Jimmy or Chuck - What Sort of Lawyer Would You Make?

[mongers]

So which is it, what's closer to your heart?

[Tonitrus]

No Kim Wexler option? 

[Syt]

I can get very unreasonably bent out of shape by people cutting corners and not adhering to rules even if fairly innocuous or inconsequential (depends on context, though), esp. if it comes with a "rules for thee but not for me" attitude.

At the same time, I tend to cut corners and shortcuts for myself if I can get away with it to get my tasks done. 

So I guess I fall in between. Jaron, then?

EDIT: Seeing Toni's reply - I guess I'm a Kim.

[Jacob]

Why are there no languish lawyers as poll options?

[Admiral Yi]

I guess I'm a Kim.

Chuck but you don't get paid.

[Syt]

I guess Howard should also be an option.

[mongers]

Why are there no languish lawyers as poll options?

Because I'd be interested to see which of the two extremes they tend towards.

[mongers]

I guess Howard should also be an option.

The poll isn't really about Better Call Saul, I'm using them as example to ask about people their ethics with regards to rules and laws. :gasp:

[celedhring]

I'd definitely want to be Howard. Rich, doesn't do much actual work, impeccable pinstripe suits.

[celedhring]

I guess Howard should also be an option.

The poll isn't really about Better Call Saul, I'm using them as example to ask about people their ethics with regards to rules and laws. :gasp:

And the answers give you an idea about Languish' opinion regarding rules 

[Sheilbh]

Difficult to answer because I think it's conflating law and ethics/rules on lawyers.

In my area the law isn't sacrosanct and very often it's slightly absurd/impractical - it is also largely European law which is broadly very high level/principles-based. A lot of my job is trying to navigate and understand the strict legal requirements and provide advice on where the risks actually are and where there's more of a risk decision for the business, as well as building a defensible position/mitigations.

I'm also very cynical about the process by which laws are created and guidance is given and the way regulators operate - and I think normally procedure is a fig leaf for a deeply political (but unaccountable becauuse they're "independent") process.

Having said all that on the ethical side I take the rules on me and my ethical requirements very seriously. I've never been in a position where I'd have to break them and I don't think I would - although I don't think that makes me, or lawyers special. Only area it's even possibly come up has been conflicts which I've just declared and everyone's understood that I can't advse on that project.

[Barrister]

So I mean - I'm a me kind of lawyer, that's what kind I am.

I also haven't seen Better Call Saul.

That being said - I think Sheilbh gets at the distinction in real life, not television.  The difference is ethics, not rules.  I break rules all the time.  I just filed a Form CC7 for a pre-trial conference over a week late.  That's a definite breach of the rules, but not in the least unethical.  It didn't violate anybody's Charter rights, or affect anyone's trial fairness.  I've also long held the belief that in court you can do absolutely anything - as long as all parties consent.

But do I do something unethical?  WIll I do something that would affect someone's right to a fair trial?  Absolutely not.

[PDH]

Which one is the option to be a law-school grad but you spend all your time and money on hookers and blow?

[crazy canuck]

So I mean - I'm a me kind of lawyer, that's what kind I am.

I also haven't seen Better Call Saul.

That being said - I think Sheilbh gets at the distinction in real life, not television.  The difference is ethics, not rules.  I break rules all the time.  I just filed a Form CC7 for a pre-trial conference over a week late.  That's a definite breach of the rules, but not in the least unethical.  It didn't violate anybody's Charter rights, or affect anyone's trial fairness.  I've also long held the belief that in court you can do absolutely anything - as long as all parties consent.

But do I do something unethical?  WIll I do something that would affect someone's right to a fair trial?  Absolutely not.

This.

Rules of practice are often discretionary.  There is rarely had hard and fast Rule.  To give a small example, documents need to be exchanged within a set number of days.  But almost never are because of the quantity of documents and issues involved.

And yeah, superior courts have inherent jurisdiction so they can do whatever they want.

But the line no Languish lawyer would ever cross are the ethical obligations we have.