3 ms·

"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve leg

by larrys 14y ago

"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.

nostromo 14y ago
Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
- larrys 14y ago
  Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
mindcrime 14y ago
Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.

by larrys 14y ago

nostromo 14y ago

Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.

larrys 14y ago
Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.

mindcrime 14y ago

Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.