Lawyers: they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes

**mashman** · 24th February 2012, 23:13

More disappointed.

**jrandom** · 25th February 2012, 01:39

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It would be interesting to see how quickly all this contempt is forgotten if any of you end up actually needing a good Lawyer.

I believe this situation to be purely hypothetical. I've never seen a lawyer add value to any private individual's situation, myself. I've only seen them rubber-stamp things and clip the ticket.

Even in a case where a lawyer was unavoidably necessary, my fundamental issue with the rates they charge still stands.

**James Deuce** · 25th February 2012, 06:08

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It would be interesting to see how quickly all this contempt is forgotten if any of you end up actually needing a good Lawyer.

It's not forgotten. It simply grows with each interaction.

**Usarka** · 25th February 2012, 07:49

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It would be interesting to see how quickly all this contempt is forgotten if any of you end up actually needing a good Lawyer.

My lawyer even said to me "it's not fair that you have to pay to get your money".

**HenryDorsetCase** · 25th February 2012, 08:18

Originally Posted by jrandom

This rant triggered by http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6476...ccupy-Auckland.

Don't blame the protesters (silly though they may be) for that waste of public money. Blame the lawyers who connive throughout their incestuous industry to charge hourly rates that bear no relation whatsoever to the actual value or difficulty of the work they do.

Solicitors do not have mystical capabilities that the rest of us lack. They are simply professional form-filler-outers and regurgitators of books that other people have written. The amount of training they undertake and their general worth to society should result in rates of pay in a ballpark with what other tradespeople with similar quantities of training and experience can charge.

An electrician with three years of training and ten years of industry experience will cost you $80 an hour.

Yet a lawyer with three years of training can somehow spend ten years filling out land-transfer forms and kissing arse, and then move into a corner office and start charging $450 an hour.

I believe the rottenness in this corner of society to be an unfortunate emergent behaviour of the underlying way the world works. Lawyers are in a position to strangle everyone else, and so they do.

But I never cease to be amazed that people are prepared to be a part of it while keeping a straight face.

Human nature can be a sorry-arsed thing.

And if any partner in any posh CBD law firm is reading this post, know that your wealth is ill-gotten. You are a parasite.

I challenge any cunt out there to disagree with me.

I disagree with you. And get fucked. What sterling service for the community do you perform that you can cast aspersions willy nilly?

**HenryDorsetCase** · 25th February 2012, 08:21

I remember reading the rsults of some survey, and the results were along the lines of "people hate lawyers, except their own lawyer".

Now I know how scummy and rastuscat and red mermaid and all the po po feel when they get lambasted by fuckwits on the internet. They dont give a fuck either.

**blackdog** · 25th February 2012, 08:32

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

What sterling service for the community do you perform ?

When he recently moved to Taupo he did Wellington a huge favour.

**jrandom** · 25th February 2012, 08:38

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

I disagree with you. And get fucked.

Convincing argument. You're not exactly winning hearts and minds left and right here, lawyerman.

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

What sterling service for the community do you perform that you can cast aspersions willy nilly?

I don't know if you could call it sterling, exactly, but I'm lending a hand with building a power station at the moment.

Think of me the next time you turn a light on and pay rates for that electricity that were determined by a free market under the watchful eye of gubmint regulation.

**Bassmatt** · 25th February 2012, 08:48

Originally Posted by jrandom

Think of me the next time you turn a light on and pay rates for that electricity that were determined by a free market under the watchful eye of gubmint regulation.

ahh...what?

**jrandom** · 25th February 2012, 08:50

Originally Posted by Bassmatt

ahh...what?

Heh. I wondered who'd bite on that. It's not perfect, is it, but at least the topic gets discussed, and the power retail companies have to toe various lines and are watched for anti-competitive practices.

Imagine trying to enforce such standards on the legal services industry.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 25th February 2012, 10:08

More than 90% of legal disputes involving Lawyers are settled in mediation or joint settlement confrences

The only thing that lawyers and the system add to any dispute is cost. Want turn a $10,000 loss/cost or rip off into a $100,000 rip off? Get lawyers involved. If you are lucky enough to win, you might even get the $10,000 back but it will cost you twice or three times that much to do so and all the other saps on the other side will have spent the same.
In a nutshell.... A $10,000 problem is resolved by spending $20,000 + $20,000, + $20,000, + $20,000 + $20,000 to achieve a $5,000 solution. That’s what Lawyers do.

From my observations of Lawyers in action in disputes where guilt or innocence revolves around interpretation of specialist technical issues, the facts (real guilt or innocence) mean less to them than the perception of risk. Their perception of risk which (has little if any basis in fact) hinges on their limited understanding of the subject and their (real expertise) ability to leverage the little bit they do partially understand to scare risk perception into the other parties similarly ill informed lawyers so they can scare them into offering bigger contributions to the settlement. Kinda like blind poker players bluffing each other by posturing in a game which no one can stand or fold from.

Far better outcomes are achieved using a mediator (who is technically knowledgeable on the matters in dispute) without any lawyers involved. Though this generally only happens if the parties all agree to it, which invariably they won’t.

**george formby** · 25th February 2012, 10:42

Hmmmm, law, a bastion of the self important on occasion. Sometimes a necessary evil, sometimes just evil. A bloke walked into my girlfriends shop a couple of days ago to return a swipe entry card for the local gym. He had had it for a month so a new one had to be purchased & loaded. The delay incurs a charge for a new card. The conditions provided when you get a card state that they must be returned immediately....... Well... this, er, gentleman refused to pay & stated that " immediately " is open to interpretation. The GF would not budge, a call to the gym owner showed she refused to budge, on asked "are you a lawyer" he replied "are calling me a liar?" the question was repeated & lo, "yes I am, you will be hearing from my office!!".

Obviously not a smart lawyer, he should have just chucked the card away & forgot about it.

My experience of lawyers has left me feeling that they regard the law purely with their own financial motivation at the fore front. Why give a straight answer & deal with something efficiently when you can drag it out for months & reap greater rewards?

**flyingcrocodile46** · 25th February 2012, 10:58

Yes! they use their knowledge to advantage in questionable ways.

My Step MIL is a Judge. Prior to her becoming a judge she was a partner in a well known law firm. She asked me to write letters giving my professional opinion (building related) on three occasions so that she could use them in disputes she had with trades people working on her house (so she didn't have to pay them).

The first time I thought the situation she was asking me to provide opinion on was questionable but I accepted her explanation and provided her a useful but measured opinion.

The second time I questioned her explanation of events etc and provided a more measured and less useful opinion.

The third time I questioned her explanation and advised her that IMO the contractor didn't do anything wrong and that I wouldn't be able to help her. I did it as nicely as I could and pointed out that her expectations exceeded the norm quite considerably and that the contractor wasn't to know that his itemised and well detailed scope of works didn't meet her expectations as she had failed to point this out at the appropriate time. (before accepting the quote and having him finish the work 100%)

That was prior to her becoming a judge and saw the end of our association with her and the FIL (their choice not ours).