Law nerds, UNITE!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I love the OSCN website.

I've learned so much about the legality and politics of my employment from that site, more than I've ever seen in any watered down assfest of a textbook. Which leads to my question...

How realistic is it for a fella that works 24 on, 48 off to get a law degree?

[Okla-homey]

I love the OSCN website.

I've learned so much about the legality and politics of my employment from that site, more than I've ever seen in any watered down assfest of a textbook. Which leads to my question...

How realistic is it for a fella that works 24 on, 48 off to get a law degree?

Very realistic. Particularly of you're willing to go part time at TU and get it done in four years instead of three.

Take the LSAT. If you do well, you might just get to go for free.

One thing that would help though, would be if you could work out something permitting you to work 48 on with 72 off. Is that possible?

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, you could probably do it, particularly on a part time schedule. Full-time...some (maybe most) schools have a policy that full-time first year students can't work and that second year students are limited to 20 hours per week during the school year.

[Oldnslo]

If you're on fire (heh) to be an attorney, then you can find a way to do it.

That being said, be sure you want to go down this road. Even with financial assistance, you'll be spending a HUGE amount of dough. AND you'll also be taking a HUGE amount of time away from... whatever you spend time on now.

It's a big commitment. Extra Large.

Then, you get to enjoy the hypercompetitive market for lawyers! For every opening we've ever advertised for, we've been deluged with resume's. I got a resume from a guy in Massachusetts for our last opening. Ads seeking lawyers with 0-2 yrs experience get responses from 10 year people. Lots of them. We get lawyer resumes when we advertise for part time courthouse runners.

All that said... if you're just burning to be a lawyer (I CANT STOP!), go for it. There's always a market for the very finest.

[OUMallen]

Find something else to do. Seriously. There are better ways to make money.


But if that doesn't stop you, buy this to get an idea of what you're getting into:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Planet-Law-School-II_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ2671170

and more importantly, if you do go:
http://www.leews.com/

[soonerboomer93]

Very realistic. Particularly of you're willing to go part time at TU and get it done in four years instead of three.

Take the LSAT. If you do well, you might just get to go for free.

One thing that would help though, would be if you could work out something permitting you to work 48 on with 72 off. Is that possible?

48 hours on shift? At a fire station?

Homey don't know any firefighters.

[Frozen Sooner]

If you're on fire (heh) to be an attorney, then you can find a way to do it.

That being said, be sure you want to go down this road. Even with financial assistance, you'll be spending a HUGE amount of dough. AND you'll also be taking a HUGE amount of time away from... whatever you spend time on now.

It's a big commitment. Extra Large.

Then, you get to enjoy the hypercompetitive market for lawyers! For every opening we've ever advertised for, we've been deluged with resume's. I got a resume from a guy in Massachusetts for our last opening. Ads seeking lawyers with 0-2 yrs experience get responses from 10 year people. Lots of them. We get lawyer resumes when we advertise for part time courthouse runners.

All that said... if you're just burning to be a lawyer (I CANT STOP!), go for it. There's always a market for the very finest.


Find something else to do. Seriously. There are better ways to make money.


But if that doesn't stop you, buy this to get an idea of what you're getting into:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Planet-Law-School-II_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ2671170

and more importantly, if you do go:
http://www.leews.com/

Also good advice.

The job market for attorneys is really thin right now. There's some indications that it's starting to recover a bit, but after the bloodbath of a couple of years ago there's a bunch of experienced attorneys out there looking for work as associates. Make sure you have a plan for when you get out and make sure you're making the connections you need.

You can significantly increase your chances for a job by making sure your class rank is high and that you're taking challenging classes. Recognize the fact that while it's hard to be in the top 10% of your class, mathematically SOMEONE has to be there and it might as well be you as someone else, and the prime determinative factor is how hard you're willing to work.

Get on Law Review. I've had recruiters from at least six firms say that they won't even look at a resume that doesn't include Law Review. If not Law Review, SOME journal experience is a good idea.

[OUMallen]

Also good advice.

The job market for attorneys is really thin right now. There's some indications that it's starting to recover a bit, but after the bloodbath of a couple of years ago there's a bunch of experienced attorneys out there looking for work as associates. Make sure you have a plan for when you get out and make sure you're making the connections you need.

You can significantly increase your chances for a job by making sure your class rank is high and that you're taking challenging classes. Recognize the fact that while it's hard to be in the top 10% of your class, mathematically SOMEONE has to be there and it might as well be you as someone else, and the prime determinative factor is how hard you're willing to work.

Get on Law Review. I've had recruiters from at least six firms say that they won't even look at a resume that doesn't include Law Review. If not Law Review, SOME journal experience is a good idea.

It's a complicated calculus. Why do you want to go? To make a nice living? Then I suggest you don't even consider going unless you know you can be in the top 10% of your class. Will you be taking out loans? Then I suggest you don't even consider going unless you know you can be in the top 10% of your class. There are so many attorneys with debt up to their eyeballs that far exceeds the value of their degree and earning potential.

Is money not a big deal and you think you'd enjoy it? Go. It's a terrific education.

[Okla-homey]

If you're on fire (heh) to be an attorney, then you can find a way to do it.

That being said, be sure you want to go down this road. Even with financial assistance, you'll be spending a HUGE amount of dough. AND you'll also be taking a HUGE amount of time away from... whatever you spend time on now.

It's a big commitment. Extra Large.

Then, you get to enjoy the hypercompetitive market for lawyers! For every opening we've ever advertised for, we've been deluged with resume's. I got a resume from a guy in Massachusetts for our last opening. Ads seeking lawyers with 0-2 yrs experience get responses from 10 year people. Lots of them. We get lawyer resumes when we advertise for part time courthouse runners.

All that said... if you're just burning to be a lawyer (I CANT STOP!), go for it. There's always a market for the very finest.

All generally true, BUT, this feller has real life experience. That counts for a lot. Gives him an edge over newly-minted 20-somethings lawyers who don't know anything about the real world. Worked for me anyway.

I've met several folks in the Tulsa legal community who are former cops or firemen. I should think if you dig employment law, you've got a built-in niche, what with your municipal employee past. Insurance defense also come to mind.

I'm a big advocate of folks making a mid-life career change. It keeps life interesting, and all that studyin' helps stave off the Alzheimers. I wouldn't advise it however, if doing so forces you to incur massive student loan debt. You probably don't have enough working years left to make $80K in the hole pay off on the back end like the kids do.

I say go for it. And for realz, you can do it part-time and if you're willing to do summer school both your first two summers, you can get out in three and half years. I watched people do it.

Also, FWIW, I had a good bud in law skool who ended up being a top ten percenter and with whom I was on law review who had a family. He went full-time with me. He was about 34 when we started. He was a former Pepperidge Farm route guy. He pulled off a scholly that covered most of his tuition, and, get this, delivered pizzas for Mazzios at night and on weekends to make the mortgage payment. His wife worked too of course. He got on with a large Tulsa firm after graduation and is happy as a clam.

[Okla-homey]

Find something else to do. Seriously. There are better ways to make money.


But if that doesn't stop you, buy this to get an idea of what you're getting into:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Planet-Law-School-II_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ2671170

and more importantly, if you do go:
http://www.leews.com/

I heartily agree that "Planet Law School" is the finest book ever written on how to survive and thrive in law skool. If you do as instructed therein, you will do well.

[C&CDean]

What kind of a ****ing moron actually wants to be a lawyer?

I don't get it.

[Okla-homey]

What kind of a ****ing moron actually wants to be a lawyer?

I don't get it.

I dig helping people. Srsly.

[C&CDean]

To be honest, I don't know very many people who look at lawyers as folks who "help." Seriously.

[Okla-homey]

To be honest, I don't know very many people who look at lawyers as folks who "help." Seriously.

Than you don't know too many poor people. Or people who have gotten themselves into some kind of mess and have no clue how to extricate themselves. srsly.

[C&CDean]

Oh I know. I dropped ~$38K with one on a divorce, and I was a poor mother****er at the time. If I would have just let the ex have her way (which she pretty much got anyhow) I'd be $38K to the good right now.

I'm just spouting out on general perception. Most folks view y'all as money-grubbing slimeball sharkdogs. Many of your JD brethren and sistren have done much to make y'all look bad.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh I know. I dropped ~$38K with one on a divorce, and I was a poor mother****er at the time. If I would have just let the ex have her way (which she pretty much got anyhow) I'd be $38K to the good right now.

I'm just spouting out on general perception. Most folks view y'all as money-grubbing slimeball sharkdogs. Many of your JD brethren and sistren have done much to make y'all look bad.The reputation of being enemies of business PO's a lot of folks, too. To me, though, the biggest negative of the legal profession is their dedication for advocacy of their client, even if guilty of the most heinous crimes.

[OUMallen]

To be honest, I don't know very many people who look at lawyers as folks who "help." Seriously.

My clients do.



(But that's because I help their wealthy corporations get wealthier.)

[Frozen Sooner]

To me, though, the biggest negative of the legal profession is their dedication for advocacy of their client, even if guilty of the most heinous crimes.

You're a real piece of work. Why even have a trial, right? I mean, they're guilty of a heinous crime!

For someone who claims to be mistrustful of government, you sure seem to think little of individual rights to a fair trial and vigorous defense.

[OUMallen]

The reputation of being enemies of business PO's a lot of folks, too. To me, though, the biggest negative of the legal profession is their dedication for advocacy of their client, even if guilty of the most heinous crimes.

Gotta PROVE them guilty, dude. And that can only happen with a decent defense.

[Okla-homey]

To me, though, the biggest negative of the legal profession is their dedication for advocacy of their client, even if guilty of the most heinous crimes.

People who feel that way, and I used to be one BTW, don't fully understand what's going on.

You see, the power of the State is awesome. It holds most of the cards in a criminal prosecution, and without a lawyer, an accused doesn't have a chance. That's also why I feel he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

That's also why the Founders set up our country to guarentee everyone charged with a crime who faces possible jail time gets a lawyer. That lawyer's job is not to get a guilty man off, but to ensure his sacred Constitutional rights are not violated and that the State doesn't cheat. In other words, to sorta level the playing field so that if the guy didn't do it, he's got a decent shot at beating the rap.

The Constitution doesn't guarentee you a doctor if you're sick, a teacher if you're ignorant, or a sandwich if you're starving, but it guarentees you a lawyer. Those Founder guys knew a thing or two.

I also subscribe to the belief that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison.

[Okla-homey]

Oh I know. I dropped ~$38K with one on a divorce, and I was a poor mother****er at the time. If I would have just let the ex have her way (which she pretty much got anyhow) I'd be $38K to the good right now.

I'm just spouting out on general perception. Most folks view y'all as money-grubbing slimeball sharkdogs. Many of your JD brethren and sistren have done much to make y'all look bad.

Q: You know why divorces are so expensive? A: They're worth it.

But srlsy, $38K? Sheesh. Were you one of those guys who p1ss-matched over every knife, fork and spoon? That can quickly drive up a bill. Either that, or the guy...well, let's just say I haven't heard of any non-millionaire divorces costing anywhere near that around here.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You're a real piece of work. Why even have a trial, right? I mean, they're guilty of a heinous crime!

For someone who claims to be mistrustful of government, you sure seem to think little of individual rights to a fair trial and vigorous defense.How silly(I'm being kind)! If a loyer knows his client is guilty, and he should find that out, he shouldn't represent the client. The legal profession apparently doesn't require such behavior of their members.

[Frozen Sooner]

How silly(I'm being kind)! If a loyer knows his client is guilty, and he should find that out, he shouldn't represent the client. The legal profession apparently doesn't require such behavior of their members.

I won't be kind.

I'm not even going to debate the point on whether or not even someone who's guilty deserves a defense, because it's self-evident to anyone whose head isn't jammed so far up their *** they have to take off their hat to fart.

I don't know why you think spelling lawyer incorrectly is funny or cute, but you've been doing it consistently enough over the last several months that I'm sure in your pin head you've got some sort of ridiculous reason for it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That lack of recusing oneself from defending a client you know is guilty is really not a good feature of the legal profession. It's a valid criticism, that I'm sure you've heard before, and the legal profession has as a monkey on its back. It's certainly one of the reasons lawyers have a flaky reputation. (BTW, I am surprised it would bug you so much, Mike, to be called a loyer)
You should prolly tag yourself with a short bane for insults, too.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Any country that doesn't allow for fair trials of defendants would likely fall under the heading of "communist" or "tyrannical," etc. What would you call the people who don't support the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by our Constitution?

[C&CDean]

Q: You know why divorces are so expensive? A: They're worth it.

But srlsy, $38K? Sheesh. Were you one of those guys who p1ss-matched over every knife, fork and spoon? That can quickly drive up a bill. Either that, or the guy...well, let's just say I haven't heard of any non-millionaire divorces costing anywhere near that around here.

$38K in 1987 money my man. It'd be a lot higher now.

Basically, we fought for custody of the kids. She was drugging, I had to return to court many times to argue that she kept failing court-ordered drug tests, or kept missing the ordered appointments - and each and every time a ****ing liberal judge who thought that the kids belong with momma - even if daddy is a stand-up guy and momma is a needle-using prostitute with VD.

When I moved to Oklahoma, she fought to regain custody (eventually I got custody after finally getting a new judge) which added to the bill.

What are the main things my lawyer did that gave me an ill opinion of lawyers? Here goes:

1. He'd call, or I'd call him to discuss something. He'd start the conversation with chit-chat about football, the kids, his ****ing new Mercedes, and all kinds of stuff. 10-15 minutes of chatting each time - that I had no clue I was being charged for. I didn't look at a break-down of my bills. I only found out because I was in his office once when somebody called (I was being charged) and he goes "hold on" to me, while he pushes a button on a timer that's attached to his phone. He talks for maybe 5 minutes and hangs up. I go you're gonna charge him for 5-minutes on the phone?" He goes "sure, a guy's gotta eat y'know."

2. After an exceptionally bloody morning in court - where I had to listen to the ex's mother, father, sisters, and brothers all testify (upon subpoenas requested by my attorney) and her lawyer and my lawyer arguing constantly - and the judge shutting them down several times - we go to lunch. I'm in the elevator with my attorney, and here comes her attorney. He gets in the elevator too. On the way down, my lawyer goes "hey Dale, great job this morning. You going to the club for martinis tonight?" The other guy goes "sure James, see you there." My guy goes "first one's on me."

I'm thinking "here I am, fighting for my kids - and my ****ing life, and to these buttwipes, it's nothing but a game. "nice job chumley." ****. Them. I came to the stark realization that in litigation (well at least in domestics), nobody wins but the lawyers. Well them and Elin Woods I guess...

[OUMallen]

That lack of recusing oneself from defending a client you know is guilty is really not a good feature of the legal profession. It's a valid criticism, that I'm sure you've heard before, and the legal profession has as a monkey on its back. It's certainly one of the reasons lawyers have a flaky reputation. (BTW, I am surprised it would bug you so much, Mike, to be called a loyer)
You should prolly tag yourself with a short bane for insults, too.

You. Must. Force. The. State. To. Make. A. Case. Against. A. Defendant.

It's not UP to the "loyer" to decide whether someone is guilty or not. And look, if someone is at trial, they've pleaded NOT GUILTY, so how on earth is a lawyer supposed to know the difference? It's up to the court to decide issues of fact.

If absolutely conclusive evidence comes to light, the attorney is subject to a duty to share it with the court. At no point does the system force (or even allow) an attorney to lie or to withhold damning evidence.

You think you have it figured out, but you don't. Trust me on that. Our rules don't allow what you're talking about...but your posts do serve to highlight the ignorance of the public in a lot of ways, so they'r enot compeltely worthless.

Dean- I don't blame you. That would **** me off to no end. And the attorney should have been very clear with you about what is (and isn't) billable up front instead of billing you for that. I'm sorry you got the runaround like that. It's BS.

[Frozen Sooner]

That lack of recusing oneself from defending a client you know is guilty is really not a good feature of the legal profession. It's a valid criticism, that I'm sure you've heard before, and the legal profession has as a monkey on its back. It's certainly one of the reasons lawyers have a flaky reputation. (BTW, I am surprised it would bug you so much, Mike, to be called a loyer)
You should prolly tag yourself with a short bane for insults, too.

You should probably shut the **** up instead of making repeated inane and indefensible statements-which for you would basically amount to self-banning. Don't like the post? Report it and if one of the other moderators thinks I'm out of line, they can hit me with whatever card they want.

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "bugging" me and "curious what motivates your imbecility."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Any country that doesn't allow for fair trials of defendants would likely fall under the heading of "communist" or "tyrannical," etc. What would you call the people who don't support the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by our Constitution?That is not the question. I agree with the question you pose. The question is why would/should a lawyer agree to defend a client who he knows is guilty, and let the criminal remain at large in society? The lawyer should simply recuse himself from the case, but some lawyers, certainly not all, won't do that? I have not heard/read of any lawyers, here or anywhere, that say that should be done.

[OUMallen]

That is not the question. I agree with the question you pose. The question is why would/should a lawyer agree to defend a client who he knows is guilty, and let the criminal remain at large in society? The lawyer should simply recuse himself from the case, but some lawyers, certainly not all, won't do that? I have not heard/read of any lawyers, here or anywhere, that say that should be done.

See my post above. I'm not syaing all lawyers are honest all the time. No profession is. But your scenario- where a lawyer knows absolutely 100% that the party is guilty but intentionally misleads the court anyway- is basically prevented by the system.

Is your problem that, rarely, there's a dishonest lawyer? You betcha. We just get bad raps because the things we touch are often more important than what most people touch.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1)It's not UP to the "loyer" to decide whether someone is guilty or not. And look, if someone is at trial, they've pleaded NOT GUILTY, so how on earth is a lawyer supposed to know the difference? It's up to the court to decide issues of fact.

If absolutely conclusive evidence comes to light, the attorney is subject to a duty to share it with the court. At no point does the system force (or even allow) an attorney to lie or to withhold damning evidence.

2)You think you have it figured out, but you don't. Trust me on that. Our rules don't allow what you're talking about...but your posts do serve to highlight the ignorance of the public in a lot of ways, so they'r enot compeltely worthless.

1)The question is what's wrong with the profession. If a lawyer doesn't go to the trouble to find out the truth of the case, and the defendent IS ACTUALLY guilty, that is a shortcoming of the profession, or the system, if you prefer.
2)"Our rules don't allow what you're talking about". Please explain what you mean, here. "ignorance of the public". Ignorant of what? Please explain.

[OUMallen]

1. So now you want the lawyer to be, in addition to a lawyer, but an infallible fact-finder? Hell, I guess all we REALLY would need if it were that easy were judges running around doing PI work and adjudicating whenever they feel like it!

OK, here's the answer to #2, while I am illuminating your ignorance:

One side tries to put the person in jail. The other side tries to keep him out. In that adversarial process, we compete against each other to find the best truth we can. That "truth" is determined by a jury or a judge, not the attorneys. It's not up to them.

If at any point it's uncontroverted that the person is guilty, the attorney cannot lie or mislead the court. What you're missing is: that is rarely the case. Almost all attorneys are at least basically competent, and a clearly guilty party almost never makes it to trial. If something totally weird happens and there's a conclusive bit of evidence (which there almost never is any one thing that is completely conclusive) that comes to light, or the person confesses after pleading Not Guilty, the attorney is not permitted to just keep on firing away.


Why don't you come up with an example for us ?

[Okla-homey]

1. So now you want the lawyer to be, in addition to a lawyer, but an infallible fact-finder? Hell, I guess all we REALLY would need if it were that easy were judges running around doing PI work and adjudicating whenever they feel like it!

OK, here's the answer to #2, while I am illuminating your ignorance:

One side tries to put the person in jail. The other side tries to keep him out. In that adversarial process, we compete against each other to find the best truth we can. That "truth" is determined by a jury or a judge, not the attorneys. It's not up to them.

If at any point it's uncontroverted that the person is guilty, the attorney cannot lie or mislead the court. What you're missing is: that is rarely the case. Almost all attorneys are at least basically competent, and a clearly guilty party almost never makes it to trial. If something totally weird happens and there's a conclusive bit of evidence (which there almost never is any one thing that is completely conclusive) that comes to light, or the person confesses after pleading Not Guilty, the attorney is not permitted to just keep on firing away.


Why don't you come up with an example for us ?

I'll do it for him. "O.J." However, that was as clear a case of jury nullification as you're ever likely to see.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If at any point it's uncontroverted that the person is guilty, the attorney cannot lie or mislead the court. What you're missing is: that is rarely the case. Almost all attorneys are at least basically competent, and a clearly guilty party almost never makes it to trial. If something totally weird happens and there's a conclusive bit of evidence (which there almost never is any one thing that is completely conclusive) that comes to light, or the person confesses after pleading Not Guilty, the attorney is not permitted to just keep on firing away.


Why don't you come up with an example for us ?Say the defense attorney finds several witnesses who are believable who say they saw the client whack a guy's head off, and the attorney also finds other evidence that convinces him his client is guilty. I think the attorney should recuse himself from the case, rather than continue to defend the client. That is the only point I'm making.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'll do it for him. "O.J." However, that was as clear a case of jury nullification as you're ever likely to see.Lots of problems with that case. yeah, OJ's lawyer prolly felt pretty sure OJ was guilty, and should have quit the case if he believed that.

[GKeeper316]

It's a valid criticism

not only is it not a valid critisism, its proof that, in spite of what you generally try to espouse on this board, you don't actually give a rat's *** about what america really stands for.

[GKeeper316]

Say the defense attorney finds several witnesses who are believable who say they saw the client whack a guy's head off, and the attorney also finds other evidence that convinces him his client is guilty. I think the attorney should recuse himself from the case, rather than continue to defend the client. That is the only point I'm making.

lawyers aren't allowed to do that.

[47straight]

RLIMC, I'm going to throw you a bone. If you want to attack the legal profession, the situations you're after are pretty rare. Most defendants are guilty. Most of their lawyers know that. Most of the time the defendant gets punished to some degree. Very rarely does the legal technicality thing actually work.

You'll find much more fertile ground in the social advocacy positions that the American Bar Association takes, which it uses to dictate in law schools and which is seeping out to the state bar associations. You might even find allies among the lawyer posters on this board.

[Taxman71]

Dean, could be worse:

http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/article/legal_bills_in_5-year_divorce_battle_allegedly_top_36m

[C&CDean]

No ****. I'll take my measly $38K over the $36 mil anytime.

[OUMallen]

I'll do it for him. "O.J." However, that was as clear a case of jury nullification as you're ever likely to see.

Were there no questions of fact to be determined in that case? At all?

[Soonerwake]

People who feel that way, and I used to be one BTW, don't fully understand what's going on.

You see, the power of the State is awesome. It holds most of the cards in a criminal prosecution, and without a lawyer, an accused doesn't have a chance. That's also why I feel he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

That's also why the Founders set up our country to guarentee everyone charged with a crime who faces possible jail time gets a lawyer. That lawyer's job is not to get a guilty man off, but to ensure his sacred Constitutional rights are not violated and that the State doesn't cheat. In other words, to sorta level the playing field so that if the guy didn't do it, he's got a decent shot at beating the rap.

The Constitution doesn't guarentee you a doctor if you're sick, a teacher if you're ignorant, or a sandwich if you're starving, but it guarentees you a lawyer. Those Founder guys knew a thing or two.

I also subscribe to the belief that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison.

Unless you are the family member of the victim of one of those ten guilty men who will repeat their crimes again and again until they are finally caught and incarcerated. Which serve the public interest: 10 guilty men in prison keeping the public safe or 1 innocent man in prison by mistake? I agree that neither is optimum, but sometimes the public interest outweighs the suffering of one.

Saying that, lawyers serve a necessary and useful purpose in our society. I would hate to see where our legal system would be without them.

[Spray]

Unless you are the family member of the victim of one of those ten guilty men who will repeat their crimes again and again until they are finally caught and incarcerated. Which serve the public interest: 10 guilty men in prison keeping the public safe or 1 innocent man in prison by mistake? I agree that neither is optimum, but sometimes the public interest outweighs the suffering of one.

Saying that, lawyers serve a necessary and useful purpose in our society. I would hate to see where our legal system would be without them.

Then again- say you're the innocent gent rotting away in prison for 25 years...

[Soonerwake]

Then again- say you're the innocent gent rotting away in prison for 25 years...

Excellent point.. Of course, there is always the multi-million dollar settlement he will get once he has been some sweaty guy's b***h for 25 years...

[OUMallen]

Excellent point.. Of course, there is always the multi-million dollar settlement he will get once he has been some sweaty guy's b***h for 25 years...

I know you were joking, but I think most people would rtaher be poor and free than wealthy after losing 20 years in the clink, fighting phalluses the entire time.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Unless you are the family member of the victim of one of those ten guilty men who will repeat their crimes again and again until they are finally caught and incarcerated. Which serve the public interest: 10 guilty men in prison keeping the public safe or 1 innocent man in prison by mistake? I agree that neither is optimum, but sometimes the public interest outweighs the suffering of one.

Saying that, lawyers serve a necessary and useful purpose in our society. I would hate to see where our legal system would be without them.

I'm ok with it as long as you are the "one".

[saucysoonergal]

There is a reason I have the idiot on ignore. Would you kind folks quit quoting him PLEASE.


If everyone would ignore him, we wouldn't have to put up with his stupidity. Thanks.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

There is a reason I have the idiot on ignore. Would you kind folks quit quoting him PLEASE.


If everyone would ignore him, we wouldn't have to put up with his stupidity. Thanks.


You probably need to be more specific. "The idiot" covers most of the posters on the board. :D

[saucysoonergal]

I am a dirty loyer too, so I will let you guess who I mean.

[C&CDean]

A liberal loyer at that. Double L baby.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am a dirty loyer too, so I will let you guess who I mean.How DARE you call yourself a loyer. That is (apparently) a demeaning word that should NOT be used. I knew you were a Silly Lib, but didn't know you were a lawyer, too. Corngratumalations for having the complete package. You haven't been as angry acting, nor insulting enough to make my ignore list, yet. Good for you!

[saucysoonergal]

Did someone say something, besides smartarse Dean I mean. ;)




See, it works!

[GKeeper316]

Unless you are the family member of the victim of one of those ten guilty men who will repeat their crimes again and again until they are finally caught and incarcerated. Which serve the public interest: 10 guilty men in prison keeping the public safe or 1 innocent man in prison by mistake? I agree that neither is optimum, but sometimes the public interest outweighs the suffering of one.

Saying that, lawyers serve a necessary and useful purpose in our society. I would hate to see where our legal system would be without them.

our entire criminal justice system is founded on the principle. the public interest is subordinate to the rights of the individual. the public is never well served by a miscarriage of justice.