9 ms·

> Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity. Some anecdotes: - A company I started, hired a big-brand SV legal

> Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity. Some anecdotes: - A company I started, hired a big-brand SV legal firm, super expensive. We thought they would be great. But we were so little to them, it was sometimes even hard to get a timely response. In the end we stopped using them, but not before we signed a bunch of documents they reviewed and told us were fine to sign, when in reality those contracts left us fatally exposed (and were in great part responsible for the downfall of the company later). - Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year. The complaint has some truths twisted to paint a mostly false story, but it also has plenty of lies and omissions. The lawyer(s) that wrote the complaint knew what they were doing, yet no one is ever going to get punished for it. - Looking for lawyers to defend the case (and in previous experiences), I realized that most lawyers have certain formulas or patterns they follow for specific types of situations that they already know how to address, if you don't fall into those, then they'll either pretty much fail at the job, not do what they actually should do (sometimes even if you ask them directly), or just refuse you as a client. It is very hard to find a lawyer that will actually take the time to really listen to you, understand your story/situation and then work on a personalized strategy/solution. I think that any lawyer that intentionally mis-represents stuff in their work, or tries to shoehorn their clients into their formulas, or just half-asses their job, are seriously lacking in integrity. And by my experience, this seems to be the case for 50%+ of lawyers. A lot of them will probably do a ton of damage both to their clients and their counterparties, and they will never be held responsible.

dependenttypes 6y ago
I do not want to dismiss what you are saying (in fact I find it extremely interesting) but don't 80%+ of people in all professions (or even out in society) just suck? I am more surprised that you consider 50% to be the minimum of bad lawyers rather than a higher percentage.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  80% of doctors don't suck. It's not that lawyers suck, per se. It's that you're dealing with an adversary, and if you get a 50th percentile lawyer to go against a 90th percentile lawyer, well, you could still win if you've got a good case, but it's certainly not as likely as the reverse. In many cases you get what you pay for.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > 80% of doctors don't suck. You would be surprised. I do agree with the rest of your post however.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    80% of doctors (especially cheap ones like the lawyers mentioned above) would fail to get optimal results in complex scenarios like presented above, just like the lawyers.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      The doctors wouldn't be put in that position, though. While lawyers will often gladly take a case that they have a low chance of winning without fully disclosing that.
  - drewmol 6y ago
    Yes! Also, satisfaction scores are pretty low for people who've been indicated for aggrevated murder, same as if you're diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. If your goal is to walk away free and unharmed then just about everyone is gonna suck, most of the time. Also, you can't bribe cancer.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      Difference is, your family doctor isn't going to try giving you chemo treatments.
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  Not sure about percentages, but it is definitely true that for any professional service, most people are just trying to make some money and go about their they without being bothered or caring too much. So you almost always have to deal with people that don't care about you or your situation and will just give you some template solution that fits their situation and their past experiences (not yours). In particular it is very evident with doctors when they see you for barely a few minutes and diagnose you. Sure, if it's something super common you'll be fine, but if it's not, good luck trying to convince them to keep digging. They seem to think they are always right and you have no idea what you are talking about because you are not a doctor.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Or most people do poor work 80% of the time and good work 20% of the time. I think most people are capable of doing good work, if they are motivated and free of distractions.
ikeboy 6y ago
There's a big difference between a lawyer who will take a case and a lawyer who can handle a case. I agree 100%. One thing I do is look for similar cases and contact the lawyer on the winning side. The "formulas" do save you money, though. Would you rather pay 5k for them to use an existing template slightly edited, or 25k to write a complaint from scratch? It depends on the case, there is no right answer. You can also literally just look up a lawyer's cases on PACER and see how they write, see if they've won, and use your judgement as to whether they're an effective advocate. If you're dealing with a big case, this is absolutely worth doing.
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  You have excellent points, and I hope I had known them many years ago. One of the main issues for non-lawyers is that the first time you need to hire a lawyer, you have no idea what you are doing, so there's a huge learning curve and a lot of information asymmetry to overcome.
ovi256 6y ago
re "Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year." - unfortunately, the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer painted that picture is what's expected, and required of him. He advocates for his client, in the best way possible. Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that.
- kwanbix 6y ago
  twisting the truth shouldn't be expected.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Do you disagree with "Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that" Semi-related but very valuable advice, if well-known - when I was off sick the council brought a complaint against me. They actually lied and implied criminal behaviour (fraud) on my part (also not turning over all the evidence to the tribunal that followed). So here's the important bit: DO IT IN WRITING AND KEEP COPIES OF EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING YOU WRITE, EVERYTHING THEY SEND YOU. INSIST ON IT BEING ON PAPER (NOT TELEPHONE), AND PRINT EMAILS OUT. I could rebut almost everything bad they said about me. The tribunal threw out their case before I even turned up. (I know this is obvious and everyone says get it in writing, but things would be smoother if people actually did).
  - ovi256 6y ago
    But there is no truth in an adversary justice system (and I'm not sure about the other systems either). There are only the parties' differing perspectives (if they were not differing there wouldn't be a complaint) and a court ruling at the end, which we take for impartial.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      Imagine I receive a letter from a lawyer saying "It appears your product A infringes our client's patents B and C" That's fairly clearly a statement of fact - that in their professional opinion they believe their client has a reasonable chance of prevailing in court. Do lawyers not have an obligation to display good faith and professional candour in making such statements of fact, even to their adversaries?
bob33212 6y ago
I worked with a lawyer who thought his job was to negotiate a contract with the least amount of liability for us. In theory that sounds good. But these contracts ended up sounding ridiculous to customers with statements like: "Under no circumstances will vendor be liable for any damages in excess of 10% of the purchase price of the vendor services" Customers assume you are trying to scam them with language like that. But he didn't care, he just wanted to be able to be proud of how little liability we took on. I finally had to point out that the best way to reduce our liability is to shut the company down and end our need for legal services all together.
pc86 6y ago
Per your second point, if you can prove that a lawyer knowingly put lies in a civil complaint that's a slam dunk for the Bar to sanction them. Another way to say "truths twisted to paint a mostly false story [with] plenty of...omissions" is "making a legal argument." Per your third point, I was once wrongly accused in a criminal case. I was a nobody, random person making like $30k a year at the time but was able to retain someone from K&L Gates. I think he felt bad for me because he basically lobbied the partners for permission to take me on at a reduced rate (like $1.5k total). A couple letters and a court appearance later and the misunderstanding was rectified. But the important part is I was obviously a nobody, the partners at this firm bill tens of thousands of dollars a day. $1500 is probably less than a single office location spends on coffee in a week. But this guy sat with me for hours going over the case and where the problems were.
sunstone 6y ago
I've dealt with almost two dozen lawyers over the past twenty years and I am quite knowledgeable about the practices of stock brokers. In both cases it seems that the chances of getting a practitioner, at random, who will work with you in good faith is closer to 20%. Getting both honesty and capable ability is lower. And then there is the family law lawyers ("it's not family and it's not law" according to one) but it does line a lot of lawyer's pockets at the expense of the public, at least in the five eyes. Most other jurisdictions have opted for a saner system. So, yes, it's jungle out there. Imagine if your doctor prescribed medicine that would make you sicker so that he could charge you more later. If you don't have good reliable connections going in you really need to be careful, shop around until you find someone who seems good and honest, and then pray.

dependenttypes 6y ago

I do not want to dismiss what you are saying (in fact I find it extremely interesting) but don't 80%+ of people in all professions (or even out in society) just suck? I am more surprised that you consider 50% to be the minimum of bad lawyers rather than a higher percentage.

ikeboy 6y ago
80% of doctors don't suck. It's not that lawyers suck, per se. It's that you're dealing with an adversary, and if you get a 50th percentile lawyer to go against a 90th percentile lawyer, well, you could still win if you've got a good case, but it's certainly not as likely as the reverse. In many cases you get what you pay for.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > 80% of doctors don't suck. You would be surprised. I do agree with the rest of your post however.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  80% of doctors (especially cheap ones like the lawyers mentioned above) would fail to get optimal results in complex scenarios like presented above, just like the lawyers.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    The doctors wouldn't be put in that position, though. While lawyers will often gladly take a case that they have a low chance of winning without fully disclosing that.
- drewmol 6y ago
  Yes! Also, satisfaction scores are pretty low for people who've been indicated for aggrevated murder, same as if you're diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. If your goal is to walk away free and unharmed then just about everyone is gonna suck, most of the time. Also, you can't bribe cancer.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    Difference is, your family doctor isn't going to try giving you chemo treatments.
ta1234567890 6y ago
Not sure about percentages, but it is definitely true that for any professional service, most people are just trying to make some money and go about their they without being bothered or caring too much. So you almost always have to deal with people that don't care about you or your situation and will just give you some template solution that fits their situation and their past experiences (not yours). In particular it is very evident with doctors when they see you for barely a few minutes and diagnose you. Sure, if it's something super common you'll be fine, but if it's not, good luck trying to convince them to keep digging. They seem to think they are always right and you have no idea what you are talking about because you are not a doctor.
mleonhard 6y ago
Or most people do poor work 80% of the time and good work 20% of the time. I think most people are capable of doing good work, if they are motivated and free of distractions.

ikeboy 6y ago

There's a big difference between a lawyer who will take a case and a lawyer who can handle a case. I agree 100%. One thing I do is look for similar cases and contact the lawyer on the winning side. The "formulas" do save you money, though. Would you rather pay 5k for them to use an existing template slightly edited, or 25k to write a complaint from scratch? It depends on the case, there is no right answer. You can also literally just look up a lawyer's cases on PACER and see how they write, see if they've won, and use your judgement as to whether they're an effective advocate. If you're dealing with a big case, this is absolutely worth doing.

ta1234567890 6y ago
You have excellent points, and I hope I had known them many years ago. One of the main issues for non-lawyers is that the first time you need to hire a lawyer, you have no idea what you are doing, so there's a huge learning curve and a lot of information asymmetry to overcome.

ovi256 6y ago

re "Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year." - unfortunately, the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer painted that picture is what's expected, and required of him. He advocates for his client, in the best way possible. Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that.

kwanbix 6y ago
twisting the truth shouldn't be expected.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Do you disagree with "Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that" Semi-related but very valuable advice, if well-known - when I was off sick the council brought a complaint against me. They actually lied and implied criminal behaviour (fraud) on my part (also not turning over all the evidence to the tribunal that followed). So here's the important bit: DO IT IN WRITING AND KEEP COPIES OF EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING YOU WRITE, EVERYTHING THEY SEND YOU. INSIST ON IT BEING ON PAPER (NOT TELEPHONE), AND PRINT EMAILS OUT. I could rebut almost everything bad they said about me. The tribunal threw out their case before I even turned up. (I know this is obvious and everyone says get it in writing, but things would be smoother if people actually did).
- ovi256 6y ago
  But there is no truth in an adversary justice system (and I'm not sure about the other systems either). There are only the parties' differing perspectives (if they were not differing there wouldn't be a complaint) and a court ruling at the end, which we take for impartial.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    Imagine I receive a letter from a lawyer saying "It appears your product A infringes our client's patents B and C" That's fairly clearly a statement of fact - that in their professional opinion they believe their client has a reasonable chance of prevailing in court. Do lawyers not have an obligation to display good faith and professional candour in making such statements of fact, even to their adversaries?

bob33212 6y ago

I worked with a lawyer who thought his job was to negotiate a contract with the least amount of liability for us. In theory that sounds good. But these contracts ended up sounding ridiculous to customers with statements like: "Under no circumstances will vendor be liable for any damages in excess of 10% of the purchase price of the vendor services" Customers assume you are trying to scam them with language like that. But he didn't care, he just wanted to be able to be proud of how little liability we took on. I finally had to point out that the best way to reduce our liability is to shut the company down and end our need for legal services all together.

pc86 6y ago

Per your second point, if you can prove that a lawyer knowingly put lies in a civil complaint that's a slam dunk for the Bar to sanction them. Another way to say "truths twisted to paint a mostly false story [with] plenty of...omissions" is "making a legal argument." Per your third point, I was once wrongly accused in a criminal case. I was a nobody, random person making like $30k a year at the time but was able to retain someone from K&L Gates. I think he felt bad for me because he basically lobbied the partners for permission to take me on at a reduced rate (like $1.5k total). A couple letters and a court appearance later and the misunderstanding was rectified. But the important part is I was obviously a nobody, the partners at this firm bill tens of thousands of dollars a day. $1500 is probably less than a single office location spends on coffee in a week. But this guy sat with me for hours going over the case and where the problems were.

sunstone 6y ago

I've dealt with almost two dozen lawyers over the past twenty years and I am quite knowledgeable about the practices of stock brokers. In both cases it seems that the chances of getting a practitioner, at random, who will work with you in good faith is closer to 20%. Getting both honesty and capable ability is lower. And then there is the family law lawyers ("it's not family and it's not law" according to one) but it does line a lot of lawyer's pockets at the expense of the public, at least in the five eyes. Most other jurisdictions have opted for a saner system. So, yes, it's jungle out there. Imagine if your doctor prescribed medicine that would make you sicker so that he could charge you more later. If you don't have good reliable connections going in you really need to be careful, shop around until you find someone who seems good and honest, and then pray.