6 ms·

What does it mean to be an expert? The cartel-aspect is that it's not good enough to know the relevant law (it's not any harder to read legal documents than man

by hurin 12y ago

What does it mean to be an expert? The cartel-aspect is that it's not good enough to know the relevant law (it's not any harder to read legal documents than manuals) or to be able to emphasize it's relevance and logical coherence relative to the case. This is precisely the kind of mystical nonsense notion that I was referring to. In their view a qualified defense must be made by a lawyer precisely for the sake of it being made by a lawyer, and for preserving the power-structure of the institution.

s_q_b 12y ago
No. A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge, and while not everyone with that knowledge must necessarily be an attorney, of course the courts use a law degree and the bar exam as heuristics. The simple fact that you think legal documents are no more difficult to understand than manuals is a perfect example of how woefully unprepared for the legal arena certain members of the general public are. It takes a long time to learn statutory law, case law, common law, constitutional law, regulatory law, and their interconnections about even a single subject, and it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. Is it possible to represent yourself and win? Yes. If you really know the law that well, you won't have a problem, even pro se. The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you. They hubristically believe the law is like an IKEA instruction booklet, advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose.
- hurin 12y ago
  > The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you...hubristically believe...advance wildly incorrect theories Thank you for the ad-hominem attacks. Usually these come when the interlocutor has little left to say of merit. > A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge. And the key part of this statement is the mystical belief that requisite legal knowledge is something intangible to the case and which defies normal logic. So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. >it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. More mysticism? You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. >advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose Actually I have had the occasion to defend myself in court. For what it's worth it took me three court appearances, because the prosecutor was completely oblivious to how groundless the case was; thus happily wasting three days of my economic productivity (which cost more than the fine would have) as well as tax payer money.
  - nmrm2 12y ago
    > So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? > You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century).
    - hurin 12y ago
      > Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? I'm not citing Einstein as a prototypical example by any means, but I'm citing the idea about how we verify knowledge in a subject. If a guy from a Burger King comes and says, hey I've got a result in theoretical physics, or hey hire me as a developer - we have a method to verify whether they can do those things in a practical way and this shouldn't require platitudes about complexity and history of jurisprudence etc. (or the equivalent for those fields). >This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century). Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. I don't know about the actual application of law - indeed your average jury may very well be swayed (I'll quote from yesterday): "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We will show you how the defendant used the notorious hacker tool known as 'strings' to facilitate his vendetta against Lenovo." But that a Jury would be swayed by something like that and that it's the business of prosecution to make such arguments (hypothetically) is I think precisely in support of my point about the law. On the other hand the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic.
      - 12y ago
summerdown2 12y ago
In addition to the other points made below, I'd like to advance a further idea. An unqualified person may indeed be able to read legal documents and prepare themselves for taking on a legal case. But lawyers have had years of study in which their preparation has been legally challenged, followed by years of practice in which their preparation has been legally challenged. a) They not only know the law, but also the likely approaches an opponent might make to arguing against it. Forewarned is, somewhat, forearmed. But also. b) They probably end up very good judges of how prepared they are. I suggest this is a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect. An untrained person might be able to study law and defend themself. I'm sure there are cases where it's easy and cases where it's hard. But, being unexperienced, they will not be good judges as to their chances of winning, what their best strategy is, or whether they have done sufficient prep to meet likely objections. i.e. more than anything else, experience lets people judge their own progress. A beginner would be clueless in this aspect.

by hurin 12y ago

s_q_b 12y ago

No. A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge, and while not everyone with that knowledge must necessarily be an attorney, of course the courts use a law degree and the bar exam as heuristics. The simple fact that you think legal documents are no more difficult to understand than manuals is a perfect example of how woefully unprepared for the legal arena certain members of the general public are. It takes a long time to learn statutory law, case law, common law, constitutional law, regulatory law, and their interconnections about even a single subject, and it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. Is it possible to represent yourself and win? Yes. If you really know the law that well, you won't have a problem, even pro se. The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you. They hubristically believe the law is like an IKEA instruction booklet, advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose.

hurin 12y ago
> The issue is that many pro se litigants are like you...hubristically believe...advance wildly incorrect theories Thank you for the ad-hominem attacks. Usually these come when the interlocutor has little left to say of merit. > A qualified defense must be made by someone with requisite legal knowledge. And the key part of this statement is the mystical belief that requisite legal knowledge is something intangible to the case and which defies normal logic. So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. >it is assumed throughout that you will have knowledge of legal concepts that aren't contained in those documents. More mysticism? You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. >advance wildly incorrect theories due to lack of foundational knowledge, end up wasting vast amounts of the court's time at taxpayer expense, and then bitterly complain that the judge didn't follow the law when they lose Actually I have had the occasion to defend myself in court. For what it's worth it took me three court appearances, because the prosecutor was completely oblivious to how groundless the case was; thus happily wasting three days of my economic productivity (which cost more than the fine would have) as well as tax payer money.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  > So you'll accept a guy working in a patent office solving a difficult problem in physics, but heaven forbid he should feel qualified to represent himself in court. Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? > You would be surprised how many lawyers I've talked to that would have failed out of a first semester course on formal logic. This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century).
  - hurin 12y ago
    > Citing Einstein as a prototypical example is somehow conceding the parent's point, don't you think? I'm not citing Einstein as a prototypical example by any means, but I'm citing the idea about how we verify knowledge in a subject. If a guy from a Burger King comes and says, hey I've got a result in theoretical physics, or hey hire me as a developer - we have a method to verify whether they can do those things in a practical way and this shouldn't require platitudes about complexity and history of jurisprudence etc. (or the equivalent for those fields). >This I can believe; but then, law has very little to do with formal systems and the sort of informal "logic" used in legal reasoning is absolutely uninformed by anything but the first week or so of a standard intro to mathematical logic course (most legal theory/systems pre-date the advent of modern logic in the late 19th century). Formal logic logic as far as reasoning about non-mathematical subjects is probably not that far from where it was in Aristotle's days. I don't know about the actual application of law - indeed your average jury may very well be swayed (I'll quote from yesterday): "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We will show you how the defendant used the notorious hacker tool known as 'strings' to facilitate his vendetta against Lenovo." But that a Jury would be swayed by something like that and that it's the business of prosecution to make such arguments (hypothetically) is I think precisely in support of my point about the law. On the other hand the authors considered to be authorities Jurisprudence are, I think, very well informed in formal logic.
    - 12y ago

summerdown2 12y ago

In addition to the other points made below, I'd like to advance a further idea. An unqualified person may indeed be able to read legal documents and prepare themselves for taking on a legal case. But lawyers have had years of study in which their preparation has been legally challenged, followed by years of practice in which their preparation has been legally challenged. a) They not only know the law, but also the likely approaches an opponent might make to arguing against it. Forewarned is, somewhat, forearmed. But also. b) They probably end up very good judges of how prepared they are. I suggest this is a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect. An untrained person might be able to study law and defend themself. I'm sure there are cases where it's easy and cases where it's hard. But, being unexperienced, they will not be good judges as to their chances of winning, what their best strategy is, or whether they have done sufficient prep to meet likely objections. i.e. more than anything else, experience lets people judge their own progress. A beginner would be clueless in this aspect.