The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The lawyer mindset epidemic > Comments

The lawyer mindset epidemic : Comments

By Ross Buncle, published 22/6/2007

Lofty notions of justice sit awkwardly in the legal world: success depends on strategy, exploitation of loopholes and manipulation of 'the truth'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Quite an interesting and wideranging critique of the profession...

... it might interest you to learn that Howard, Ruddock AND Garrett are legally qualified! It's a useful skill for world-class fibbers AND idealists.

Don't write them all off. As lawyers are fond of saying: "everyone hates lawyers until they need one".
Posted by The Skeptic, Friday, 22 June 2007 10:19:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ross

Thanks for a good read. There are, of course, two sides to every argument. My son is a solicitor and I hear his story of how badly lawyers are treated by just about everybody [including judges].
Posted by healthwatcher, Friday, 22 June 2007 10:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a lawyer and I cannot disagree with anything that Ross has said - as far as it goes. However, in the same way as American TV shows (the main source of most Australians’ concept of the law), the author has focused upon the ‘high-profile’ legal arena of litigation - which, while being everything he has described, is only one part of that huge social institution known as "the Law".

I have long had a fascination with "the Law" - not just our system of Westminster law but all systems of law around the planet. However, like Ross, I have become disgusted by the way litigation has become a club with which to beat people. They say Jews tell the best Jewish jokes; maybe lawyers tell the best lawyer jokes, ergo:

Q: What’s the difference between sperm and lawyers?
A: Sperm have the possibility of becoming human beings.

Whether we know it or not, the Law is the glue that binds society together. From the highest to the lowest positions within society, there is no activity in which we can engage that is not covered by some aspect of statute or common law. A great deal of the problems arising in society stem from a widespread ignorance of how the law says we must behave. It was my recognition of this fact, together with my aforementioned disgust with litigation, which led my move into the area of legal compliance - educating non-lawyers as to what the law expects of them.

Our legal system is far from perfect but, where major disputes or crimes arise, it is the only game in town. An unfortunate feature of the game is that you only get as much justice as you can afford. I must therefore agree with The Skeptic: "everyone hates lawyers until they need one".
Posted by Doc Holliday, Friday, 22 June 2007 11:15:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree fully Ross….I think.

But this self-centred greed is good mentality pervades just about all sections of our society.

I don’t think we can knock lawyers too much for putting the case of their clients in the best possible light, just as long as it is not dishonestly done.

Similarly, we can’t knock them for wanting the best imbursement for their efforts that they can get or wanting the best status in society that they can achieve.

It is not the purpose of lawyers to decide what is right or wrong in their clients' cases. So then, can we really blame them for not always treating the law or morality or ethics as the first priority?

That is the job of judges and juries, isn’t it?
.

Jeepers, I’ve completely stunned myself with this effort. My brain has come out in support of lawyers (:>0. I think I sit down before I fall over!!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 22 June 2007 4:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Skeptic,

I am well aware that Messrs Howard, Rudd and Garrett have legal backgrounds - it was no accident that these three featured in my article.

Obviously, I agree that legal practitioner experience is a great grounding for "world-class fibbers" - not sure where idealists fit in, though. The few lawyers who make it through with idealism intact are the exceptions I acknowledge in my piece. I'd venture that a fair proportion of these "good guys" end up out of the legal mainstream, and perhaps out of the profession.

As for "everyone hates lawyers until they need one" - well, of course I understand your point, but on the few occasions I have needed legal advice (winding up an estate and the dysfunctional and very nasty family crap that accompanied it), I have resented shelling out ridiculous portions of hard-earned for:

a) some glorified clerk to put through probate - a simple enough task that, for various reasons, none of which make sense to me, many timid folk seem relucant to tackle themselves, or

b) legal representation to fight off a rabid opposition lawyer - a hired thug, basically - who wilfully stoops to all manner of intimidation using legal jargon to avoid rational discussion in lay language that he knows will expose his arguments as fallacious, thus forcing to litigation a matter that could easily have been settled through reasoned negotiation. This is but a ploy that lawyers frequently use to line their pockets, effectively cutting the layperson out of discussion and obliging them to appoint legal representation - unless, like me, the hapless layperson opts to simply cut their losses - personal and financial - before they get any further out of hand, and accept whatever proposal is being "offered". Justice? Where? It's all about who has the bucks to hire the nastiest legal gun, and is prepared to endure.

So no, my perception of lawyers did not improve when I needed one - just the opposite.
Posted by Rolan Stein, Friday, 22 June 2007 6:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“A great deal of the problems arising in society stem from a widespread ignorance of how the law says we must behave.”

Doc, I think a bigger part of the problem is not knowing just what really applies with the law in a lot of cases. We just can’t take for granted that what is written in law actually applies.

Many laws are just blatantly ignored by everyone, including law enforcement authorities. For example; lots of minor road rules.

Others are policed at some value different to what they are supposed to be, eg; speed limits. And others are policed very differently in different places or for different people, or blind-eyed most of the time and then occasionally blitzed.

Getting a handle on this sort of thing is just impossible.

I have a very big gripe against governments, law enforcement authorities and officers over this sloppy policing of the law, and the consequences it can have for people who make every attempt to stick within the bounds of the law as it is policed and as everyone else around them seems to observe, only to get hung out to dry for it sooner or later.

I think this aspect of our law regime deserves much more criticism and remedial attention than the antics or attitudes of lawyers.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 22 June 2007 7:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Healthwatcher,

Thanks for your comment.

Judges, as erstwhile lawyers who have been around long enough, working their legal skills successfully enough, to be appointed to a pedestal of power, are likely afflicted with the most virulent strains of the lawyer mindset epidemic. It therefore surprises me not at all that they cannibalise their own.

As for lawyers being treated badly "by just about everyone", one can but wonder why. I guess those big fat fees are both reason and compensation enough!

Doc Holliday,

I agree completely with everything you wrote. The Law itself was never my target.

Ludwig,

I, too, abhore the self-absorption, greed, consumerism and materialism that is ripping our humanity apart and turning the "lucky country" into the selfish country.

And no, we can't "knock lawyers too much for putting the case of their clients in the best possible light, just as long as it is not dishonestly done." But my point is that it IS dishonestly done, and very often!

Market forces determine remuneration, and that's the reality whether we like it or not. However, the legal system is set up to privilege legal practitioners over the layperson via a type of linguistic tyranny – legalese - that I heartily object to. Lawyers’ bloated fees are often way out of proportion to the quality of service they provide, and this leads to a selective brand of justice. As Doc Holliday rightly points out, "you only get as much justice as you can afford." This is perhaps the most glaring flaw in our justice system, undermining the very notion of justice.

You ask: "...should we really blame them [lawyers] for not always treating the law or morality or ethics as the first priority?"
My answer: YES, we can and should blame them. In demoting "the law or morality or ethics" to any but the highest priority, they are demeaning the ideals of justice that our country is founded upon. Ideals are to respect and aspire to, not to brush aside as a mercenary paid to put the blinkers on and fight for whatever cause pays best.
Posted by Rolan Stein, Friday, 22 June 2007 7:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting how lawyers have such a bad name in countries where the law practiced is that of the adversarial system that is Common Law.

Does it take a particular kind of individual to be successful in this system or does Common Law make individuals into a particular kind of odious person?

Common Law is said to provide justice, not necessarily to seek the truth.
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 22 June 2007 8:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have lately been mulling over a concept mentioned in this article: honour. It seems that this is a word - like bosom or chastity - that is simply not fashionable anymore. Though still used in print it tends to become either embarrassing or risible if someone actually articulates it. Unfortunately the concept it represents - unlike boobs or virginity - seems to have changed as well.

For example: their grandfather taught my sons that honourable persons always tell the truth. But one day at the school the younger's teacher, not liking his response to a question, accused him of lying. He was shattered and replied that he didn't lie. The teacher scoffed, saying: "All kids tell lies".

I wonder: did common people adopt this mindset because those whom they regard as authority figures - the Prime Minister, politicians and lawyers - are unabashed at revealing themselves as persons without honour? Or did the authority figures become dishonourable through dealing with the common people?

The former proposition would at least explain another, larger conundrum. Why, when the premier leader of our country is discovered in absolute and empirically-proven untruths, does the nation not rise up and call him to account? Why, when politicians are discovered deliberately perpetuating untruths are no measures taken to remove them from office? And why are those who manipulate and distort the law lauded and rewarded with even more power?

I wonder if it is because acknowledging that neither our elected representatives nor those whom we regard as the defenders of our rights and interests, have either our best interests nor our continued well-being in mind would force us to further acknowledge that we are adrift in a ship of fools?

Rather than admit to the frightening truth of our utter dependence on those knaves and charlatans at the helm, perhaps it is far more comforting to believe we are all knaves and charlatans?

Yet surely those who rise to the top are therefore the biggest and most cunning fools of all aboard? Is this, then, the reason why we do not mutiny?
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 23 June 2007 5:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all,

I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the article.

I recall being told that 'the key to Law is the loophole'.

Perhaps the adversarial systen has much for which to answer.
Posted by Ninja, Saturday, 23 June 2007 5:41:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
romany,the people don't rise up because most are comfortable. revolution takes more than a few lies.

they don't trade howard for the other mob because they know it's no improvement. and that's all the choice there is in a society wholly-owned by the politician's guild. tweedledum, or tweedledee, hagar, or attila.

this 'complaint' about lawyers is simple-minded, at best. corruption and injustice is built into the system. if you're not willing to change the system, complaint is hypocrisy.
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 23 June 2007 8:17:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Howard’s prolific use of his ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ certainly ties in with the rather scary talk about our rising Corporate Culture.

Watching the recent Four Corner’s series many of us were shocked by the harsh old military style authoritative rigidness adapted by Telstra.

It has so often been said that we can find a more superior sense of justice among small communities which also can give indication how during WW2 there was far more commonsense often in isolated military units than there was in headquarters.

One is reminded of an outlying anti-aircraft unit, the men skilled operators who maybe had become too acquainted with their popular C O who had been promoted to a higher command. Next day a launch pulled into the beach unloading who looked not much more than a boy, yet the number of shoulder pips proving he was a captain. But instead of greeting the gun crew shaking hands etc, he had them all lined up soon telling them rather over-eagerly what he expected of them. As belonging to an artillery survey crew at leisure we gave a soft cheer when a bombardier refused to stay at attention, the rest of the gun crew sniggering and pointing fingers towards the mainland telling the officer boy to get back to school where he belonged.

We gave a loud cheer when the launch crew quickly advised the young officer to get back aboard, bringing another but older commander back next day in a much different frame of mind.

One does wonder where justice really comes from? Further, the term Corporate Culture itself sounding so unjust it immediately requires change – similarly to the need in modern business areas requiring skilled operatives where command skills should also entail sensible/sensitive mentalities for those who oversee even lower command operatives - which also includes the mentality of our most senior operator, Mr John Howard.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 24 June 2007 7:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
apropos reasons (a) and (b) in a previous post for forming a view that lawyers are all bad -

as to (a) if registering a few documents, etc to settle a will is so simple, why hire a lawyer at all? why not do it yourself and then a lawyer would not have to be paid or involved at all: an easy way to divest oneself of the need for a 'glorified officeboy'; and (b) if the family is so dysfunctional that a lawyer is required, why blame the lawyer?
Posted by jocelynne, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos,

The article is not merely a "complaint about lawyers"! As is explicitly stated, the primary concern is not lawyers per se, but the dysfunctional MINDSET that is rife among legal practitioners and others abusing positions of power, who are given status and rewarded financially for applying this mindset in the prosecution of their duties.

If the term "simple-minded" applies anywhere, it is to that very mindset, which fraudulently divides the world into right and wrong, good and evil, black and white. Yet, of course, the mindset is not REALLY "simple-minded", since it is a wilful dumbing down of the complex into a palatable form of propaganda designed to manipulate perception. Whether in a court of law, a boardroom, the political arena, or within the most complex arena of all - personal and family relationships - this toxic mindset is always used to mischievous ends, and always in the service of power, if not downright tyranny.

As to your comment that "corruption and injustice is built into the system" and that unless one is willing to change the system, "complaint is hypocrisy", this seems to me to be tantamount to raising a white flag. If there are aspects within "the system" that are flawed, or wrong, what is hypocritical about laying them bare as a first step towards addressing them to a point of resolution? And surely, by improving anything within the system, we are to some extent changing the system itself, anyway. You gotta start somewhere!

jocelynne,

Nowhere did I claim that "lawyers are all bad"! This sweeping, simplistic statement is an instance of the very mindset I am decrying!

Re your "if registering a few documents, etc to settle a will is so simple, why hire a lawyer at all?" My position exactly! Re-read my post.

Re: "if the family is so dysfunctional that a lawyer is required, why blame the lawyer?" I didn't and I'm not. I was complaining about the lawyer's behaviour. And I didn't hire him!
Posted by Rolan Stein, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:50:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a first year Law student, and here is this guy telling me I made the wrong choice!?

Geez, thanks for that...

From my meagre experience so far, and I've learnt quite a bit about ethics - it seems our lecturers want to change the perceptions in society too, it depends on the lawyer.

Those doing Business/Law tend to think more heartlessly, which I've noted during discussions about law and morality.

One of the posts above had it the other way around I think, YVONNE was it?

She claimed something about justice and the law being different, or the law seeking justice not truth?

The law seeks truth and not justice is the way I understand it. Justice is often the end result of the law, but not always.

In Criminal Law in particular, which I've found the most interesting, much protection is afforded the accused - some over the top.

I can understand why people look at lawyers as immoral, because there are many dodgy ones out there.

Perhaps it depends on where you come from.

Unlike most who do this course, I come from a rather disadvantaged area, and saw many afflicted by hard drugs such as heroin, which was everywhere.

I saw a lot of good people destroyed. I would like to help those types of people.

Obviously they won't be able to pay, so it would go through Legal Aid.

That is also a common misperception about lawyers, as not all are rich. Most aren't, although I have never heard of a poor one.

The top percentage gets picked up by well-known firms, but most earn relatively normal wages.

The immorality part all comes back to the person though. Of course some will be bastards, but others won't. Especially those of us that have seen the other side, lived it even.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 25 June 2007 5:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy