The Art of Lawyering

[Ominous]

@Rinel

[Ganymede]

@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:

Do lawyers have stereotypes of other kinds of lawyers?

Many, in my opinion. Most revolve around their location or area of practice. For example, 'round here we look at people from Cincinnati and Cleveland as nightmarish golems. As another example, domestic relations (divorce, custody, child support, etc.) practitioners by stereotype argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, which has been consistent with my experience.

Are all lawyers pessimistic?

Depends on who you talk to. Prosecutors, current and former, are pretty pessimistic and/or jaded. Civil attorneys can afford to be a little more lighthearted. I consider myself realistic. As I tell a lot of prospective clients, I have time to bullshit or blow smoke so if you don't believe me find another lawyer who tells you what you want to hear, takes your money, and gets you to the same outcome.

Are you all amazing in social situations because of your jobs? Or do you think that it's a prerequisite?

It is definitely not a prerequisite. I can tell you from my years of practice in the civil arena that you can generally lump people into three different kinds of practitioners: (1) the salarians; (2) the turians; and (3) the elcor. The salarians are annoyingly outgoing; the turians laconically grind through the business; and the elcor are stubborn, tedious motherfuckers that make you want to tear your eyes out. None of them are particularly well-versed in human social conventions.

I can also tell you that I fit mostly into the first category, and get along with people in that category best. The turians I can deal with regularly, but they too busy to ever be particularly useful. And the elcor are just the worst.

Is there a lawyer joke you just should absolutely not ever make under any circumstances?

Not that I know of. Make all the jokes you want. Einstein said something about intelligent people ignoring others.

[Derp]

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

you can generally lump people into three different kinds of practitioners: (1) the salarians; (2) the turians; and (3) the elcor. The salarians are annoyingly outgoing; the turians laconically grind through the business; and the elcor are stubborn, tedious motherfuckers that make you want to tear your eyes out. None of them are particularly well-versed in human social conventions.

Totally stealing this for the next time I need nerd law.

[Ganymede]

@Derp said in The Art of Lawyering:

Totally stealing this for the next time I need nerd law.

True story.

Professor: As a former student, can you tell the prospective students what it is like to be lawyer?

Me: <looks over the crowd> I don't know if any of you play Dungeons & Dragons, but the practice of law is applied Dungeons & Dragons. Seriously. You have books and books which provides rules for a game that allows you, the player, to solve problems which mostly reside in people's imagination. Most of the time, though, you are arguing with other players about what the rules mean, and when those arguments may actually have a bearing on the game you bring them to the judge, or "game master," to resolve. And no matter what the game master says one of you will get pissed off and decide to take it up with someone else, and we call this the "appeals process." So if you are familiar with Dungeons & Dragons or any other role-playing game you are probably well-equipped to deal with the practice of law. If you have no interest rolling around with people who will argue incessantly about fantasy situations, the practice of law will probably irritate you.

Professor: <pause> Wow.

I was never invited back to speak to prospective students after that.

[Auspice]

I guess that's why they call them rules lawyers.

[Derp]

@Auspice said in The Art of Lawyering:

I guess that's why they call them rules lawyers.

[boneghazi]

@Ganymede Apparently you should write a sequel to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Because they seem like great alien species... and I giggled tremendously thinking they'd be great celestial neighbors to the Vogons.

So Lawyers, do you have a favorite case? Not necessarily yours, but one that is, I don't know.. unique in some way? Stands out?

Do you have any thoughts or opinions on any high profile cases that we plebs might know about? (I mean, for instance the OJ Simpson Trial but there are plenty I'm sure).

[Ganymede]

@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:

Apparently you should write a sequel to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Because they seem like great alien species... and I giggled tremendously thinking they'd be great celestial neighbors to the Vogons.

Oh, they are existing races for the Mass Effect series.

So Lawyers, do you have a favorite case? Not necessarily yours, but one that is, I don't know.. unique in some way? Stands out?

Unfortunately, most of my interesting cases I cannot comment about. But there is a case where I got a judgment in excess of $1,000,000 because a company's owners embezzled money from it, thus causing it to go into arrears with the IRS and a lot of other creditors. Receivership cases are really cool.

Do you have any thoughts or opinions on any high profile cases that we plebs might know about? (I mean, for instance the OJ Simpson Trial but there are plenty I'm sure).

All I can say is that you should believe nothing you read on the internet about cases. Most of the articles are written by non-lawyers.

[boneghazi]

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:

Apparently you should write a sequel to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Because they seem like great alien species... and I giggled tremendously thinking they'd be great celestial neighbors to the Vogons.

Oh, they are existing races for the Mass Effect series.

My bad! Even better giggles!

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

All I can say is that you should believe nothing you read on the internet about cases. Most of the articles are written by non-lawyers.

Are there even any good sources for laypeople? Something like Legal Eagle - though I know you didn't seem to thrilled with his stuff specifically earlier in the thread. I find that kind of thing fascinating but it's hard to know the pedigree of the information.

[Rinel]

@faraday said in The Art of Lawyering:

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

All I can say is that you should believe nothing you read on the internet about cases. Most of the articles are written by non-lawyers.

Are there even any good sources for laypeople? Something like Legal Eagle - though I know you didn't seem to thrilled with his stuff specifically earlier in the thread. I find that kind of thing fascinating but it's hard to know the pedigree of the information.

Yes. NPR's Nina Totenberg does a good job of explaining cases in front of the Supreme Court, and SCOTUSblog provides excellent sources and explanations for people interested in a case.

Also, I am definitely an Elcor under @Ganymede 's schema.

@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:

So Lawyers, do you have a favorite case? Not necessarily yours, but one that is, I don't know.. unique in some way? Stands out?

I'm partial to Gideon v. Wainwright, which established that states are required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in The Art of Lawyering:

Are there even any good sources for laypeople? Something like Legal Eagle - though I know you didn't seem to thrilled with his stuff specifically earlier in the thread. I find that kind of thing fascinating but it's hard to know the pedigree of the information.

Well, Legal Eagle seems clearly aimed to entertain rather than educate. Law and Order is surprisingly a pretty decent source for a lot of basic criminal procedure. But if you are in a legal dispute of any kind, you are best served by going to see an actual lawyer.

[faraday]

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

But if you are in a legal dispute of any kind, you are best served by going to see an actual lawyer.

Oh it's not for any useful purpose. I just think it's interesting. Some people watch the travel channel. I like legal and writing analysis vlogs. :helpless shrug:

[saosmash]

There are some jurisdictionally dependent resources. Washingtonlawhelp.com is pretty good for pro ses in my state, particularly if they need family law.

[Quinn]

Oh oh is it true that they teach you in law school that you can sue a ham sandwich? A lawyer said that to me yesterday and I laughed and laughed and she sat there straight faced and was like "You could."

[Derp]

@Quinn said in The Art of Lawyering:

Oh oh is it true that they teach you in law school that you can sue a ham sandwich?

It's indict a ham sandwich. And while it's not literally true, it means that in grand jury proceedings, which are done in secret, a prosecutor can generally convince the grand jury that probable cause exists for just about anything -- which is true. The bar is very low there. Juries readily believe almost any theory of the case, with rare exceptions.

ETA: You can sue for damn near anything. You just might not prevail, and unless you state a claim that can be resolved by the court on some sort of legally sufficient grounds, it gets quickly dismissed.

[Groth]

Does being an actual lawyer make Best of Legal Advice more or less funny?
https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/

[Auspice]

Here's a question:

thoughts on Kim Kardashian trying to become a lawyer and her 'Justice Project' show?

[Ganymede]

@Auspice

I have none until I see it.

Good for her if her intentions and statements are true. There are too many innocent people in jail.

Shame on her if it's another one of her schemes.

[Auspice]

@Ganymede said in The Art of Lawyering:

@Auspice

I have none until I see it.

Good for her if her intentions and statements are true. There are too many innocent people in jail.

Shame on her if it's another one of her schemes.

I think my initial take on it is I feel weird about her doing so before she's finished school / passed the bar. She's doing this show to free innocent people with an incomplete understanding of the law, so isn't there the risk of her doing more harm than good for these people?