5 ms·

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 expecte

by 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?
    - caro_douglos 6y ago
      Lawyers love to send letters. They also can fold when your attorney responds letting them know that the letter’s assertions are incorrect.
    - smichel17 6y ago
      I do not agree that's clearly a statement of fact. An unrelated example that demonstrates why: laat week, I was having a (text) conversation with two other people, and I made a comment to the effect of, "I think it's a waste of time for you to argue about X, figuring out how to do Y would be more productive instead." To which one of the other participants responded, "...but we were talking about Z, not X!" The literal words we had written were the facts. Their meaning was up for interpretation. If something as basic as the subject of a conversation cannot be necessarily be agreed upon, something more complicated like "does this infringe on a patent?" certainly has room for disagreement.
dodobirdlord 6y ago
Yes, but in a reasonable world "lies and omissions" ought to result in disbarment.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Well... certainly not omissions. The job of a lawyer is not to lay down facts but to know and understand the law and use the knowledge to argue on behalf of their client. It is prosecutor's job to lay down facts without lying or omitting. In fact lawyers have obligation to omit facts when it is a wish of their client.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Yes, that's why this thread is talking about lawyers being unethical in helping people break the law and escape justice.
    - lmilcin 6y ago
      I don't exactly see it this way. Every person has a right to defend themselves. Even guilty ones, because until proven, how would you decide they are or they aren't guilty to figure out they have right to defend? Most people don't know the law enough to adequately defend themselves. Even though you have the option, you would usually be well advised to use help of somebody that knows the law very well because knowing it is their profession and helping you is responsibility. Just think about this, half of the population has intelligence below mean (ha! not average! but close). You need to generally be highly intelligent to be able to adequately dispute and represent yourself in a court. So while I loath the fact that criminals use lawyers to escape prison I also recognize that this is their right and that lawyers serve an important function in a society the same way policemen who stop you for speeding or tax auditor looking through your papers do.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    The scenario I’m quoting from seemed like it was a lawsuit. In that scenario I think it’s clear that omissions could reasonably be grounds for disbarment. I happen to think that filing a sufficiently brazenly frivolous lawsuit should result in the lawyer who filed it being disbarred. Whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous can easily hinge on omitting information, like suing someone for trespassing on your property but leaving out of the filing that they have an easement to travel on your land. If a lawyer agrees to file such a suit for their client, knowing that such an easement exists, they should be disbarred for it.

by ovi256 6y ago

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?
  - caro_douglos 6y ago
    Lawyers love to send letters. They also can fold when your attorney responds letting them know that the letter’s assertions are incorrect.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    I do not agree that's clearly a statement of fact. An unrelated example that demonstrates why: laat week, I was having a (text) conversation with two other people, and I made a comment to the effect of, "I think it's a waste of time for you to argue about X, figuring out how to do Y would be more productive instead." To which one of the other participants responded, "...but we were talking about Z, not X!" The literal words we had written were the facts. Their meaning was up for interpretation. If something as basic as the subject of a conversation cannot be necessarily be agreed upon, something more complicated like "does this infringe on a patent?" certainly has room for disagreement.

dodobirdlord 6y ago

Yes, but in a reasonable world "lies and omissions" ought to result in disbarment.

lmilcin 6y ago
Well... certainly not omissions. The job of a lawyer is not to lay down facts but to know and understand the law and use the knowledge to argue on behalf of their client. It is prosecutor's job to lay down facts without lying or omitting. In fact lawyers have obligation to omit facts when it is a wish of their client.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Yes, that's why this thread is talking about lawyers being unethical in helping people break the law and escape justice.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    I don't exactly see it this way. Every person has a right to defend themselves. Even guilty ones, because until proven, how would you decide they are or they aren't guilty to figure out they have right to defend? Most people don't know the law enough to adequately defend themselves. Even though you have the option, you would usually be well advised to use help of somebody that knows the law very well because knowing it is their profession and helping you is responsibility. Just think about this, half of the population has intelligence below mean (ha! not average! but close). You need to generally be highly intelligent to be able to adequately dispute and represent yourself in a court. So while I loath the fact that criminals use lawyers to escape prison I also recognize that this is their right and that lawyers serve an important function in a society the same way policemen who stop you for speeding or tax auditor looking through your papers do.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The scenario I’m quoting from seemed like it was a lawsuit. In that scenario I think it’s clear that omissions could reasonably be grounds for disbarment. I happen to think that filing a sufficiently brazenly frivolous lawsuit should result in the lawyer who filed it being disbarred. Whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous can easily hinge on omitting information, like suing someone for trespassing on your property but leaving out of the filing that they have an easement to travel on your land. If a lawyer agrees to file such a suit for their client, knowing that such an easement exists, they should be disbarred for it.