4 ms·

The point is that both lawyers and clients should understand their roles. The lawyer's primary job is to explain to the client the legal consequences of a given

The point is that both lawyers and clients should understand their roles. The lawyer's primary job is to explain to the client the legal consequences of a given course of action. Preferably, the lawyer will have the clients non-legal interests in mind that the same time, so that they can have an intelligent discussion about weighing the risks and benefits of a given course of action. Correspondingly, clients should understand that lawyers are there to give advice. They are not there to give direction; they are there to give advice. It's always better if the client and lawyer both understand the clients strategic goals, so that they can have, as described above, an intelligent discussion about weighing the risks and benefits of a given course of action, but the overall purpose of the lawyer is merely to give advice.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
But that puts you in a tough spot: deciding you know a legal issue better than your lawyer. Similar to telling your doctor "OK, fat and salt are bad for me; but I like them so I'm going to keep eating them". Why did you even ask?
- seunosewa 16y ago
  It's like asking a doctor, what are the health implications of eating ice cream daily? Then deciding it's worth it!
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Maxwell Kennerly is an attorney, and thus defining his own role in legal consultations. I was at the doctor's office earlier today and made a decision about the costs and benefits of a medication which required considering the probability of side effects and the expense of purchase vs. the potential health benefits.
- timwiseman 16y ago
  So that you can make an informed decision. Also, there is often a middle ground. "Fat and salt are bad for me, so I will keep eating them, but now I will do it in moderation." Similarly, there are times you may decide to take an action that will risk a lawsuit, but you can do so in an informed way by consulting a good lawyer. Paul Graham makes the point in http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html that most startups should simply not worry about infringing patents. This is a calculated risk, but one they should know they are taking if they do so. Similarly, there is a calculus of negligence (brief laymen's overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence ) that essentially says that if the probability of hurting someone else's property multiplied by the most likely damage is less than the cost to remove that risk, you simply accept the risk and be prepared to pay out the damage if it happens and do nothing to reduce that risk. This is a very calculated risk since if something happens you will be required to pay for it and the other party will rightly sue you if you do not. Yet the rational thing is still to just accept that risk, but you can only make that risk rationally if you have calculated that risk (perhaps with advie of a lawyer).

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

But that puts you in a tough spot: deciding you know a legal issue better than your lawyer. Similar to telling your doctor "OK, fat and salt are bad for me; but I like them so I'm going to keep eating them". Why did you even ask?

seunosewa 16y ago
It's like asking a doctor, what are the health implications of eating ice cream daily? Then deciding it's worth it!
anigbrowl 16y ago
Maxwell Kennerly is an attorney, and thus defining his own role in legal consultations. I was at the doctor's office earlier today and made a decision about the costs and benefits of a medication which required considering the probability of side effects and the expense of purchase vs. the potential health benefits.
timwiseman 16y ago
So that you can make an informed decision. Also, there is often a middle ground. "Fat and salt are bad for me, so I will keep eating them, but now I will do it in moderation." Similarly, there are times you may decide to take an action that will risk a lawsuit, but you can do so in an informed way by consulting a good lawyer. Paul Graham makes the point in http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html that most startups should simply not worry about infringing patents. This is a calculated risk, but one they should know they are taking if they do so. Similarly, there is a calculus of negligence (brief laymen's overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence ) that essentially says that if the probability of hurting someone else's property multiplied by the most likely damage is less than the cost to remove that risk, you simply accept the risk and be prepared to pay out the damage if it happens and do nothing to reduce that risk. This is a very calculated risk since if something happens you will be required to pay for it and the other party will rightly sue you if you do not. Yet the rational thing is still to just accept that risk, but you can only make that risk rationally if you have calculated that risk (perhaps with advie of a lawyer).