, pneumothorax (results in a collapsed lung causing chest pain and breathing difficulties), haemothorax (blood accumulating in the pleural cavity) from internal bleeding of organs in the chest, spinal cord injuries (possibly resulting in para or quadriplegia) and other and non-spinal fractures.
However it is viewed, failing using this method is likely to cause very unpleasant injury.
Looked up some stats and it seems Doctors die from prescription medicines at about 2-3 times the general population. So Malthus' theory of availability seems to hold. Nurses to not have the same numbers.
Anestheseologists are the most likely to poison themselves with available drugs which makes the most sense since they would be the group with the most ready access.
I am interested though in hospital system you have where nurses have ready access to drugs without the need for a doctor's prescription. I can see doctors getting drugs without prescription since the pharma companies are always pushing free samples on them.
I think physicians are also more likely than most to commit suicide when they develop severe/chronic physical ailments.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 12, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
I think physicians are also more likely than most to commit suicide when they develop severe/chronic physical ailments.
Yeah, probably true. They would have a true appreciation for the hell they are about to endure while the rest of us can suffer on with false hope.
Lawyers can be happy. :)
They also have more pressure/stress from work than most. Doctors, that is.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
The dangers if you do fail are severe.
Same with jumping off a building, lying in front of a train, hanging, asphyxiation, or really any other serious suicide attempt. Any attempt at exsanguination is almost certainly doomed to fail, and overdoses have a really very low fatality rate (even though they can cause terrible organ damage).
There is a lot of what I'd call "pseudosucidality" out there. Swallowing a bottle of tranquilizers and calling 911 on yourself isn't really an attempted suicide as much an attempted suicide attempt. It's not just suicidal gestures or a "cry for help," sometimes people engage in suicidal behaviors because they really don't want to live, but they also don't fully commit to the idea of dying.
Which is part of the reason that guns are such a problem in this arena; they are so frequently fatal that there is most often no opportunity to reassess at a later point. The overwhelming majority of people who survive suicide attempts do not actually go on to die from suicide. I recall an interview with someone who survived a suicide jump off the Golden Gate Bridge saying something to the effect that the moment he started to fall he immediately thought "Oh Christ I've made a terrible mistake" and then struggled very hard to get to a rescue boat. I imagine a lot of people have that experience, only most (especially with firearms) don't get to revisit it.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
Yeah, I certainly buy that. It makes no difference to me if I have US$10 billion or US$100 billion.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
Yeah, I certainly buy that. It makes no difference to me if I have US$10 billion or US$100 billion.
Monster. Do you know how many African/Asian children you can save with 90 billion?
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2014, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
Yeah, I certainly buy that. It makes no difference to me if I have US$10 billion or US$100 billion.
Monster. Do you know how many African/Asian children you can save with 90 billion?
Why save them? They don't keep well, even in the freezer.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 12:48:39 PM
I certainly don't think money is a be-all and end-all of happiness, but I think it flies in the face of reason to assert that having more isn't something that generally makes people happy, all else being equal. It is just that the extra effort required to earn that "more" may not be 'worth it' in terms of happiness (that is, the extra hours and stress are not fully compensated by simply havng more money).
I don't think it does fly in the face of reason for the marginal utility of additional money to essentially peter out to zero. I think there is a lot of truth in the concept of hedonic treadmill, and then there is also the fact that happiness consists of several parts that cannot be substituted, which would by definition put an asymptotic limit on the amount happiness that can be derived from money.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 12:48:39 PM
I certainly don't think money is a be-all and end-all of happiness, but I think it flies in the face of reason to assert that having more isn't something that generally makes people happy, all else being equal. It is just that the extra effort required to earn that "more" may not be 'worth it' in terms of happiness (that is, the extra hours and stress are not fully compensated by simply havng more money).
I don't think it does fly in the face of reason for the marginal utility of additional money to essentially peter out to zero. I think there is a lot of truth in the concept of hedonic treadmill, and then there is also the fact that happiness consists of several parts that cannot be substituted, which would by definition put an asymptotic limit on the amount happiness that can be derived from money.
Perhaps; but the amounts we are talking about are the amounts a person could reasonably earn as a professional. I don't think those approach anywhere near the point where asymptotic limits become an issue ... at least, that hasn't been my experience. ;)
Wow, this turned out to be a fun upbeat thread. Damn depressed lawyers. <_<
Lawyers ruin everything.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Perhaps; but the amounts we are talking about are the amounts a person could reasonably earn as a professional. I don't think those approach anywhere near the point where asymptotic limits become an issue ... at least, that hasn't been my experience. ;)
It's hard for any given individual to judge for themselves, though, since multiple variables are all constantly changing. Your baseline expectations, your income, your age, your family situation, just to mention a few examples, typically evolve throughout your life. You can't hold all these variables except one constant as an individual, but a well-designed statistical study can.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Perhaps; but the amounts we are talking about are the amounts a person could reasonably earn as a professional. I don't think those approach anywhere near the point where asymptotic limits become an issue ... at least, that hasn't been my experience. ;)
Agreed. I'd like to have money so that I am completely independent. That means the amount of money must be high enough to withstand every tragedy imaginable happening to me at the same time. Sure, there probably is no way I can spend, say, US$500 million. But I'd love to have more than that so that there is no scenario whatsoever where I need to ask for help from anybody. That is an insanely high bar to meet.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 04:13:51 PM
Agreed. I'd like to have money so that I am completely independent. That means the amount of money must be high enough to withstand every tragedy imaginable happening to me at the same time. Sure, there probably is no way I can spend, say, US$500 million. But I'd love to have more than that so that there is no scenario whatsoever where I need to ask for help from anybody. That is an insanely high bar to meet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw)
I actually think being a dentist would be a great gig. You get to call yourself "Doctor" but you can actually work something akin to normal hours, and not everyone hates going to the dentist (I actually don't mind it at all). Also, way less pressure than being say a surgeon as it's pretty unlikely someone is going to die under your care.
The father of my best friend growing up was a dentist and he liked it so much his wife had to pretty much yell at him to retire. She was his business manager, too, so they got to work/commute together. From what I understand he sold his practice for a ton of dough.
Also... all of Dr. K's hygienists were hot chicks. :cool:
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:04:58 PM
Perhaps; but the amounts we are talking about are the amounts a person could reasonably earn as a professional. I don't think those approach anywhere near the point where asymptotic limits become an issue ... at least, that hasn't been my experience. ;)
It's hard for any given individual to judge for themselves, though, since multiple variables are all constantly changing. Your baseline expectations, your income, your age, your family situation, just to mention a few examples, typically evolve throughout your life. You can't hold all these variables except one constant as an individual, but a well-designed statistical study can.
Heh, 'only us actuaries can have an opinion on happiness'? :D
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd
at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle
without having to work.
At least, for us living in the West.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
Heh, 'only us actuaries can have an opinion on happiness'? :D
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
At least, for us living in the West.
Disagree. Statistically I believe happiness is strongly correlated with working. Not "working even though you don't want to", but working in and of itself.
Look - I definitely WANT more money. There's a reason I bought a Lotto Max ticket yesterday ($50 million jackpot!). But I recognize that if I won I would be ecstatic initially and that my family would be financially secure, but in the long term I don't know if it would make me any "happier".
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
Disagree. Statistically I believe happiness is strongly correlated with working. Not "working even though you don't want to", but working in and of itself.
So? Having enough money to live on with a decent lifestyle means one can work at will, without worrying about earning a living. As for myself, I'd take up wordcarving and painting. It's the freedom to do what you want, and not the lack of work, that makes for the increased happiness.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:37:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
Disagree. Statistically I believe happiness is strongly correlated with working. Not "working even though you don't want to", but working in and of itself.
So? Having enough money to live on with a decent lifestyle means one can work at will, without worrying about earning a living. As for myself, I'd take up wordcarving and painting. It's the freedom to do what you want, and not the lack of work, that makes for the increased happiness.
What a wordmeister.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
Heh, 'only us actuaries can have an opinion on happiness'? :D
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
At least, for us living in the West.
Disagree. Statistically I believe happiness is strongly correlated with working. Not "working even though you don't want to", but working in and of itself.
Look - I definitely WANT more money. There's a reason I bought a Lotto Max ticket yesterday ($50 million jackpot!). But I recognize that if I won I would be ecstatic initially and that my family would be financially secure, but in the long term I don't know if it would make me any "happier".
There is a difference between having to work for money, and working just for the enjoyment.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
I would disagree even stronger with that. I think that "not having to work" is far from an unqualified good that you make it to be. I'm sure some people have plenty of fulfilling things to do to occupy their time without having to work, and some of those people might even find that this is still true after they do indeed stop working, but a lot of people can easily go stir-crazy in an environment when there are no factors that can put pressure on their qualify of life. Being able to consistently get everything you want is hell, not heaven.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
Heh, 'only us actuaries can have an opinion on happiness'? :D
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
At least, for us living in the West.
Disagree. Statistically I believe happiness is strongly correlated with working. Not "working even though you don't want to", but working in and of itself.
Look - I definitely WANT more money. There's a reason I bought a Lotto Max ticket yesterday ($50 million jackpot!). But I recognize that if I won I would be ecstatic initially and that my family would be financially secure, but in the long term I don't know if it would make me any "happier".
There is a difference between having to work for money, and working just for the enjoyment.
Of course there is.
But I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of net happiness.
Brain carves his words with a machete.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 04:43:31 PM
Of course there is.
But I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of net happiness.
Maybe for someone who loves the work they do and doesn't mind the inane bullshit that can come from bureaucracies/organizations/corporations.
Personally though I think I'd be a lot happier if I could spend my "working hours" writing and other creative endeavors when I was relying on them to put food on my table. Instead I've taken the safe route of good money, less interesting work.
Quote from: Caliga on March 12, 2014, 04:23:21 PM
Also... all of Dr. K's hygienists were hot chicks. :cool:
Discrimination is totally radical, man.
Anyway, if money has a diminishing rate of return viz. utility, what, exactly, is the objection to socialism again?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
Anyway, if money has a diminishing rate of return viz. utility, what, exactly, is the objection to socialism again?
I have a personality that puts a lot of people off. I'm not especially attractive or naturally athletic. The one thing I have going for me is that I have a skill set that allows me to earn a bit more than the average bear. That also allows me to have the resources to stay in shape. I can leverage these things to get laid.
If everyone was compensated the same, I would be fucked. Or not fucked.
Eh, I don't see how working 70 hour weeks makes it easier for you to stay in shape.
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 03:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 12, 2014, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 12, 2014, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
Hey Malthus - I think the research has shown that as long as you're above a certain amount (nobody enjoys abject poverty), having more money does not correlate to being happier.
Yeah, I certainly buy that. It makes no difference to me if I have US$10 billion or US$100 billion.
Monster. Do you know how many African/Asian children you can save with 90 billion?
Why save them? They don't keep well, even in the freezer.
Well played!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 12, 2014, 05:14:11 PM
Eh, I don't see how working 70 hour weeks makes it easier for you to stay in shape.
I work normal hours except for January and about 4 weeks the rest of the year.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2014, 05:11:29 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
Anyway, if money has a diminishing rate of return viz. utility, what, exactly, is the objection to socialism again?
I have a personality that puts a lot of people off. I'm not especially attractive or naturally athletic. The one thing I have going for me is that I have a skill set that allows me to earn a bit more than the average bear. That also allows me to have the resources to stay in shape. I can leverage these things to get laid.
If everyone was compensated the same, I would be fucked. Or not fucked.
Relax. The State will provide.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:18:07 PM
Relax. The State will provide.
I could eventually accept driving a Trabant if that is what the state provided. But that level of quality in a woman... :yuk:
Everyone gets a Camry.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:42:48 PM
Everyone gets a Camry.
I knew you would envision everyone getting an Asian model.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 12, 2014, 05:17:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 12, 2014, 05:14:11 PM
Eh, I don't see how working 70 hour weeks makes it easier for you to stay in shape.
I work normal hours except for January and about 4 weeks the rest of the year.
Ok, but point remains- the willingness to do what's necessary to stay in shape is something most people don't have. Having more money won't change that.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
Anyway, if money has a diminishing rate of return viz. utility, what, exactly, is the objection to socialism again?
There are maybe 3 billion people in the world with a higher marginal utility of income than you. Perhaps some of them would like to ask the same question.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
Anyway, if money has a diminishing rate of return viz. utility, what, exactly, is the objection to socialism again?
I think it is extremely dangerous to look at everything from a utilisation angle. If we take this to the logical extreme, we can argue that, say, Steve Jobs is a great person who does great things for mankind. Steve Jobs needs a new liver. Therefore we are going to take a liver from an average joe and give it to Steve Jobs. This will achieve the greatest utility for mankind.
The objection to this is that individuals have rights that we need to respect, even at the expense of overall social utility.
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 04:43:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
I would disagree even stronger with that. I think that "not having to work" is far from an unqualified good that you make it to be. I'm sure some people have plenty of fulfilling things to do to occupy their time without having to work, and some of those people might even find that this is still true after they do indeed stop working, but a lot of people can easily go stir-crazy in an environment when there are no factors that can put pressure on their qualify of life. Being able to consistently get everything you want is hell, not heaven.
Maybe this is true for some, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity would prefer not
having to work (which, you will note, is different from "not working"). The gain is in freedom - doing what you
want, rather than what you
must.
I suppose such concepts are alien to an accountant. :P
Thread is too long. Has anyone said the obvious: Since lawyers are incapable of feeling human emotions, they cannot be really sad?
All lawyers should be decimated.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2014, 09:02:59 AM
All lawyers should be decimated.
So we go from 200% oversupply to a 180% oversupply? :hmm:
I've known two lawyers who've committed suicide. The first did so while going through a horrible messy divorce and about a week after losing a trial to me. The second did it for no apparent reason whatsover and must have hidden a severe mental illness. In my experience about 75% of the lawyers I know are unhappy and hate their career choice. In truth I suspect most of these cases come down to people chosing law for the wrong reason, e.g., english majors with nothing better to do than law school, those hoping for potentially high income, a perception of prestige, etc.
If you dont get off on trying to fix other people's problems, you will be miserable as a lawyer. If you are not comfortable with believing that every coin has three sides, you will be miserable as a lawyer. If you get so wrapped up in your own self righteous bullshit that you cannot handle someone else (opposing counsel, judge, client, or jury) disagreeing with you and telling you that you are wrong you will be miserable as a lawyer.
The happy lawyers I know all have three traits in common:
a. the are eternal optimists with a love of gallows humor and an ability to laugh at themselves;
b. They like almost everyone they meet and can get along with almost anyone; and
c. they are non judgmental.
I do think high rates of lawyer unhappiness may also be an adverse selection phenommenon --that is our profession seems to be a magnet for cynics and idealogues. Neither group does well in the profession or lasts very long.
As for me I like an imperfect system where victory can be as dependant on what the judge had for breakfast as who has the better case law on their side. This makes for fun and is our profession's own little random number generator. In turn, my enjoying this bit of chaos allows me to stay happy and continue to do what I do best, fix other people's problems.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 09:27:34 AM
I do think high rates of lawyer unhappiness may also be an adverse selection phenommenon --that is our profession seems to be a magnet for cynics and idealogues. Neither group does well in the profession or lasts very long.
:lol: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 09:27:34 AM
I've known two lawyers who've committed suicide. The first did so while going through a horrible messy divorce and about a week after losing a trial to me.
Wow was that hard for you?
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 07:58:00 AM
Maybe this is true for some, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity would prefer not having to work (which, you will note, is different from "not working"). The gain is in freedom - doing what you want, rather than what you must.
I suppose such concepts are alien to an accountant. :P
For the majority of that vast majority, that will forever remain a dream at least until the retirement age, so they don't find out in practice whether the grass really is greener on the other side.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 07:58:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 12, 2014, 04:43:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 12, 2014, 04:25:53 PM
How about this: generally, talk of "asymptotic limits" and the like on happiness derived from money is absurd at the very least until one has enough money to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle without having to work.
I would disagree even stronger with that. I think that "not having to work" is far from an unqualified good that you make it to be. I'm sure some people have plenty of fulfilling things to do to occupy their time without having to work, and some of those people might even find that this is still true after they do indeed stop working, but a lot of people can easily go stir-crazy in an environment when there are no factors that can put pressure on their qualify of life. Being able to consistently get everything you want is hell, not heaven.
Maybe this is true for some, but my guess is that the vast majority of humanity would prefer not having to work (which, you will note, is different from "not working"). The gain is in freedom - doing what you want, rather than what you must.
I suppose such concepts are alien to an accountant. :P
Difference is between what you want, and what makes us happy. Many of us want things that in the end are unrelated to our long-term happiness.
It occurs to me you know a good example - your friend's trustafarian boyfriend/husband. He has no need to work. Do you think he's happier than you are?
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2014, 09:33:33 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 09:27:34 AM
I've known two lawyers who've committed suicide. The first did so while going through a horrible messy divorce and about a week after losing a trial to me.
Wow was that hard for you?
It was but only because he left behind two young children and I'd had about 6 or so cases against him and knew him pretty well for someone with whom I had no social relationship. I think the divorce and his misery as a lawyer got to him. He was one of those lawyers that believed he was so lucky that only clients who deserved to win showed up in his office and when he lost cases from time to time he became completely unhinged. In one case years prior to his death he became so distraught at a judge giving me a summary judgment that he wrote a nasty letter to the judge. he would have been much happier as an engineer where there are right answers.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 09:35:44 AM
Difference is between what you want, and what makes us happy. Many of us want things that in the end are unrelated to our long-term happiness.
It occurs to me you know a good example - your friend's trustafarian boyfriend/husband. He has no need to work. Do you think he's happier than you are?
The difference there is in character. He really has no interests, which I put down in part to his family being wholly disfunctional, and in part to have never had to rely on himself.
That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.
In short, I would not find that freedom a burden, but an opportunity.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 09:45:08 AM
That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.
Well it is the difference between becoming Roman Emperor as an experienced General at 40 or inheriting it at 16 when your father died.
Quote from: Valmy on March 13, 2014, 09:46:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 09:45:08 AM
That said, I like to believe that if suddenly I was gifted with enough money to live on, I would have lots of things to do.
Well it is the difference between becoming Roman Emperor as an experienced General at 40 or inheriting it at 16 when your father died.
:D
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 13, 2014, 09:02:59 AM
All lawyers should be decimated.
I thought we already did that. The 1 in 10 was Marti
The premise of the original post's article is faulty because it presumes that lawyers have something resembling human emotions.
Quote from: Syt on March 13, 2014, 10:48:20 AM
The premise of the original post's article is faulty because it presumes that lawyers have something resembling human emotions.
PDH said it better.
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
Seems legit to me. Breaking the rules for a client could and very likely will screw them up badly down the road.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.
Oh? Please explain. I can see an argument that they can on some rare occasions be antithetical if the law in question is immoral. But I am not sure how it could be the case that the law and ethical behaviour are "often" at odds.
What's legal and/or ethical or not is often up to interpretation.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 13, 2014, 11:45:32 AM
What's legal and/or ethical or not is often up to interpretation.
Go to the front of the class Wiggin
Legal and ethical are two very different things.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2014, 11:46:52 AM
Legal and ethical are two very different things.
Granted they are different things but the question on the floor is are they "often" antithetical and if so how.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.
Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.
Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.
Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using. Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.
When lawyers say "ethical" they mean "obey legal ethics, which have the force of law." They don't mean "be like Jesus" or anything.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.
Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.
Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.
Many things that those of us non-lawyers would consider to be unethical lawyers would define as ethical because their definition of the term is intentionally narrow so that they can in fact do exactly what the OP was talking about when he said that lawyers get depressed at doing things that are kind of shitty.
For example, lawyers might argue that the company they represent really should be allowed to pollute some river with toxic waste, because Law XYZ that prohibits said dumping has some loophole in it. It is in the best interests of the lawyers client that they be allowed to dump said chemicals, and doing so is in fact rather unethical, but it is the job of the lawyer to represent their clients interests.
Quote
Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using. Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?
Exactly.
They do things that they know pretty much suck, but that is their job - to represent their clients. So they create this fiction that helping their clients is, by definition, the ethical thing to do, or conversely say things like "It is always in the best interests of the client in the long run to act in a legal and ethical manner" which simply is not true in many cases. I can easily imagine many situations where the best interests of the client may be better served by a lawyer acting in an illegal manner. That doesn't mean they should, of course.
But it is one of those things that we want to be true, so we pretend that it is true.
And I will concede right now that there is no way I am going to ever get you to admit that it isn't true, but I am ok with that.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 13, 2014, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.
When lawyers say "ethical" they mean "obey legal ethics, which have the force of law." They don't mean "be like Jesus" or anything.
Of course - that is that "narrow definition" that lets them claim to always act "ethically" which of course does not mean at all what the most of us mean by ethically, and more important to the original point, is not at all what the author was saying when he made the claim that one of the reasons lawyers may not be happy is that they know that they are asked to do things quite regularly that are pretty unjust.
QuoteDeference to the rules of the justice system is often at odds with justice, and discernment and honor sometimes play no part in the outcome.
There is this very convenient, for lawyers, blurring of definitions when it comes to terms like "ethical". Which is pretty much my point. People in general observe that lawyers often do things that our basic societal ideas about "ethics" or "morality" or "justice" would find fault with, but which lawyers will tell you is perfectly "ethical" by the much narrower definition of the term they are using it in which in fact allows for (even demands) that the lawyer do things in the interests of their client that are likely not at all "ethical" or just in the context of society in general.
We accept that that is necessary for the working of our system, of course. But it doesn't make it any less odious at times.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.
The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases
best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical
is clearly bolllocks.
There's probably no way to square the circle for most lawyers. Many of the laws the rest of us vote for have bad unethical side effects (sometimes they are directly evil), and so these poor dudes get put in the position of upholding them because that's their job. When doing your job in good faith is a moral virtue, and that means upholding an evil law or a bad precedent, you can't win.
They need that firewall that says acting in their client's interest is their responsibility.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 01:16:23 PM
There's probably no way to square the circle for most lawyers. Many of the laws the rest of us vote for have bad unethical side effects (sometimes they are directly evil), and so these poor dudes get put in the position of upholding them because that's their job. When doing your job in good faith is a moral virtue, and that means upholding an evil law or a bad precedent, you can't win.
They need that firewall that says acting in their client's interest is their responsibility.
Actually, we "poor dudes", are normally the ones tasked with setting aside all those nasty laws. We have been around this bush many times and it grows as tiresome as Viper's rants about language rights.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.
The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases
best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical
is clearly bolllocks.
Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.
To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.
However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).
The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.
The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases
best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical
is clearly bolllocks.
Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.
To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.
However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).
The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.
You've proved we've incentive to be ethical here in pharma but Berk was talking about laywers. :)
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 01:38:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.
The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases
best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical
is clearly bolllocks.
Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.
To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.
However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).
The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.
You've proved we've incentive to be ethical here in pharma but Berk was talking about laywers. :)
Who do you think has the pleasure of informing the company about the legal situation in such cases? ;)
I think any product manager who doesn't know they shouldn't do off-label promotion deserves jail time.
That said, I though we were discussing actions by lawyers vs. client actions. All of that is still what the client did unethically/illegal;y or not.
Then there are the cases where the lawyers' interests don't align with the "clients."
I'm thinking specifically of bullshit class actions and those guys who offer to help you out with the IRS.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.
Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.
Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.
Many things that those of us non-lawyers would consider to be unethical lawyers would define as ethical because their definition of the term is intentionally narrow so that they can in fact do exactly what the OP was talking about when he said that lawyers get depressed at doing things that are kind of shitty.
For example, lawyers might argue that the company they represent really should be allowed to pollute some river with toxic waste, because Law XYZ that prohibits said dumping has some loophole in it. It is in the best interests of the lawyers client that they be allowed to dump said chemicals, and doing so is in fact rather unethical, but it is the job of the lawyer to represent their clients interests.
Please note I very purposely said "long term" best interests.
You can absolutely get an advantage to your client by acting in an illegal or unethical manner. But that is invariably a short term advantage. Your character becomes known.
To take your example - perhaps the company is allowed to pollute the river. For now. But if it is clearly a pollutant that law is not going to stand for long, and of course your client's reputation will take an enormous hit.
Quote
Quote
Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using. Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?
Exactly.
They do things that they know pretty much suck, but that is their job - to represent their clients. So they create this fiction that helping their clients is, by definition, the ethical thing to do, or conversely say things like "It is always in the best interests of the client in the long run to act in a legal and ethical manner" which simply is not true in many cases. I can easily imagine many situations where the best interests of the client may be better served by a lawyer acting in an illegal manner. That doesn't mean they should, of course.
But it is one of those things that we want to be true, so we pretend that it is true.
And I will concede right now that there is no way I am going to ever get you to admit that it isn't true, but I am ok with that.
I actually can not see a situation where, in the long run, a client is better served by having their lawyer act illegally. That kind of thing will be found out and it will, in the end, be very, very, very bad, for both the lawyer and the client.
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2014, 01:50:13 PM
That said, I though we were discussing actions by lawyers vs. client actions. All of that is still what the client did unethically/illegal;y or not.
What the lawyer typically does in this courner of the practice is advise the client as to what the client can or cannot do.
In this aspect of the business, unethical/illegal acts by the lawyer him or herself, without client participation, are almost always going to be contrary to client interests. The debate, as I understand it, is that lawyers advance the interests of their clients by doing illegal or unethical things - in this context, meaning advising the client to do (or how to do) illegal or unethical things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
Then there are the cases where the lawyers' interests don't align with the "clients."
There I think you have a point worth pursuing.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant. I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.
No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.
The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases
best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical
is clearly bolllocks.
Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.
To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.
However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).
The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.
That is a good example, but of course it is specific to the situation.
You could have a very similar situation where an honest and objective analysis of the risks and rewards may very well indicate that you are better off going ahead with the dubious practice.
And the same, I think, is sometimes true for lawyering, both civil and certainly criminal. I am sure there are cases where it would be in the best interest of a defendant for their lawyer to act in an unethical or even illegal manner (hiding evidence, etc., etc.).
If I can get my client off of a death penalty by doing something illegal or unethical, then it is certainly in my clients best interests that I do so, right?
Hell, isn't it pretty easy to come up with a simple counter-factual?
Note that I am not trying to blanket indict lawyers by any means - just pointing out that I could certainly imagine that some people might not be good at dealing with this tension between what is good for everyone other than their client, and what is good for their client, and hence could see how it could result in stress/depression, etc., etc.
The idea that this could not happen because "serving the best interests of the client in the long run is always perfectly aligned with what is legal and ethical!" seems almost comically naive.
As I was reading Berkut's posts, I am reminded of some story where a couple of lawyers knew for 20 years that an innocent man was in prison, but they couldn't reveal it because that would be against their client's interests. These lawyers did act ethically, though, and they did serve their client's interest. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 01:55:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2014, 12:34:23 PM
But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law. There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.
That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?
I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.
Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.
Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.
Many things that those of us non-lawyers would consider to be unethical lawyers would define as ethical because their definition of the term is intentionally narrow so that they can in fact do exactly what the OP was talking about when he said that lawyers get depressed at doing things that are kind of shitty.
For example, lawyers might argue that the company they represent really should be allowed to pollute some river with toxic waste, because Law XYZ that prohibits said dumping has some loophole in it. It is in the best interests of the lawyers client that they be allowed to dump said chemicals, and doing so is in fact rather unethical, but it is the job of the lawyer to represent their clients interests.
Please note I very purposely said "long term" best interests.
You can absolutely get an advantage to your client by acting in an illegal or unethical manner. But that is invariably a short term advantage. Your character becomes known.
That is rather vague - why should your client care about your character? And perhaps any long term hit to the character of the laweyer or client is adequately outweighted by the short term benefit.
Quote
To take your example - perhaps the company is allowed to pollute the river. For now. But if it is clearly a pollutant that law is not going to stand for long, and of course your client's reputation will take an enormous hit.
Laws that allow companies to pollute because they are not effective stand for long all the time. That is why we have lots of polluted rivers and lakes.
And clients seems to survive these "reputation" hits just fine. After all, they have (often) entire PR departments whose job it is to manage that as well.
You are sounding more and more naive Beebs. Companies do crap that pollutes the environment all the time - if the primary deterrent is a hit to their reputation, we wouldn't need laws that they then hire lawyers to figure out how to get around.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using. Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?
Exactly.
They do things that they know pretty much suck, but that is their job - to represent their clients. So they create this fiction that helping their clients is, by definition, the ethical thing to do, or conversely say things like "It is always in the best interests of the client in the long run to act in a legal and ethical manner" which simply is not true in many cases. I can easily imagine many situations where the best interests of the client may be better served by a lawyer acting in an illegal manner. That doesn't mean they should, of course.
But it is one of those things that we want to be true, so we pretend that it is true.
And I will concede right now that there is no way I am going to ever get you to admit that it isn't true, but I am ok with that.
I actually can not see a situation where, in the long run, a client is better served by having their lawyer act illegally. That kind of thing will be found out and it will, in the end, be very, very, very bad, for both the lawyer and the client.
Wow. I can trivially come up with situations. All you have to do is imagine, for example, that "that kind of thing" *won't* be found out in the long run. I am quite certain that we do not have a 100% illegal activity detection and resolution mechanism for actions by lawyers, any more than we do for any other class of people.
And this is ignoring, of course, the reality that so much of legal activity is not strictly legal/illegal anyway, but rather grey, and indeterminate - especially when it comes to what is not strictly legal or illegal, but rather what is ethical.
I certainly hope it is NOT the risk of being caught that is all that is stopping most lawyers from acting illegally or unethically. If so, we are in much worse condition that I thought.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:00:46 PM
That is a good example, but of course it is specific to the situation.
You could have a very similar situation where an honest and objective analysis of the risks and rewards may very well indicate that you are better off going ahead with the dubious practice.
And the same, I think, is sometimes true for lawyering, both civil and certainly criminal. I am sure there are cases where it would be in the best interest of a defendant for their lawyer to act in an unethical or even illegal manner (hiding evidence, etc., etc.).
If I can get my client off of a death penalty by doing something illegal or unethical, then it is certainly in my clients best interests that I do so, right?
Hell, isn't it pretty easy to come up with a simple counter-factual?
Note that I am not trying to blanket indict lawyers by any means - just pointing out that I could certainly imagine that some people might not be good at dealing with this tension between what is good for everyone other than their client, and what is good for their client, and hence could see how it could result in stress/depression, etc., etc.
The idea that this could not happen because "serving the best interests of the client in the long run is always perfectly aligned with what is legal and ethical!" seems almost comically naive.
Let's take hiding evidence. Trouble is that unless you're already facing the death penalty, the penalty for destroying evidence / witness tampering is invariable much, much worse than whatever charge the person is facing. And, the fact that you've gone ahead and tried to destroy evidence can actually be used against you in the trial of the original charge.
I stand by my statement - acting illegally and unethically is bad for your client in the long run. Sure, I can think of all kinds of examples where it might be good in the short run or in a one off. As a one off situation, maybe forging a little evidence will be good for you and your client. But such actions are almost never a one off. And as soon as it goes from an isolated instance to a ongoing business practice, you and your client are in trouble.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
Laws that allow companies to pollute because they are not effective stand for long all the time. That is why we have lots of polluted rivers and lakes.
And clients seems to survive these "reputation" hits just fine. After all, they have (often) entire PR departments whose job it is to manage that as well.
You are sounding more and more naive Beebs. Companies do crap that pollutes the environment all the time - if the primary deterrent is a hit to their reputation, we wouldn't need laws that they then hire lawyers to figure out how to get around.
No. Pollution happens not because companies are running around sneaking their toxic chemicals into lakes and rivers all while twirling their mustaches, Snidely Whiplash-style.
It happens for a wide variety of reasons - that the chemical isn't agreed to be a pollutant, that it's seen as being a "cost of doing business" which employs many people (aka the Ft McMurray explanation), that it's only in combination with the emissions from others that it becomes problematic.
It's quite possible to act legally and ethically while representing, say, BP during the Gulf Coast spill.
Now, I'm using terms like "ethically" in the sense that most people would understand them. I am sure to a certain fringe, they would suggest you can never, ever do anything to assist a company like BP without being inherently unethical.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:19:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
Laws that allow companies to pollute because they are not effective stand for long all the time. That is why we have lots of polluted rivers and lakes.
And clients seems to survive these "reputation" hits just fine. After all, they have (often) entire PR departments whose job it is to manage that as well.
You are sounding more and more naive Beebs. Companies do crap that pollutes the environment all the time - if the primary deterrent is a hit to their reputation, we wouldn't need laws that they then hire lawyers to figure out how to get around.
No. Pollution happens not because companies are running around sneaking their toxic chemicals into lakes and rivers all while twirling their mustaches, Snidely Whiplash-style.
Of course not - most pollution happens in a perfectly legal manner. That doesn't mean it is ethical though...unless you use that "lawyer definition" of the term that simply states that if the law allows me to figure out a legal way for the company I represent to dump those chemicals in the water, then in fact it is ethical that I help them do that.
Again, it is a useful fiction to pretend that it is really "ethical" to do that.
Quote
It happens for a wide variety of reasons - that the chemical isn't agreed to be a pollutant, that it's seen as being a "cost of doing business" which employs many people (aka the Ft McMurray explanation), that it's only in combination with the emissions from others that it becomes problematic.
Of course - the issue of pollution is complex, with lots of variables involved, which is why it is a great place for lawyers to do their thing and figure out how to allow companies to pollute more. It is perfectly "ethical" for them to do so from the stance of the profession, but not from the stance of society at large.
Quote
It's quite possible to act legally and ethically while representing, say, BP during the Gulf Coast spill.
Of course it is - it is also quite possible to act illegally and unethically while representing BP, and to do so because it is in the best interests of BP that you do so. I am not arguing that you cannot represent BP ethically and legally, I am arguing that your claim that you CANNOT represent them in an unethical and/or illegal manner without violating their best interests is not true.
OF course, your argument has a much higher bar for proof than my own, since it is an absolute argument.
Quote
Now, I'm using terms like "ethically" in the sense that most people would understand them. I am sure to a certain fringe, they would suggest you can never, ever do anything to assist a company like BP without being inherently unethical.
I think most people would understand the term "ethical" to encompass more than simply serving the interest of some company. Your argument here is pretty much circular.
BP can and will argue, for example, that they should not have to pay some amount of restitution for their spill - they will argue that the dollar amount should be X instead of Y. Their lawyers will use their lawyerly skills to argue for their client based not on what is just or ethical for society at large, but rather what is in the narrow best interests of BP. That is how it should be.
The idea that somehow it is innately true that whatever is best for BP is by definition whatever is ethical and legal is simply naive - like I said, a "useful fiction" created to make what is a pretty ugly system in some of the particulars a little more palatable. It may very well be in BPs best interests to screw over society and leave someone else holding the bag for their mess, and their lawyers will be called upon to argue exactly that if they decide that is what is best for BP.
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
As I was reading Berkut's posts, I am reminded of some story where a couple of lawyers knew for 20 years that an innocent man was in prison, but they couldn't reveal it because that would be against their client's interests. These lawyers did act ethically, though, and they did serve their client's interest. :hmm:
more than ethical in most states it would have also been an illegal for the lawyers to disclose what a client said in confidence. The issue is the our system often has rules that themselves are in conflict with each other. At the extremes they create anecdotally bad results but on the whole are believed to accomplish a greater good.
If all clients know that their lawyers take their secrets to the grave then clients are more likely to be fully honest with their lawyers who then have some ability to convince their clients to follow the law or do the right thing in the absence of an applicable guiding legal principle.
In your example, absent the attorney client privilege those two lawyers would have never known who the real killer was in any event.
Knowing your clients secrets can be a burden but it is in fact the cornerstone of our system.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
If all clients know that their lawyers take their secrets to the grave then clients are more likely to be fully honest with their lawyers who then have some ability to convince their clients to follow the law or do the right thing in the absence of an applicable guiding legal principle.
This particular advantage doesn't have much relevance in this specific case.
Berkut, you seem to be coming from a point that says "ethical is whatever I think is right, and unethical is whatever I think is wrong".
The starting point of the adversarial legal system is that everyone deserves representation. BP, Jeffrey Dahlmer, you name it. And representing those kinds of bad guys is clearly not popular. But there is an ethical, and an unethical, way to do it.
The ethical way to represent BP (which I understand they generally did) was to admit to a mistake, promise to pay to make it right, and to try and expedite any and all compensation. There's nothing wrong with not just opening up the checkbook though, but to maintain some control over what gets paid. The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Beeb--Have you ever prosecuted someone under the auspices of a law you didn't believe morally should exist?
Edit: And would you do so if required?
Edit2: Have you ever asked for a penalty that you didn't believe in because the law said that it was required that you do so--like a minimum sentencing requirement?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Beeb--Have you ever prosecuted someone under the auspices of a law you didn't believe morally should exist?
:lol:
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
As I was reading Berkut's posts, I am reminded of some story where a couple of lawyers knew for 20 years that an innocent man was in prison, but they couldn't reveal it because that would be against their client's interests. These lawyers did act ethically, though, and they did serve their client's interest. :hmm:
more than ethical in most states it would have also been an illegal for the lawyers to disclose what a client said in confidence. The issue is the our system often has rules that themselves are in conflict with each other. At the extremes they create anecdotally bad results but on the whole are believed to accomplish a greater good.
If all clients know that their lawyers take their secrets to the grave then clients are more likely to be fully honest with their lawyers who then have some ability to convince their clients to follow the law or do the right thing in the absence of an applicable guiding legal principle.
In your example, absent the attorney client privilege those two lawyers would have never known who the real killer was in any event.
Knowing your clients secrets can be a burden but it is in fact the cornerstone of our system.
Indeed - the system MUST work like this to work at all.
But that does mean that there are times that lawyers not only CAN do things that are of rather dubious ethics (not to mention just), but that in some cases they MUST do so.
Now, the lawyers have defined "ethics" to mean "doing the things that the system demands that we do (or allows us to do)" when they talk about ethics. But that is not the same as what society in general considers ethical or just. And there are a million examples of attorneys representing their clients engaged in incredibly unethical behavior from the standpoint of anyone outside the world of the client.
Companies arguing that they should not have to pay damages for pollution, or even a lawyer arguing that their client should not have to go to jail for running down some child when their client was drunk off their ass
Hell, that is a an easy counter-factual to Beebs claim:
You are a defense attorney tasked with defending your client from a manslaughter charge for killing a child on a bike while he was allegedly drunk.
Lets craft as onerous a scenario as possible:
This isn't his first DUI charge, or even his 4th. He has had several, including cases in the past where he has seriously injured other, but in those cases he has managed to get off for one reason or another.
The evidence against him is completely overwhelming, except that at some point some trivial procedural error was made, which would invalidate the intoxication test. It is kind of a bullshit invalidation, but you've recognized that you can in fact get the case tossed if you bring it up, all the while being 100% certain that your client was in fact drunk off his ass, and did in fact kill that kids as a result, and what is more, in your judgement it is extremely likely that he will continue to drink and drive in the future.
You can bring this up, and get your client off these charges, and in fact our system demands that you do so - from the narrow definition of legal "ethics" used you are well within your bounds. It is necessary that our system allow guilty men to go free in order to avoid any chance of a innocent man being found guilty.
But we all know this is not a "just" result in the particular, and I could certainly understand a lawyer feeling like an utter piece of shit for doing his job in a case like this - and I would not consider it "ethical", even if it is exactly what the lawyer ought to do.
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
As I was reading Berkut's posts, I am reminded of some story where a couple of lawyers knew for 20 years that an innocent man was in prison, but they couldn't reveal it because that would be against their client's interests. These lawyers did act ethically, though, and they did serve their client's interest. :hmm:
more than ethical in most states it would have also been an illegal for the lawyers to disclose what a client said in confidence. The issue is the our system often has rules that themselves are in conflict with each other. At the extremes they create anecdotally bad results but on the whole are believed to accomplish a greater good.
If all clients know that their lawyers take their secrets to the grave then clients are more likely to be fully honest with their lawyers who then have some ability to convince their clients to follow the law or do the right thing in the absence of an applicable guiding legal principle.
In your example, absent the attorney client privilege those two lawyers would have never known who the real killer was in any event.
Knowing your clients secrets can be a burden but it is in fact the cornerstone of our system.
Here's the story Raz is probably thinking of:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-year-secret-kept-innocent-man-in-prison/
A couple things to point out about the situation:
-of course, the lawyers didn't actually know that he was an innocent man wrongfully convicted. What they did know was that another man, their client, confessed to doing it. People will often, for a variety of bizarre reasons, confess to crimes they did not commit.
-I think it would be wrong to paint the lawyers as heroes though. Instead they're put in any defence lawyer's worst nightmare. Personally, if I were in their shoes (and if I had pretty conclusive proof, not just a confession from a convicted murderer) I'd feel I have no choice but to reveal that information, then watch my career go up in flames.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
I'm curious if you consider that unethical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Well, as PJL, Malthus, you and I have said repeately in the past it is doubtful that the unethical way works even in the short run for a whole number of reasons but especially in the context of litigation.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
I'm curious if you consider that unethical.
I don't care.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Beeb--Have you ever prosecuted someone under the auspices of a law you didn't believe morally should exist?
Edit: And would you do so if required?
Edit2: Have you ever asked for a penalty that you didn't believe in because the law said that it was required that you do so--like a minimum sentencing requirement?
You have two different factors. "something that morally shouldn't exist" is one thing. No, I've never done that. And I wouldn't do that. If the law mandated, I dunno, that a prisoner must be tortured upon conviction, I couldn't be a part of that.
"something that I don't believe in" is different though. I prosecuted people for firearms offences when I didn't particularly like or agree with the firearms legislation. But I didn't think the law was "immoral" - I just had a difference of opinion with Parliament. We don't have the same kind of mandatory minimums that you guys have, and typically if I think the mandatory minimum is too high I'll under-charge to get around it (since if I think it's too high, odds are so will the judge). But I've asked for 4 months on a 3rd impaired, when I would have had no problem with 2-3 months, but 4 is the minimum.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
If your characterization is accurate then no, it isnt. And if what you are saying is true the Court has mechanisms for dealing with such behaviour such as awarding increased damages and special costs.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
Thats pretty shitty Berk. :hug:
No, that sounds like classic "bad faith" to me, which isn't ethical - and in fact in a Canadian courtroom would get the insurer slapped with a bad faith lawsuit on top of the original lawsuit. Way back at the dawn of time, when I adopted the name "BarristerBoy", I did insurance defence work. And our instructions (both to our clients, and them to us) were that if a claim had obvious merit you paid it. Not to say that an offer to settle just a few weeks after an incident wouldn't be a bit lower, but that's because to do so was in everyone's best interests - the victim gets their money faster, and the insurer is saved the cost of the lawsuit.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
Indeed - the system MUST work like this to work at all.
But that does mean that there are times that lawyers not only CAN do things that are of rather dubious ethics (not to mention just), but that in some cases they MUST do so.
Now, the lawyers have defined "ethics" to mean "doing the things that the system demands that we do (or allows us to do)" when they talk about ethics. But that is not the same as what society in general considers ethical or just. And there are a million examples of attorneys representing their clients engaged in incredibly unethical behavior from the standpoint of anyone outside the world of the client.
Companies arguing that they should not have to pay damages for pollution, or even a lawyer arguing that their client should not have to go to jail for running down some child when their client was drunk off their ass
Hell, that is a an easy counter-factual to Beebs claim:
You are a defense attorney tasked with defending your client from a manslaughter charge for killing a child on a bike while he was allegedly drunk.
Lets craft as onerous a scenario as possible:
This isn't his first DUI charge, or even his 4th. He has had several, including cases in the past where he has seriously injured other, but in those cases he has managed to get off for one reason or another.
The evidence against him is completely overwhelming, except that at some point some trivial procedural error was made, which would invalidate the intoxication test. It is kind of a bullshit invalidation, but you've recognized that you can in fact get the case tossed if you bring it up, all the while being 100% certain that your client was in fact drunk off his ass, and did in fact kill that kids as a result, and what is more, in your judgement it is extremely likely that he will continue to drink and drive in the future.
You can bring this up, and get your client off these charges, and in fact our system demands that you do so - from the narrow definition of legal "ethics" used you are well within your bounds. It is necessary that our system allow guilty men to go free in order to avoid any chance of a innocent man being found guilty.
But we all know this is not a "just" result in the particular, and I could certainly understand a lawyer feeling like an utter piece of shit for doing his job in a case like this - and I would not consider it "ethical", even if it is exactly what the lawyer ought to do.
What "society in general considers ethical or just" in reaction to any occasion is pretty easy to determine: just read the comments section of an online newspaper. Would you be happy being judged in that manner, if you were charged with a crime? Or would you prefer a trial based on the rules of evidence - as crappy and trivial as those rules no doubt are in some cases?
Really, your dilemma boils down to 'the lawyer
knows the client is guilty and uses trivial procedural tricks to get him or her off anyway'. Thing is, it isn't the lawyer's job to determine the client's guilt or innocence. That is the job of the judge or jury. Those trivial procedural tricks are almost certainly there for a reason - most likely, to make it more difficult for cops to fabricate evidence against someone.
What lawyers require is faith that the system, overall, produces an approximation of justice so long as each actor plays his or her part. Not perfectly of course, but at least better than (say) being judged by what "society in general considers ethical or just".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 03:05:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
I'm curious if you consider that unethical.
I don't care.
You don't care if what I think or you don't care if their behavior is unethical?
I like that everyone has been talking about me lately. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:17:55 PM
I like that everyone has been talking about me lately. :)
See DGuller? How can you be mad, when all I did was make Raz happy? :hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
If your characterization is accurate then no, it isnt. And if what you are saying is true the Court has mechanisms for dealing with such behaviour such as awarding increased damages and special costs.
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. In her case it won't work because she has enough family willing to help her get through the year or two financial mess until the doctor/hospital is forced to settle a reasonable amount (which in her case will be something pretty close to what they would expect to be awarded at trial).
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.
Heck, another example.
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.
Basically, dad was drunk, and dove head first into a pool that was not very clean (hence he could not see anything in the pool), hit his head on a concrete slab in the pool, and was paralyzed.
Now, there was a life guard on duty, and the pool itself was privately owned (I want to say this was a hotel or something of the sort).
They sued, of course, and the hotel company didn't even fight - they offered up the total amount of their liability insurance, and pretty much said anything beyond that would bankrupt them.
So who else to sue to get the money necessary to support him for the rest of his life as a paraplegic? Why, the nursing company who threw the party! They should have known better than to have a party where they serve booze to people and there could be a pool that is dirty and some dumb drunk a-hole might hurt himself.
Now, is it likely that had this gone to trial a jury would have found the company dads wife worked for liable for his injury? Seems unlikely. But as one defendant in a lawsuit that included a lot of people, they decided it was better to just settle.
I don't think it was at all ethical to try to pin damages on them - but it was certainly in the best interests of their client to at least try. And in this case, it worked. The nursing company chipped in towards the overall settlement, and in fact I think had the largest dollar amount of everyone involved, not because they had the greatest rational liability, but because they had the greatest exposure. Again, from what I understood at the time, the "deep pockets" approach was considered very standard practice. But I cannot imagine how someone could argue that it was just or ethical.
One could argue that my friends fathers lawyers were acting ethically because their job is to look after the interests of their clients, and that is a good argument but is simply falling back on the tautological argument that serving the interests of the client is what is ethical by definition.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
In Canada at least such behaviour risks an award of costs against the insurer on the indemnity scale.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 03:06:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 13, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Beeb--Have you ever prosecuted someone under the auspices of a law you didn't believe morally should exist?
Edit: And would you do so if required?
Edit2: Have you ever asked for a penalty that you didn't believe in because the law said that it was required that you do so--like a minimum sentencing requirement?
You have two different factors. "something that morally shouldn't exist" is one thing. No, I've never done that. And I wouldn't do that. If the law mandated, I dunno, that a prisoner must be tortured upon conviction, I couldn't be a part of that.
:shifty:
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:17:55 PM
I like that everyone has been talking about me lately. :)
See DGuller? How can you be mad, when all I did was make Raz happy? :hug:
Hey, about the story I apparently brought up, could a defense attorney give the police an anonymous tip or possibly tell the Judge off the record?
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
Thats pretty shitty Berk. :hug:
No, that sounds like classic "bad faith" to me, which isn't ethical - and in fact in a Canadian courtroom would get the insurer slapped with a bad faith lawsuit on top of the original lawsuit. Way back at the dawn of time, when I adopted the name "BarristerBoy", I did insurance defence work. And our instructions (both to our clients, and them to us) were that if a claim had obvious merit you paid it. Not to say that an offer to settle just a few weeks after an incident wouldn't be a bit lower, but that's because to do so was in everyone's best interests - the victim gets their money faster, and the insurer is saved the cost of the lawsuit.
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.
But this is my point - the system itself has friction in it, and it is entirely possible to use that friction for your clients benefit in a manner that people think is unethical. But it happens all the time, and there is NOT some harm to doing so in many cases.
Sure, you could tighten up the process to make it not happen, and of course we do that all the time.
Going back to my example about pollution - if some business's lawyer figures out a way to exploit a loophole in a law to allow the company to start or continue polluting in a fashion the law was clearly intended to prevent, then yeah, you can (and of course should) revise the law.
But was it unethical for the lawyer to help the company circumvent the law in the meantime? I say it is, and hence your claim that one cannot act in a illegal and/or unethical manner while serving the best interests of their client is simply not true.
Of course, you've already admitted as much in response to my own anecdote - you find the actions of the doctors attorney's to be unethical. I agree with you. But I also think their actions are perfectly understandable, predictable, and even inevitable given the way the system is setup. They are, in fact, serving the best interests of their client by acting in this unethical manner.
Luckily for my sister she has family who can help her in the interim, so I don't think it will work.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2014, 03:17:55 PM
I like that everyone has been talking about me lately. :)
See DGuller? How can you be mad, when all I did was make Raz happy? :hug:
Hey, about the story I apparently brought up, could a defense attorney give the police an anonymous tip or possibly tell the Judge off the record?
"Hey cops, I can't tell you how I know this or who I am, but that guy just convicted for murder is totally innocent".
Not compelling. Hell, I'm not sure how the lawyers say-so after 25 years constituted enough to overturn the conviction in the first place. All they know is that their client
claimed to have been responsible.
Now, if that confession had in turn revealed some hard evidence - if their client had told them where the murder weapon could be found - their might be some other options.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
But we all know this is not a "just" result in the particular, and I could certainly understand a lawyer feeling like an utter piece of shit for doing his job in a case like this - and I would not consider it "ethical", even if it is exactly what the lawyer ought to do.
The lawyer has duties to the court, so he can't fabricate evidence or knowingly allow perjury.
But also what's the alternative? Ultimately the decisions are for clients to take. In the pollution example should the lawyers choose not to advise their clients of all possible options and the risks of each (including a reputation hit)? In the criminal example you give, how is it ethical for a single lawyer to in effect decide whether someone's guilty or not?
QuoteWhy does this not work for long?
In the UK the courts have very wide discretion in considering this when awarding damages and costs. For example you'll be almost always penalised if you turned down a settlement and then lose or fail to do as well in court. Arguably it's in the lawyers' best interests to carry on as they'll get more work, but the client needs to know and it may be in their best interests to settle.
I was told by the ethics lecturer I had that American lawyers were far more aggressively identify with their clients' best interests than British lawyers, but also because of that had a far more developed theory of legal ethics than we do. I think it's only relatively recently become a compulsory subject here.
Edit: Ethics as distinct from conduct rules by the regulator.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2014, 02:50:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The unethical way to do it is to admit nothing, force claimants into expensive lawsuits, try to force pennies on the dollar settlements from desperate people.
And as I keep saying, the unethical way works, but not for long.
Why does this not work for long?
Indeed, this is what my sister is going through right now.
She is involved in a medical mal-practice suit where the details of the case are pretty much open and shut. There is no real issue at all of it going to trial (the doctor would lose badly, and my sister is an extremely sympathetic victim).
But the lawyers for the doctor and hospital are doing the standard practice in these cases, which is to delay the process as much as possible. Demand plenty of depositions. Demand more depositions, ,even on points that are pretty much already decided. Ask for delays, use all the procedural tricks possible to draw it out.
All the while, offer very low-ball settlements in the hopes that her financial situation simply cannot wait them out.
And no, this isn't harming anyone's reputation - in fact, when the lawsuit started my sisters lawyers told her this is exactly what the other legal team would do, because this is what they always do, because a lot of time it works.
Is that ethical?
In Canada at least such behaviour risks an award of costs against the insurer on the indemnity scale.
The is reliant upon a system that can identify and force a negative consequence.
Absent that, there is clearly an example of where it is the clients best interest for the lawyer to act in an unethical manner.
Hence the claim that acting in the clients interests is always in alignment with what is legal and ethical is disproven. Sometimes it is not, if the system lacks adequate safeguards against unethical behavior.
And lets be honest, there is no way anyone can claim there exists any system where there are not these kind's of loopholes in the law or the procedures that govern how the law is practiced.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:19:51 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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. 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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
You know, there has to be a better way of doing things. Lawyering just isn't right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2014, 03:39:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
But we all know this is not a "just" result in the particular, and I could certainly understand a lawyer feeling like an utter piece of shit for doing his job in a case like this - and I would not consider it "ethical", even if it is exactly what the lawyer ought to do.
The lawyer has duties to the court, so he can't fabricate evidence or knowingly allow perjury.
But also what's the alternative?
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
[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').
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2014, 03:39:01 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
The starting point of the adversarial legal system is that everyone deserves needs representation.
And that's the problem right there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 03:43:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:19:51 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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".
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:44:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on March 13, 2014, 03:45:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:27:06 PM
[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 -
Quote from: BeebsCLients 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 03:45:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2014, 03:39:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2014, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 03:44:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2014, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 03:58:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 03:45:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2014, 03:39:01 PM
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.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2014, 03:46:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on March 13, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 13, 2014, 04:23:08 PM
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.
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? :unsure:
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.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 13, 2014, 05:08:40 PM
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]"
:lol: Altman's done some pretty stupid things (some of which I like quite a bit -- like
Short Cuts) but nothing quite that sublimely stupid.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2014, 09:01:38 PM
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.
Certainly could be the case - but I would still consider that unethical, since they are simply trying to "fight" a legitimate lawsuit not on the merits, but rather as a means of discouraging other lawsuits.
Which isn't to say they should not do just that - I don't really buy into the idea that lawyers are all paragons of virtue and justice, so I am not upset that they put the interests of their clients ahead of concerns about being "ethical" to the public's standard.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 13, 2014, 09:09:01 PM
While I don't dispute that, it may be both happy
Shakespeare says NO! (http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/macbeth/T58.html) (though that may be ironic)
Quoteand ethical,
Camus says NON! (http://schools.alcdsb.on.ca/teachers/mcbrjuli/gr12immersextend/Shared%20Documents/L'%C3%89tranger/mythe_de_sisyphe.pdf).
Quoteas well as popular among the idle rich.
Edward Arlington Robinson says YES! (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/richard-cory/) :thumbsup:
QuoteAnd, 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]"
:lol: Altman's done some pretty stupid things (some of which I like quite a bit -- like Short Cuts) but nothing quite that sublimely stupid.
:lol:
No, I didn't know that. That's great.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2014, 01:22:25 AM
Certainly could be the case - but I would still consider that unethical, since they are simply trying to "fight" a legitimate lawsuit not on the merits, but rather as a means of discouraging other lawsuits.
Which isn't to say they should not do just that - I don't really buy into the idea that lawyers are all paragons of virtue and justice, so I am not upset that they put the interests of their clients ahead of concerns about being "ethical" to the public's standard.
I think their answer to that might be that the system has a number of biases that tilt the levers of justice away from their favor (as well as general dysfunction), and if they don't defend themselves aggressively it will not be possible to continue as a viable business (which I find compelling--they weren't especially profitable to begin with).
Quote from: alfred russel on March 13, 2014, 09:01:38 PM
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.
But that is quite different than what Berkut has described and actually what you said makes a lot of sense. The defendant should work to attempt to settle the claim for a reasonable amount. What is reasonable will of course be the question. If the Plaintiff isnt prepared to settle for a reasonable amount then of course the defendant should be expected to defend "aggressively". I wouldnt expect them to defend compliantly :P. They are after all, at that point, dealing with an unreasonable Plaintiff.
The situation Berkut described is different. According to him there is no arguable defence and the Defendant is simply defending in a manner that in most jurisdictions would attract increased damages or special costs awards or both. Which goes to BB's point that unethical behaviour doesnt really help in the long run. For every penny the insurance comany may have saved over a number of files with this kind of practice - assuming Berkut's description is accurate - there is a very large club waiting for them.
The question, of course, is not whether there is an "arguable defense" but what should damages be.
My sister is legally blind, cannot walk without assistance, and of course that means she can never work again in her profession.
The defendant can quite easily, and with a semi-reasonable level of credibility, question those facts. Is she really permanently disabled? Is there a chance for recovery? Lets have our doctor examine her to see if they get the same results as your doctor. Lets have our therapist examine her. What are the qualifications of her doctor? ETc., etc. etc. ad naseum.
Even if she can never work again, how much was her salary? Can she really expect those level of raises for the next 20 years? Was she really going to work that long?
There won't be any penalty for this - these guys know what they are doing and they know what they can and cannot get away with. What they can get away with is to delay this process for several years - my sisters lawyer estimated it would take 3-5 years before they could "force" a rational settlement.
I don't think there is any club waiting for them. This is just part of the process, and using that process for the benefit of their client is what good lawyers do, and that is what they are in fact doing.
It is unethical, and perfectly within the norms of the profession.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2014, 11:20:40 AM
The question, of course, is not whether there is an "arguable defense" but what should damages be.
I know you dont think there is a defence in your sister's case and I take what you say to be accurate, which is why I have always said that if what you are saying is accurate the Defence lawyers are acting inappropriately and there are court mechanisms to deal with such behaviour which in turn validates BB's point.
But in general the issue of whether there is an arguable defense is linked to the question of damages. In the case of medical malpractice there are a number of issues that go beyond the question of what the damages are for the injury. Two main issues are always whether the doctor met the standard of care required and whether the procedure actually caused the damage in question.
To the extent the Defence has good arguments on those points (and other potential defences) necessarily relates to the amount the Plaintiff should compromise their claim to obtain a settlement.
You say there is no arguable defence at all. If so, that is a very rare case indeed.
Quote from: Berkut on March 13, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 13, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 13, 2014, 02:03:53 PM
As I was reading Berkut's posts, I am reminded of some story where a couple of lawyers knew for 20 years that an innocent man was in prison, but they couldn't reveal it because that would be against their client's interests. These lawyers did act ethically, though, and they did serve their client's interest. :hmm:
more than ethical in most states it would have also been an illegal for the lawyers to disclose what a client said in confidence. The issue is the our system often has rules that themselves are in conflict with each other. At the extremes they create anecdotally bad results but on the whole are believed to accomplish a greater good.
If all clients know that their lawyers take their secrets to the grave then clients are more likely to be fully honest with their lawyers who then have some ability to convince their clients to follow the law or do the right thing in the absence of an applicable guiding legal principle.
In your example, absent the attorney client privilege those two lawyers would have never known who the real killer was in any event.
Knowing your clients secrets can be a burden but it is in fact the cornerstone of our system.
Indeed - the system MUST work like this to work at all.
But that does mean that there are times that lawyers not only CAN do things that are of rather dubious ethics (not to mention just), but that in some cases they MUST do so.
Now, the lawyers have defined "ethics" to mean "doing the things that the system demands that we do (or allows us to do)" when they talk about ethics. But that is not the same as what society in general considers ethical or just. And there are a million examples of attorneys representing their clients engaged in incredibly unethical behavior from the standpoint of anyone outside the world of the client.
Companies arguing that they should not have to pay damages for pollution, or even a lawyer arguing that their client should not have to go to jail for running down some child when their client was drunk off their ass
Hell, that is a an easy counter-factual to Beebs claim:
You are a defense attorney tasked with defending your client from a manslaughter charge for killing a child on a bike while he was allegedly drunk.
Lets craft as onerous a scenario as possible:
This isn't his first DUI charge, or even his 4th. He has had several, including cases in the past where he has seriously injured other, but in those cases he has managed to get off for one reason or another.
The evidence against him is completely overwhelming, except that at some point some trivial procedural error was made, which would invalidate the intoxication test. It is kind of a bullshit invalidation, but you've recognized that you can in fact get the case tossed if you bring it up, all the while being 100% certain that your client was in fact drunk off his ass, and did in fact kill that kids as a result, and what is more, in your judgement it is extremely likely that he will continue to drink and drive in the future.
You can bring this up, and get your client off these charges, and in fact our system demands that you do so - from the narrow definition of legal "ethics" used you are well within your bounds. It is necessary that our system allow guilty men to go free in order to avoid any chance of a innocent man being found guilty.
But we all know this is not a "just" result in the particular, and I could certainly understand a lawyer feeling like an utter piece of shit for doing his job in a case like this - and I would not consider it "ethical", even if it is exactly what the lawyer ought to do.
then stop couching your argument with the term "ethics" which refers to a very specific legal code and replace it with "morality" if you want to discuss whether legal ethics mandates a morally just result
The fact that lawyers use the term "ethics" to mean a "very specific legal code" but then use it generally where people take it to mean something rather different is pretty much my point.
In the normal usage of the term to mean some kind of formal system of moral behavior, it is not at all the case that serving your clients interests is always best done in an ethical manner. To the extent that it is true in the more narrow sense you are using, it is a tautology.
In either case, the idea is in fact the "useful fiction" I pointed out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2014, 11:28:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2014, 11:20:40 AM
The question, of course, is not whether there is an "arguable defense" but what should damages be.
I know you dont think there is a defence in your sister's case and I take what you say to be accurate, which is why I have always said that if what you are saying is accurate the Defence lawyers are acting inappropriately and there are court mechanisms to deal with such behaviour which in turn validates BB's point.
But in general the issue of whether there is an arguable defense is linked to the question of damages. In the case of medical malpractice there are a number of issues that go beyond the question of what the damages are for the injury. Two main issues are always whether the doctor met the standard of care required and whether the procedure actually caused the damage in question.
To the extent the Defence has good arguments on those points (and other potential defences) necessarily relates to the amount the Plaintiff should compromise their claim to obtain a settlement.
You say there is no arguable defence at all. If so, that is a very rare case indeed.
Shrug. I cannot comment on the legal nitty gritty, just going by what my sisters lawyer stated was happening (and what would happen even before it got started). She certainly did not make it sound like this was unexpected or unusual - but she did make it clear it was kind of a douchebag move, since the goal is simply to try to force a settlement at a lower number than what is warranted by making the person who is now incapable of work wait and wait and wait.
Perhaps her lawyer was lying to her about this, in which case HER lawyer is not being ethical...:)
I think you miss my point Berk, her lawyers dont have to be incompetant or lying for what I said to be true. It may truly be the rare case where there is no viable defence. It does happen from time to time. My point is that other than those rare circumstances the degree to which the Plaintiff ought to compromise their claim in recognition of legal risk of the defence succeeding at trial is a factor to take into consideration when attempting to determine what a reasonable settlement might be.
I think I understand your point.
I am not sure it really addresses the core issue, but I understand where you are coming from.
I just don't think this is all that unusual, where lawyers are using the process of the legal system as a tool in their bag of tricks to help their client. You hear about it, at least, all the time. "We will bury you under depositions!" etc, etc.
But it is just a singular example. I can (and have) come up with many others where it is clearly in the clients best interest for their lawyer to act in an "unethical" manner. The idea that our system is so perfect and foolproof that that is not the case is naive to the extreme. It is not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
But that is quite different than what Berkut has described and actually what you said makes a lot of sense.
I'm reading between the lines quite a bit in Berkut's story, but I'm not sure we aren't getting the flipside filtered through a lawyer likely giving a standard explanation for parties that are often unsophisticated.
Assume the damages are assessed as likely to warrant $50k - $80k in judgment. There are of course random risks in going to a jury--the defense could unexpectedly prevail, or a larger judgment could be awarded.
The defense could make a hard offer of $40k. It is lowball, but probably not on its face outrageous. A few factors may make the company prone to do this: the company has enough litigation ongoing that it all evens out for them. Those random risks will even out for them long term. That is not the case for the plaintiff, who is risk averse, and may need the money asap. Also, a contingency fee based attorney may look at this as: I can get a percentage of $40k doing very little work, or absolutely bust my ass and probably get just a bit more, with a risk of getting nothing.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 14, 2014, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
But that is quite different than what Berkut has described and actually what you said makes a lot of sense.
I'm reading between the lines quite a bit in Berkut's story, but I'm not sure we aren't getting the flipside filtered through a lawyer likely giving a standard explanation for parties that are often unsophisticated.
Assume the damages are assessed as likely to warrant $50k - $80k in judgment. There are of course random risks in going to a jury--the defense could unexpectedly prevail, or a larger judgment could be awarded.
The defense could make a hard offer of $40k. It is lowball, but probably not on its face outrageous. A few factors may make the company prone to do this: the company has enough litigation ongoing that it all evens out for them. Those random risks will even out for them long term. That is not the case for the plaintiff, who is risk averse, and may need the money asap. Also, a contingency fee based attorney may look at this as: I can get a percentage of $40k doing very little work, or absolutely bust my ass and probably get just a bit more, with a risk of getting nothing.
Yeah, I agree. As I said, the question of what a reasonable settlement might be is the real question and it is affected by a large number of factors. Personally if I am acting for the Plaintiff I just try to get to trial asap and cut through all that BS of lowballing. It gets the attention of the Defendant rather quickly to make a reasonable offer. As Defence counsel I make what I think is a good offer based on all the legal risks in the case and if the Plaintiff thinks they can get more then we go to trial.
I think that is what good counsel do as it reduces cost for clients and it lets people in my little corner of the legal community know that I will do what I say and say what I will do. ie reputation is all - as I think PLJ commented on as well.
IMO that is the way the system should work. I also agree completely with what PLJ said about the system being imperfect. There is no certainty that x act is worth y to a Plaintiff. We struggle through as best we can.
In the first place, lawyers are the agents of different individual, corporate, and state entities who engage in a form of representation within a symbolic sphere. The model of lawyer as adviser/advocate is basically premised on this idea of a principal-agent relationship between the client and his lawyer. I think this model in some form is what people expect practically from legal services, as well as its professional aspiration.
So the professional ethics try to come up with rules that delineate the way this agent should or shouldn't serve his principal's interest. What is produced is often difficult to apply to real situations; at trainings, I've watched an actual State Bar Ethics Committee Chair say about his own hypos "I don't know what the answer is here."
But even if an ideal praxis of professional ethics were achieved, it could never magically separate the question of the lawyer's ethical concerns from either the entities he serves (clients) or the symbolic sphere in which he acts (The Law). So I don't really accept the idea that just by being a professionally ethical lawyer, you're being capital-E "ethical."
You have to commit yourself to a number of different positions, at least personally, before you can actually approach the topic of ethics: what being ethical even means; whether you care to be ethical; whether you see a conflict between your personal ethical beliefs and those of other people or the code of professional ethics, and in which way you'll resolve this; whether your client's interest is an ethical one; whether you think you can serve some other ethical end by advocating for an unethical cause; whether you think it's ethical to participate as a lawyer in the legal system as it actually functions.
And every one of these positions is likely to be nuanced and complex, since it comes from the complex set of factors that set the apparatus of the law into motion in the first place -- the political economy and the whole symbolic structure that rides with it.
But I don't think that makes it impossible to address the fundamental question Berkut raises. A lot of these positions are undertaken tacitly, unconsciously, or on the basis of feeling rather than reasoned explication. I think you can arrive for yourself at the point where you can even answer the question.
I know, for instance, that my answer to Berkut's hypo about the drunk driver, since it's the scenario I'm closest to, is that I would have no ethical problem doing the act contemplated in the hypo (setting aside the inevitable gripe that "that's really not a remotely plausible situation, since even if they couldn't prove his intoxication by chemical means they'd still have all the testimony from the cops who arrested him and any other witnesses about whether he appeared impaired, and even without any evidence of impairment [which if proved would likely be murder rather than manslaughter] they'd still have all the evidence of his grossly negligent operation of the car which is enough for manslaughter, etc.").
But to give you a good account of why I feel it's ethical, I would have to explain my positions on a lot of the different issues/questions/values that the question implicates. What do I think about the ethics of what he's seeking to do [avoid or mitigate punishment from the state]? What about the ethics of helping him do that in this way? What do I think about the ethics of evidentiary rules themselves [excluding this evidence but including that evidence]? What about the ethics of following those evidentiary rules?
I also think it's legitimate to decide not to trouble with interrogating yourself as the ultimate ethics of your actions. But relying on a pat answer doesn't accomplish it.
It's important to note that the ethical inquiry is not essentially limited to lawyers at all, but ultimately implicates everyone. The legal system, by setting up such stark contrasts (of parties, interests, procedure, etc.), lends itself more blatantly to provoking these inquiries. But many of the same questions could (and perhaps should) be asked about the things that professors or accountants or programmers in the course of their work.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
It's important to note that the ethical inquiry is not essentially limited to lawyers at all, but ultimately implicates everyone. The legal system, by setting up such stark contrasts (of parties, interests, procedure, etc.), lends itself more blatantly to provoking these inquiries. But many of the same questions could (and perhaps should) be asked about the things that professors or accountants or programmers in the course of their work.
I think all professions have a code of ethics. Engineering does, and both the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and Professional Engineering Exam have an ethics section. Accounting must have something similar. Since programming and professorships don't have professional licensure they may not (or not something universal.)
Man I am so excited to take both of those exams :(
Quote from: Savonarola on March 14, 2014, 03:03:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
It's important to note that the ethical inquiry is not essentially limited to lawyers at all, but ultimately implicates everyone. The legal system, by setting up such stark contrasts (of parties, interests, procedure, etc.), lends itself more blatantly to provoking these inquiries. But many of the same questions could (and perhaps should) be asked about the things that professors or accountants or programmers in the course of their work.
I think all professions have a code of ethics. Engineering does, and both the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and Professional Engineering Exam have an ethics section. Accounting must have something similar. Since programming and professorships don't have professional licensure they may not (or not something universal.)
Accountants do, yes. Its been hammered in a lot recently. Every course I've had that wasn't pure math had a component on ethics.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
Man I am so excited to take both of those exams :(
Speaking of exams one does not want to take, I have a finance exam tomorrow. 26 pages of equations on the "cheat sheet". 26 god damn pages.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
Man I am so excited to take both of those exams :(
:lol:
You probably won't have to unless you want to work for the power company or something. The FE was painful for me because I took it so long after undergraduate; but all the equations are given to you. The PE was much easier for me (I took it right out of graduate school.) You can bring in any book you want, so there were people who brought in whole suitcases full of books. I did it with just a general study guide.
Quote from: HVC on March 14, 2014, 03:08:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
Man I am so excited to take both of those exams :(
Speaking of exams one does not want to take, I have a finance exam tomorrow. 26 pages of equations on the "cheat sheet". 26 god damn pages.
If it makes you feel any better, the FE guide is over 200 pages of mostly equations.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 14, 2014, 03:03:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
It's important to note that the ethical inquiry is not essentially limited to lawyers at all, but ultimately implicates everyone. The legal system, by setting up such stark contrasts (of parties, interests, procedure, etc.), lends itself more blatantly to provoking these inquiries. But many of the same questions could (and perhaps should) be asked about the things that professors or accountants or programmers in the course of their work.
I think all professions have a code of ethics. Engineering does, and both the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and Professional Engineering Exam have an ethics section. Accounting must have something similar. Since programming and professorships don't have professional licensure they may not (or not something universal.)
Yes, a necessary criteria of being a profession is that it is self regulated and I would think that a code of ethics is an essential part of self regulation.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 14, 2014, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
Man I am so excited to take both of those exams :(
:lol:
You probably won't have to unless you want to work for the power company or something. The FE was painful for me because I took it so long after undergraduate; but all the equations are given to you. The PE was much easier for me (I took it right out of graduate school.) You can bring in any book you want, so there were people who brought in whole suitcases full of books. I did it with just a general study guide.
Yeah ok unfortunately working for the power company is exactly what I want to do. Anyway thanks for the tips.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2014, 11:20:40 AM
The defendant can quite easily, and with a semi-reasonable level of credibility, question those facts. Is she really permanently disabled? Is there a chance for recovery? Lets have our doctor examine her to see if they get the same results as your doctor. Lets have our therapist examine her. What are the qualifications of her doctor? ETc., etc. etc. ad naseum.
In the UK at least the court will decide if a single expert witness - like a doctor - is appropriate, or if both sides should have their own experts. They can also limit how many experts the losing side has to pay for.
Similarly they can punish a side for not reasonably settling, even if they win. I don't know if this exists in the US but here the courts have a very active role in trying to make the parties settle and if not to keep costs low. It's the overriding objective to deal 'with a case justly and at proportionate cost' :goodboy:
Of course another factor here is that the overwhelming majority of civil cases are heard by a judge, not a jury.
QuoteIn the normal usage of the term to mean some kind of formal system of moral behavior, it is not at all the case that serving your clients interests is always best done in an ethical manner. To the extent that it is true in the more narrow sense you are using, it is a tautology.
My understanding is that broadly the lawyers ethical duty is to act in their clients best interests unless there is another they owe a duty to - the courts or the regulators for example.
Also of my friends the lawyers seem the most ethically bound and concerned by ethics. You think they're bad, talk to an oil trader for ten minutes :lol:
QuoteSo the professional ethics try to come up with rules that delineate the way this agent should or shouldn't serve his principal's interest. What is produced is often difficult to apply to real situations; at trainings, I've watched an actual State Bar Ethics Committee Chair say about his own hypos "I don't know what the answer is here."
My lecturer, and my understanding is that ethics is taken far less seriously here (unlike conduct which is regulated), proposed Levinas's interpretation of the other as a decent theoretical basis. Which it is, from the tiny amount I understood :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Yeah ok unfortunately working for the power company is exactly what I want to do. Anyway thanks for the tips.
Ah, okay, then you'll definitely have to take the FE/PE. Why did you choose power as your specialty (if you don't mind my asking)?
Does he need a reason to seek power? :huh:
:bleeding:
I don't think Valmy would be that kind of ruler. :P
I have a professional code. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the code.
What I... er... wilt, is often to grab some extra cinnamon buns from afternoon meetings.
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2014, 02:41:55 AM
I have a professional code. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the code.
Your lifestyle to me seems so tragic. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 15, 2014, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 15, 2014, 02:41:55 AM
I have a professional code. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the code.
Your lifestyle to me seems so tragic. :(
Go bite a bat.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 14, 2014, 03:03:31 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
It's important to note that the ethical inquiry is not essentially limited to lawyers at all, but ultimately implicates everyone. The legal system, by setting up such stark contrasts (of parties, interests, procedure, etc.), lends itself more blatantly to provoking these inquiries. But many of the same questions could (and perhaps should) be asked about the things that professors or accountants or programmers in the course of their work.
I think all professions have a code of ethics. Engineering does, and both the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and Professional Engineering Exam have an ethics section. Accounting must have something similar. Since programming and professorships don't have professional licensure they may not (or not something universal.)
I'm pretty sure we don't have an ethics section in our Engineering exams (or at least we didn't back in the day). What sort of things are there?
All you have to do is follow applicable regulation (building, low/high voltage, dangerous machinery codes; health & safety procedures, etc). And you are both civil and criminally responsible for projects you sign so failing to do so will easily cost you your career, bankruptcy and even jail time.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 15, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
I'm pretty sure we don't have an ethics section in our Engineering exams (or at least we didn't back in the day). What sort of things are there?
The ethics section is mostly little dilemmas built around grey areas of the ethics code. Things like misrepresenting your client or signing off on things outside your area of expertise are considered ethical violations.
QuoteAll you have to do is follow applicable regulation (building, low/high voltage, dangerous machinery codes; health & safety procedures, etc). And you are both civil and criminally responsible for projects you sign so failing to do so will easily cost you your career, bankruptcy and even jail time.
The same is true in the United States. The ethics code is supposed to assist you in keeping out of a position that your projects would fail for foreseeable reasons.