Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Ignorance or what?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



My duties are codified in a code of professional conduct. Said code requires that I zealously represent the best interest of my client. So I guess that would be my main duty as a lawyer. And lawyers do settle disputes. Sometimes it just takes a lawsuit to do so.

bzmom: Tell your husband that in this country, where we are ruled by the common law, hardly does any lawyer ever deal with any issue that is governed by a legislated law. You need lawyers, whether you like it or not, just like you need air.


Pt, this is nothing person against you, ok, but I'm not necessarily impressed with with the invention of "common law" (providing I understand it correctly) our gov't system as it stands today, or with lawyers (I think laws should be straight forward enough--coming directly from guidance in God's Word that we ought to be able to represent ourselves in front of a judge) Saying we need lawyers like we need air is as arrogant as a realtor saying we need them like we need air. We can sell a house without a realtor, just as we can represent ourselves without a lawyer, but in both cases it is difficult at times, and possibly risky in some cases if you don't know what you are doing. I know for sure we could get along a whole lot better in this world with fewer laws and regulations...........and a smaller, less powerful and intrusive gov't!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Pt, this is nothing person against you, ok, but I'm not necessarily impressed with with the invention of "common law" (providing I understand it correctly) our gov't system as it stands today, or with lawyers (I think laws should be straight forward enough--coming directly from guidance in God's Word that we ought to be able to represent ourselves in front of a judge) Saying we need lawyers like we need air is as arrogant as a realtor saying we need them like we need air. We can sell a house without a realtor, just as we can represent ourselves without a lawyer, but in both cases it is difficult at times, and possibly risky in some cases if you don't know what you are doing. I know for sure we could get along a whole lot better in this world with fewer laws and regulations...........and a smaller, less powerful and intrusive gov't!!!


I disagree with you on a lot of fronts. First of all, it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. You need someone who can tell you when your cause is a loser and its time to fold. Another thing is that we didn't invent "common law." Common law is a natural creature born out of fairness and equity.

If you have a house for sale, and you know that it has a leaky roof, but you represent to me that the roof doesn't leak with the intent that I believe you and will therefore buy the house, you've committed common law fraud. We don't need a law written by the government to tells us that. It's common law. It's not fair and equitable and you shouldn't be able to get away with it.

The law and the government are not the same thing. Even without the government you would have law and those who study and become proficient in the law. And I wasn't intending to be arrogant with my statement, which I fully believe is true. The way our world has evolved, we cannot get a long without lawyers without totally changing the way we live. From the moment you are born (from the patent lawyer that developed the tools and medicine to carry out a successful birth) to your death (the estate attorney who wrote your will and/or probated your estate) you will need lawyers. There is no getting around it. And everything needs lawyers: dogs, cows, houses, skyscrapers, businesses, cars . . . all need lawyers. We have woven ourselves into every fabric of society.

From what you've described, it sounds like you are looking for a theocracy (where the laws are based on a particular religion, or the majority's interpretation of that religion), which you will never find in this country. That is, in fact, one of the exact reasons our country was founded in the first place, to escape those that though man should be governed by a particular religious idea of governance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

while some people can defend themselves, I don't think they can defend themselves in front of a judge who have many years of training and experiences. Lawyers can speak in their language (or had the same type of training).

For instant, A doctor told you to give youself a shot at certain bodyparts in some latin name with some kind of medicine, you wouldn't know where. Therefore you need a nurse who had training to understand these terms.

I personally need a lawyer because I am deaf since birth, and deaf people act differently than hearing people. A judge is used to hearing people, but not deaf people. So If I try to defend myself in a language (both body and spoken) in a way I know how, he could misinterpret me (and probably think I need an institution or something) and thinks I am guilty. All because I come from a different culture than he is used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. <<< I certainly hope my lawyer is biased of my position too! (otherwise what is the point of a lawyer)???


Actually, that isn't always the case. I've known folks who represented themselves and won!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Actually, that isn't always the case. I've known folks who represented themselves and won! >>>> in most car accidents, people have to represent themselves especially if it is too expensive to get a lawyer


True! We have had so many accidents (believe it or not, they haven't been our fault - except for one and it was my hubby's fault because he had parked the car to get out for a minute, and it slipped from park). There was one that was pretty bad for me (I have bone problems anyway, and every wreck I'm in hurts me pretty badly - even a slight bang on the back bumper!) and we got a lawyer. Well, suffice it to say that the lawyer and the doctor made out great!

I don't begrudge them the money they got - but since we were the victims, I think the lawyer (who had promised to do so!) could have done better for us.

The last wreck we were in, we didn't get a lawyer. I dealt with the insurance company myself (because I was the one injured, they had to talk to me, not my hubby). And we were pleased with the results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



True! We have had so many accidents (believe it or not, they haven't been our fault - except for one and it was my hubby's fault because he had parked the car to get out for a minute, and it slipped from park). There was one that was pretty bad for me (I have bone problems anyway, and every wreck I'm in hurts me pretty badly - even a slight bang on the back bumper!) and we got a lawyer. Well, suffice it to say that the lawyer and the doctor made out great!

I don't begrudge them the money they got - but since we were the victims, I think the lawyer (who had promised to do so!) could have done better for us.

The last wreck we were in, we didn't get a lawyer. I dealt with the insurance company myself (because I was the one injured, they had to talk to me, not my hubby). And we were pleased with the results.


This is how it should be. You shouldn't get a lawyer until it is obvious that the insurance company is not going to treat you fairly and pay for your injuries. However, I would always caution people to have a lawyer review the release the insurance company will ask you to sign and to inform you on any statute of limitations (time limits) that may apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



This is how it should be. You shouldn't get a lawyer until it is obvious that the insurance company is not going to treat you fairly and pay for your injuries. However, I would always caution people to have a lawyer review the release the insurance company will ask you to sign and to inform you on any statute of limitations (time limits) that may apply.


I agree that a lawyer isn't needed unless the insurance company isn't going to do right. Problem is - a good many lawyers won't touch a case if they aren't sure they aren't going to make a big amount of money. We've been personally told by lawyers (more than once) that there wouldn't be a big enough settlement for it to be worth it for them...

The case I mentioned where the lawyer and the doc made out: the lawyer promised this and that, and backed out towards the end. We would most likely have been better off without him - don't know for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I agree that a lawyer isn't needed unless the insurance company isn't going to do right. Problem is - a good many lawyers won't touch a case if they aren't sure they aren't going to make a big amount of money. We've been personally told by lawyers (more than once) that there wouldn't be a big enough settlement for it to be worth it for them...

The case I mentioned where the lawyer and the doc made out: the lawyer promised this and that, and backed out towards the end. We would most likely have been better off without him - don't know for sure.


The practice of law is not a charity. There is a costs benefit analysis involved just like with everything else. Most lawyers to car accidents on a contingency fee basis where the client doesn't owe anything unless the lawyer gets a settlement or verdict. If a case is only worth, say, $2K, and it will costs the lawyer $5K just to prosecute, then its not worth it. Why should he or she lose money just so a client can make money?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I never said a lawyer should lose money...but the fees they charge for mere paperwork is absolutely ridiculous. I realize you won't agree, and that's fine. But it's true, nevertheless. It's a little bit different if the case actually goes to court.

And if it weren't for the client, the lawyer wouldn't make any money. Lawyers should be a little more aware of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...