4 ms·
You misunderstand the legal field if you think a lawyer should be given the benefit of the doubt when arguing on behlf of a client. Their job is to use the most
by staticman2 5y ago
You misunderstand the legal field if you think a lawyer should be given the benefit of the doubt when arguing on behlf of a client. Their job is to use the most persuasive propaganda they can get away with.
- darawk 5y agoIn this context, his job is to assess the legality of it before they create the product. Companies don't generally want to invest in building something they aren't legally allowed to market.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> In this context, his job is to assess the legality of it before they create the product. No, in this cass (that is, the case of the article under discussion) his job is to act as a PR representative of the company in the course of action it has chosen which is leading to imminent legal conflict with the SEC. It’s true that he also had the job you discuss, but this article isn't the output of that job; that would be found in confidential internal advisory memos to the board and other executives.
- koolba 5y agoYou’re mixing up what would be asked to the in house lawyers. It’s not a binary: Is this legal? It’s: Can we get away with this?
- gitfan86 5y agoSometimes people assume that lawyers write contracts with the goal of the contract never being breached. But plenty of times they write contracts with the goal of breaching it being of little significance for their client.
- TomSwirly 5y agoFor a counterexample, look at Uber, Lyft, or AirBNB, whose whole business models have consisted of flouting the law and quickly adjusting when caught.