@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Jury System. Just why would anyone ever want to be tried by a court of their peers when the majority of our peers aren't all that smart - why not rely on a professional with experience? (Like a Judge!) Does this happen anywhere other than America? What do yall lawyers think about this?
This is an archaic remnant of British law, frankly, coming right out of that wholly-useless document known as Magna Carta. At the time, the "jury of peers" was to protect landholders against actions by the crown, which generally occurred before crown-appointees. By "peers," the landholders meant "other landholders." While that usually meant that the landowners got away with a lot of shit, landholders could also get really sick and tired of Lord Angus McSheepFucker and his night-time antics one day and let him get strung up for his 134th charge of "anger-banging Lady Smith's blessed flock of sheep."
As a matter of practice, I do not ask for a jury demand. Juries are stupid. A lawyer asking for a jury, in my opinion, is one who needs to take advantage of stupid people in order to win their cases.
The Gavel. Talk to me about this. ORDER ORDER! BLAM BLAM! Is it just to punctuate that you mean business? What do yall lawyers think about this?
The gavel is used to create a loud noise calculated to cut through arguing between parties and/or counsel. It is similar to flicking the light switch on or off. These days, counsel usually don't get into open verbal wars because they usually get warned prior and judges are usually not shy to spending people into a holding cell for contempt of court. At least, 'round here.
Why did you choose the section of law (family, criminal, etc) that you chose? Or did it choose you?
You don't often get to choose; fate often chooses you. If you start at a firm or public institution, you do as you're told. If you start on your own, you just take what you can get and figure out what you like; then you play the trading game with other lawyers until you can build up a practice in the area you like.
Bond and bail, what's the difference?
Context varies, but bail is usually applied to the amount paid to get out of jail whereas bonds are used in the civil context for a variety of different purposes..
Why on earth did you choose to practice law to begin with? Was it the money or..?
I began it as an adventure and ended with a challenging professional career. I like both.
What is the most hilarious case you've worked on?
It's not really funny, but I have some funny client names. For example, I once represented a fellow with the last name "Batman," which made motion/brief writing more amusing. I also worked on a case for a client with the last name "Short" who had sued someone with the last name "Long."
What is the saddest case you've worked on?
I do not get emotionally invested in my cases. That's a quick way to burn out.
Would you ever represent someone that is guilty but they wanted you to get them off the hook? Would you lie for them? What's the furthest you'd go?
Yes. Even if guilty an accused should be defended where the government has committed a violation of their civil rights. All lawyers swear an oath to defend the Constitution in the United States. I take my oaths very seriously.
To that end, no. I would never lie to or for a client. Lying is an art form that requires a great deal of care and delicacy. I have neither the time nor the inclination to prance about the truth. You win on the truth or you don't win at all. I have fired more than one client for asking if I would lie or alter evidence.
Do you like arguing? How can you manage to keep your shit together when impassioned?
I don't mind arguing, but it depends when and where. Generally, I do not argue unless I am being paid or I am to get something out of it personally.
In a case, I refrain from arguing with another lawyer or my client. In the first case, it is purposeless: I don't need to convince another lawyer that I am right; I need to convince a judge or jury. In the second case, I don't have the time: if a client does not think I am telling them how the law works or forecasting the outcome well, then they can find another lawyer that feels inclined to get a pack of smokes, a short length of hose, and blow smoke up their ass.
A wise lawyer does not argue against someone. A wise lawyer demonstrates why her interpretation of the law or set of facts should prevail. As an art it is closer to teaching than it is to debating; debates are for arguments that have no right answer, whereas teaching is showing someone else what the right answer is.
