5 ms·

You know who always wins? Lawyers are used in the litigation (for both parties). If you receive a letter written by another lawyer, you'll need to consult one

You know who always wins? Lawyers are used in the litigation (for both parties). If you receive a letter written by another lawyer, you'll need to consult one in order to tell them to get lost. There are essentially no downsides to all the lawyers other than their clients no longer being able to pay. 40-50% of Congress and Senate are lawyers. I would be astonished to find them voting against their own profession's best interests.

DannyBee 14y ago
This is an interesting claim, except for the fact that if you lose a lot, nobody hires you. Even if you are a corporate counsel, making bad decisions around patents will get you fired. So no, lawyers don't "always win". Nobody in senate/congress who is a lawyer gives a crap about "their profession's best interests", because it's not something that makes sense to do, politically or financially. They don't need to cater to lawyers to get jobs when they leave congress/senate, and lawyers contribute fairly equally to all parties. Also, patent law is a very specialized area of law that requires separate testing and certification, it's almost a separate profession. Lawyers are the perennial scapegoats for the wishes of the shitty clients they represent. Yes, plenty of them (particularly in the patent world) do it happily,, but behind every patent lawsuit is a crazy client who hired a lawyer to sue someone. There's plenty of blame to go around.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  Lawyers grease the wheels of this activity. Consider what the effect of having loser pays on the system would have such as in Britain. That would seem to be a good path to go down and likely reduce the volume of legal activity.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Sometimes yes they are greasing, sometimes no, they aren't. It varies depending on the type of firm. Loser pays has its ups and downs. For example, you don't want loser pays when you are trying to fight small guy vs large guy, which is the case for most consumers.
monochromatic 14y ago
Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Think about it: they write the laws. How is it a bad thing that they're equipped to know how they'll be interpreted?
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Yes, and authors should be required to have English degrees before inflicting their opinions on the public, musicians should be required to have music degrees, philosophers should have philosophy degrees, and so forth. In short, people without degrees should have no right to take part in public affairs. Right? If this system were in place, Albert Einstein would not have been allowed to submit his first physics papers for publication. And Abraham Lincoln, regarded as one of our most remarkable presidents, would have been barred from running for office (he had almost no formal education of any kind). Possession of a law degree -- or any degree -- should not be a precondition to take part in public affairs. That's why we have a voting booth -- that's a much better competence filter than a sheepskin. But only if voters are educated and skeptical.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    The difference is that I'm not required to read any particular author's books. Following the laws is more compulsory, and I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard. There is a long democratic tradition (and politics is as much about tradition as it is about common sense) that says representatives should resemble those they represent. This is why there are two houses of congress -- the house of representatives (aptly named) to accommodate those who think representatives should be ordinary people, and the senate, to accommodate those who think representatives should be a cut above. The founding fathers also deliberately produced multiple branches of government to avoid too much power in too few hands. The senate can't enact legislation without the cooperation of the "lower" house, and vice versa. Just as the founding fathers intended. There is a term for the kind of government you're describing -- "elitism". If history teaches us anything, it is that people who have law degrees aren't better at representing the pubic's interest than those who don't.

DannyBee 14y ago

This is an interesting claim, except for the fact that if you lose a lot, nobody hires you. Even if you are a corporate counsel, making bad decisions around patents will get you fired. So no, lawyers don't "always win". Nobody in senate/congress who is a lawyer gives a crap about "their profession's best interests", because it's not something that makes sense to do, politically or financially. They don't need to cater to lawyers to get jobs when they leave congress/senate, and lawyers contribute fairly equally to all parties. Also, patent law is a very specialized area of law that requires separate testing and certification, it's almost a separate profession. Lawyers are the perennial scapegoats for the wishes of the shitty clients they represent. Yes, plenty of them (particularly in the patent world) do it happily,, but behind every patent lawsuit is a crazy client who hired a lawyer to sue someone. There's plenty of blame to go around.

rogerbinns 14y ago
Lawyers grease the wheels of this activity. Consider what the effect of having loser pays on the system would have such as in Britain. That would seem to be a good path to go down and likely reduce the volume of legal activity.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Sometimes yes they are greasing, sometimes no, they aren't. It varies depending on the type of firm. Loser pays has its ups and downs. For example, you don't want loser pays when you are trying to fight small guy vs large guy, which is the case for most consumers.

monochromatic 14y ago

Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Think about it: they write the laws. How is it a bad thing that they're equipped to know how they'll be interpreted?

lutusp 14y ago
> Legislators should be required to have law degrees. Yes, and authors should be required to have English degrees before inflicting their opinions on the public, musicians should be required to have music degrees, philosophers should have philosophy degrees, and so forth. In short, people without degrees should have no right to take part in public affairs. Right? If this system were in place, Albert Einstein would not have been allowed to submit his first physics papers for publication. And Abraham Lincoln, regarded as one of our most remarkable presidents, would have been barred from running for office (he had almost no formal education of any kind). Possession of a law degree -- or any degree -- should not be a precondition to take part in public affairs. That's why we have a voting booth -- that's a much better competence filter than a sheepskin. But only if voters are educated and skeptical.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  The difference is that I'm not required to read any particular author's books. Following the laws is more compulsory, and I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I think legislators should be held to a more rigorous standard. There is a long democratic tradition (and politics is as much about tradition as it is about common sense) that says representatives should resemble those they represent. This is why there are two houses of congress -- the house of representatives (aptly named) to accommodate those who think representatives should be ordinary people, and the senate, to accommodate those who think representatives should be a cut above. The founding fathers also deliberately produced multiple branches of government to avoid too much power in too few hands. The senate can't enact legislation without the cooperation of the "lower" house, and vice versa. Just as the founding fathers intended. There is a term for the kind of government you're describing -- "elitism". If history teaches us anything, it is that people who have law degrees aren't better at representing the pubic's interest than those who don't.