The Workermonkey

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

occupational hazard 

# posted by josh @ 10/05/2005 04:23:00 PM

i forget where i was the other day, but i overheard some people talking smack about lawyers. as a smart, sophisticated, incredibly good looking future lawyer, i have to take exception to that. now be aware, i'm not talking about lawyer jokes. a joke is a joke, and jokes are funny, unless they're bad jokes, in which case it's not funny at all. i'm talking about people who truly despised lawyers.

yes, there are unethical lawyers. but there are unethical teachers, engineers, chemists, dog catchers, tree huggers, squirrel molesters...you get my point. anyone from any walk of life can be unethical. if we were all perfect we wouldnt need god, right? err what?

my point is lawyers perform a service without which the world would not function so smoothly. as do engineers, biologists, teachers, insurance agents, custodians, basically anything, with the possible exception of the squirrel molester. i'd like to see one of these people defend themselves in court, or sue someone else without representation. sure, you can handle the traffic ticket or whatever, but what about if you're convicted of burglary. or maybe you want to sue your insurance company. yeah, good luck with that.

but then there are those evil, horrible lawyers who defend the worst criminals, like murderers, etc. well sorry, but this country was founded on the belief that everyone can get a fair trial, regardless of what is alleged against you. when there's the possibility you might lose life, liberty, or property, you have a right to representation (it's more complex than that, but that's the main idea). what about the cases where the defendants are innocent, and their attorney helps them remain free? oh, you didnt think about those cases before you called attorneys money-grubbing assholes, did you?

i just find it very closed-minded and neanderthal of someone to criticize another's occupation (though i'm sure there are exceptions, as with any general rule. politicians? though i think with politicians its not their job we're criticizing as much as how well they do it, and there's the issue that they inject themselves into the limelight, etc). i'm sure we can all think of some occupations which perhaps are unnecessary (maybe make unnecessary goods...but then these people still need an income to survive so where do we draw the line), but i think a great deal of examination must be performed before we mock their occupation itself. conversely, i think it's quite easy to criticize the job someone is doing. and that should be done, for the betterment of the worker, his coworkers, his company/enterprise, society at large (too far?). but those are my philosophy roots speaking out again.

if you made it thru this schizophrenic post, i'm impressed. congratulations. i'll state the point briefly for those skimmers among us: next time someone tells you that your occupation is worthless, or unnecessary, or stupid, or anything, tell them to do some research, print it out, read it, then shove it up their ungrateful asses.


vent over and out

8 comments

i think of lawyers like i think of cops. there's never a good reason to interact with one.

if life is good and everything is going great, what do i need a lawyer for? i'm not being sued, i'm not in need of sueing anyone. and what good reason is there to see a cop? someone stole my car, i got caught smoking weed, the guy next door got drunk and pissed in my pool. never a good reason.

sorry josh, that stereotype isn't going anywhere.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:52:00 PM  

i know it isnt. but there are plenty of reasons to see a lawyer that arent bad. just a few examples:

1) having your business comply w/ environmental standards (planning to stay out of future problems)
2) tax planning to save you, your family, or your business money
3) a will so a court won't decide who gets your shit (or who gets to decide when to pull the plug)

there is far more to practicing law than litigation. unfortunately, it's not glorious, and they wont make any tv shows or movies about it. legally speaking, the people who write shows like law and order are idiots. and the general public normally doesnt expend the energy thinking beyond what they're told by tv.

i'm beginning to see how attorneys could become cynical and money-grubbing. if people arent gonna like you, might as well hit them where it counts...their pockets.

By  josh, at Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:52:00 PM  

Josh your comment proves the point I was going to make. Lawyer are "necessary" to write and read ridiculously incomprehensible legal documents. Mainly they are translators. Otherwise you would use and Environmental Engineer for 1 and an Accountant for 2, people who know the subject, rather than the government's spin on the subject. And for 3, shouldn't it be enough for me to write "Damon's will: When I die, Travis gets everything, unless he's dead too, then liquidate my estate and donate the cash to the Green Party. Josh shall carry these wishes out." But in a real will, it takes four pages to say that.

By  Damon, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:29:00 AM  

damon hit my response to a T, except amanda gets everything instead of travis.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:12:00 AM  

it's not the fault of lawyers that lay people cant understand laws. and not all lawmakers are lawyers, so it wouldnt be right to say that lawyers are responsible for the confusion to begin with. besides, people who "know the subject" dont know how to resolve disputes with others who "know the subject" (which is ironic really, since if they both know the subject shouldnt there be more agreement on teh topic of dispute??) if they both really knew the subject, there wouldnt be these problems. or maybe the subject needs to be more clear, so maybe these "experts" should get on that. surely lawyers dont create ALL these fields. if people are sloppy with language in rules and regulations, disputes are inevitable. and 2 "experts" from the same field can reasonably read the same vague regulation differently.

holmes brings up a good point about wills. just cuz you want your stuff to go somewhere, doesnt mean that other people dont have claims of rights to some of it. despite what people like to think, it's not all so cut and dry. the law isnt just a bunch of clear rules, and lawyers do much more than simply find which law to apply to the present situation.

this doesnt even get into dishonest people that intentionally try to elude laws for personal gain, sometimes at the detriment of others.

By  josh, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:47:00 AM  

republicans?

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:07:00 PM  

I didn't say lawyers were responsible for confusing documents, just that they deal with them. I honestly wish the whole of US law was the Libertarian Party's basic idea which is something like "Everyone is free to do whatever they please so long as they do not infringe upon the equal freedom of others." But whoa, who gets to interpret that in each situation? Maybe if whichever-religion-is-right's deity came here and did some seriously miraculous stuff so we were all convinced (or killed) then it could do it for us and we'd all be happy, free, and equal (and will have someone to ask when that meaning of life question comes up!) Ha, I sound like I've already partaken in the weekend's mind altering substances.

By  Damon, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:13:00 PM  

How long has the law profession been in existence? I'm sure it's been around in various forms for many centuries, if not a thousand years. It probably happened whenever judgements started getting passed down from civilians instead of military commanders or King Soloman or whoever. Anyways, cash settlements = good. Blood settlements = bad.

The virtue of confusing documents is that they're NOT to be confused. If they weren't ultra-specific then things would be too ambiguous to be efficient. Then we'd be like the Congolese Republic or something.

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:55:00 PM  

Post a Comment