Never Hire A Lawyer

[Freedomless]

Check this site out.

http://www.perkel.com/pbl/index.htm

[wirlwind]

Interesting reading. I think many on this website have already learned what this person has. Could be helpful though to those that are trying to defend themselves. I think this person has got some pie-in-th-sky ideas about reforming the judicial system. I'm not sure if it can be done.

[weishaupt1776]

How can one reform a system established by a corporation, when they attempt to reform it as corporate citizens/subjects to that corporation?

It's the same thing as tomato pickers trying to reform the corporate structure of Heinz or something.

I'm not doing any more action until I have exhausted my status correction possibilities

[macerico]

Well, as someone who's been to law school and is so disgusted that he doesn't want to practice law, I agree.

You can't change the system from within.

Our "rights" were bought and sold decades ago when we instituted a bar system and mandated the only legal education of any worth would come from "ABA Accredited" law schools.

I went to the cheapest law school in the nation (cost was paramount to me). State school in Wyoming. Got a very good education.

Problem is, by the time I graduated (including undergrad student loans), I'm in for $75,000 (more or less). I'm one of the lucky ones. The system is built by lawyers for lawyers. By time you finish school, even if you want to reform the system, the fact is that you can't. You have loans to pay off, and that most likely means generating lots of billable hours so you can get free of the White Elephant you just bought. To this day, I've not paid a dime on my loans. Not that it matters. I can't cover the $350+ interest that builds each month. What I could pay would be like bailing water out of the Titanic with a Dixie cup. If I just made $30K and lived on a meager budget, I could make some headway, but after 9/11, I can't find any job that will pay that well, and legal practice is no promise of prosperity. We're cranking them out faster than they are needed....furthering the need for litigation to pay the bills.

Start shaking up the system, and your clients get screwed over because you are disliked by the local bar association. :sad:

I've chosen not to practice, but I'm now preparing to take the bar exam in Virginia because I'm pretty much barred from employment by my education. Law school proves I can learn and do any task. Employers see the "J.D." on my resume and discard it. The last job I had (filling vending machines) came only by leaving my legal education off my resume and praying that they didn't ask any questions about why I was in Wyoming. I can only hope being admitted to the bar (even with my license in an inactive status) will open a door to a decent job. I should easily be getting a job making $30-35K a year with my education and ability. I'm still making much less than $20K.

Other than the system being run by lawyers for lawyers and the laws being crafted to benefit the uber wealthy, here are other problems....

The whole "rules of conduct" garbage was drafted back when you owned other people as property. The "lawyers" and judges of that time were wealthy landowners who didn't have to worry about paying back loans or making the business budget come out in the black. So, if they represented people at a loss, it didn't hurt them. Today, we are in a "proffit or perish" environment. Yeah, you want to help all those who really need it, but if you do that, you are out of business in a very short time.

If you want to have integrity in the system, change the system so that lawyers don't have to worry about making financial ends meet. Make legal education free or enable a lawyer to have the state forgive/repay his loans if he dedicates so many years to public service work (a concept still not making the rounds in most states). Only when an attorney can AFFORD to work for free will attorneys start serving the needs of ordinary people. I suspect that is something the power elite do not want...hence why the system is the way it is.

To this end, my current boss (a lawyer) gets screwed. He's a fairly honest lawyer with a good reputation. In his own words, "What do you call an honest lawyer? Poor." We have a few good clients who pay okay, but his practice (now about 7 years in private practice, but a prior 6 years with a firm) isn't going anyplace better than where it started. The aggressive lawyers that will screw people over are making money. The honest people struggle to keep the doors open. :sad:

Likewise, another way my boss gets screwed over? He takes on court-appoitned cases for indigent people. This whole scam is a joke. I'd say about 95%+ of people we get are guilty and will lose because they already admitted their guilt before we get their case. However, we sometimes win one or get a case where even if the guy is likely guilty, the state had no evidence to prove it and should not prevail. The prosecutors? They get HUGE salaries and state benefit packages. My boss? The average case (if it closes quickly) nets him $117.00. If it's a complex case, he might get up to $300.00. These are the NEW rates the courts approved. Heaven help you if you have your client appeal....you're working for nothing.

My boss tried to get on with the prosecutor's office when they had an opening. He was not considered because he actually (gasp) WON a case for a defendant. Not that the guy didn't get jail time. He won on only one count of three. That "win" got him labeled as "anti-cop" when it was clear from the evidence that (on that charge) the evidence was questionable at best.

Did his duty by the ethical rules, got screwed by the rules of reality. That's why lawyers can't change the system. :sad:

[weishaupt1776]

macerico , your brutal honesty is much appreciated here. Your situation is definitely a most sticky one, no doubt. Have you read that Corpus Juris cite where it says that when there is a conflict between the client & the court, the attorney's first duty is always to the court first & NOT to the client?

...a compliment goe's out to you for being open and honest; sad

Whether you know it or not, because of you're attitude alone, at present, you will go very far with the education you obtained.

[macerico]

The only good thing I can see about an attorney's duty being first to the court is that it elimiates any justification for a lawyer to promote purjury by his client. As an officer of the court, he is not supposed to let his client lie nor promote something as truth that he knows is false.

Other than that....

Originally Posted by macerico

The only good thing I can see about an attorney's duty being first to the court is that it elimiates any justification for a lawyer to promote purjury by his client. As an officer of the court, he is not supposed to let his client lie nor promote something as truth that he knows is false.

So by telling your lawyer the truth, he cannot present something contrary to what he KNOWS to be true? Ie, don't tell your lawyer the truth if you want to plead otherwise?

[Freedomless]

There is definitely a conflict of interest. When one retains an attorney, say a retainer plus $400.00 a hour fee, to represent one in court and the attorney's allegiance is to the court and not to the client.

Response back from a Senator about members of Congress and the Senate, stated that the Senator would vote in favor of a candidate if the candidate was a member of the bar. That response blew my mind. We The People do not need attorneys to run the U.S. or any part of the world.

Originally Posted by macerico

As an officer of the court, he is not supposed to let his client lie nor promote something as truth that he knows is false.

can you help me out with this?

Where can I find this as a requirement for lawyers and other officers of the court?

Thanks

HB