3 ms·

So you don't agree that 'the person who represents themself has an idiot for a client'?

• mvc 10y ago
  Probably smart to bring one to court with you but maybe not required for drawing up a standard will where the few assets you own should just go to your next of kin
  • DINKDINK 10y ago
    Lawyers write human readable code that's compiled and run by a judge or interfacing APIs (institutions such as financial ones) Your advice is akin to saying "hey you inexperienced coder, write some production ready code but don't test it and when the only time it needs to run, give it a try. Hope you don't screw it up! When there's another coder in the room who can claim 'oh no he meant to set my financial variable 100X not 10x' and can convince the compiler to agree with them"
    • nihonde 10y ago
      This analogy falls apart pretty quickly. You can't compile legal work product and no one is accountable if it doesn't run, unless you're at the point where malpractice comes into play. Malpractice is really, really hard to prove, though.
    • zodiac 10y ago
      But most judges are making subjective decisions and not just "running code". The US constitution is law; can you compile it into code such that a computer could tell you whether a particular piece of legislation was unconstitutional? If you could, why hasn't such a computer replaced most of the US Supreme Court?
• nihonde 10y ago
  If you're going to court, bring a lawyer. Courts are the domain of arcane procedures and common sense has no place there. My comments above refer to transactions, compliance, etc.