Yep, given that 35 of the 55 “founding fathers” of our nation were lawyers, it’s part of the deal being a “nation of laws, not of men.”
Silly, knee-jerk lawyer bashing -— while bashing is so often diserved -— is a sign of a weak mind.
Most of the serious legal work in this world is corporate stuff -— selling businesses, partnership drafting, title work, business contracts, estate planning, risk-sharing stuff on projects, etc -— all done quietly with no fuss and great efficiency.
Doesn’t make headlines, and “civilians” don’t come across it much.
Instead, they deal with -— ambulance-chasers, criminal lawyers and prosecutors, and divorce lawyers.
Well, that’s the bottom of the practice, no doubt.
Doesn’t make headlines, and “civilians” don’t come across it much.
Instead, they deal with -— ambulance-chasers, criminal lawyers and prosecutors, and divorce lawyers.
Well, that’s the bottom of the practice, no doubt.
I actually agree with this dichotomy. I will point out though, that civil lawsuits (and government lawyers of all stripes) are the reason why what would otherwise be straightforward contractual agreements turn into retainers for rafts of lawyers and exorbitant costs of doing business.
What you are citing here is the difference between eloquence in expression of logic, and redistribution of wealth based on the stupidity of judges (who are mostly failed lawyers). If the profession of "lawyer" had any sort of reasonable requirements for performance, external watchdog oversight, or non-guild adversarial peers, it would be a vastly improved vocation both in terms of perception and actual value.