Role of lawyers and judges

[Curious George]

Seems these professionals get a lot of hate. What do you see a lawyer's and a judge's job to be? How do lawyers and judges fulfill this role? Are these professionals ethical? Are unethical judges and lawyers prevalent? How much so? How are they so?

Finally, would we be better or worse without them? Why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Lawyers are our advocates in the judicial system, & our counselors to avoid it.
Judges are there to rule in cases before them.
These are good & necessary functions, but in practice they're part of a system designed to suck money & waste time. They aren't very accountable for their actions. We have a name for judges's unrestrained caprice...."black robe syndrome".
Without a judicial system (public &/or private), we'd be left to our own devices, eg, violence.

 

[gsa]

We are only as good as those we represent

 

[Revoltingest]

We are only as good as those we represent

Some lawyers are better than their clients.
I recall a striking example....great guy...twas a pleasure to be sued by him.

 

[Curious George]

Lawyers are our advocates in the judicial system, & our counselors to avoid it.
Judges are there to rule in cases before them.
These are good & necessary functions, but in practice they're part of a system designed to suck money & waste time. They aren't very accountable for their actions. We have a name for judges's unrestrained caprice...."black robe syndrome".
Without a judicial system (public &/or private), we'd be left to our own devices, eg, violence.

So your only problems are that the judicial system is necessary, it sucks money and some people in it are less accountable?

Are there examples of how we could save money? Or how we could make officers of the court more accountable?

 

[gsa]

Some lawyers are better than their clients.
I recall a striking example....great guy...twas a pleasure to be sued by him.

Yes. But even the best lawyer with a horrible client has a fiduciary obligation to her or him or them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. But even the best lawyer with a horrible client has a fiduciary obligation to her or him or them.

I found that the fiduciary responsibility can be to rein in a client's whims & tantrums in order to protect the client from a loss.

 

[SomeRandom]

I found that the fiduciary responsibility can be to rein in a client's whims & tantrums in order to protect the client from a loss.

Oh you mean like this?

 

[Curious George]

Oh you mean like this?

Your media is not showing on my phone... Is it me? Or bad link?

 

[SomeRandom]

Your media is not showing on my phone... Is it me? Or bad link?

I don't know
Do you know the game Saints Row 2? That's where it's from.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh you mean like this?

I've never seen a hearing with such candor & colorful language.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've never seen a hearing with such candor & colorful language.

Oh but those are the best!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh but those are the best!!

The best thing I ever saw was when some dim guy referred to the bailiff as a "bellhop".
(He wasn't joking.) The bailiff was amused.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems these professionals get a lot of hate. What do you see a lawyer's and a judge's job to be?

A lawyer's proper role is to remember people of ethical dilemmas and considerations. It should not be accepted by any society for it to be paid. Specifically, earning a living out of it is inherently immoral and should be punishable to an extreme.

A judge's role is to arbitrate some resolution for pending conflicts. It is ultimately of lesser importance whether those resolutions approach fairness, because it is unreasonable to expect them to be. Judges can only know so much of the circunstances and ethical dilemmas of a decision. Despite the common misconception, it is actually legal arbitration that is blind, or at least imperfectly aware of relevant considerations. Justice proper is by definition not blind, but perhaps unattainable and only in very fortunate and rare circunstances at all related to judicial systems.

Which is a reason not to lend a lot of significance to those judicial systems. But I suppose the mythical expectations of people making the world acknowledging of "our rights" are just too much of an allure.

Quite frankly, that is one of the major tragedies of humanity's history.

How do lawyers and judges fulfill this role?

Protected and twisted by deep layers of msiplaced expectations, unfortunately.

Are these professionals ethical?

Of course not. Lawyers, particularly, can not conceivably be at once profesional (as in, earning a living by their activity) and ethical.

Judges are an interesting case. The activity itself is very much needed, but the aura of importance lent them is immoral. Regardless of appearances, they are actually victims of the expectations of their societies... albeit privileged and often corrupted victims.

Are unethical judges and lawyers prevalent? How much so? How are they so?

I maintain that profesional advocacy is a shortcut to moral corruption. Inherently so. That is a direct result of them being paid to represent people's interests while being protected from paying the price for lying while at it. You might as well threat them with death if they do not become corrupted. No, scratch that, it would be better to.

Judges are slightly better, but not nearly enough to bring much hope. It is not healthy to expect a human being to hold so much power and somehow be fair while so doing.

Finally, would we be better or worse without them? Why?

Judges we need outright, but we should strip them of much of their power and ourselves of nearly all of our expectations about them.

However, it is conceivable that they might be substituted by a random system of some kind, perhaps. The challenge is in finding practicable ways of representing the decisions in such ways that the conflicted interests accept the random decisions.

Lawyers should probably be outlawed, ironically enough. Or more exactly, it should be fiercely forbidden for people to be paid for advocacy.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lawyer's proper role is to remember people of ethical dilemmas and considerations. It should not be accepted by any society for it to be paid. Specifically, earning a living out of it is inherently immoral and should be punishable to an extreme.

A judge's role is to arbitrate some resolution for pending conflicts. It is ultimately of lesser importance whether those resolutions approach fairness, because it is unreasonable to expect them to be. Judges can only know so much of the circunstances and ethical dilemmas of a decision. Despite the common misconception, it is actually legal arbitration that is blind, or at least imperfectly aware of relevant considerations. Justice proper is by definition not blind, but perhaps unattainable and only in very fortunate and rare circunstances at all related to judicial systems.

Which is a reason not to lend a lot of significance to those judicial systems. But I suppose the mythical expectations of people making the world acknowledging of "our rights" are just too much of an allure.

Quite frankly, that is one of the major tragedies of humanity's history.

Protected and twisted by deep layers of msiplaced expectations, unfortunately.

Of course not. Lawyers, particularly, can not conceivably be at once profesional (as in, earning a living by their activity) and ethical.

Judges are an interesting case. The activity itself is very much needed, but the aura of importance lent them is immoral. Regardless of appearances, they are actually victims of the expectations of their societies... albeit privileged and often corrupted victims.

I maintain that profesional advocacy is a shortcut to moral corruption. Inherently so. That is a direct result of them being paid to represent people's interests while being protected from paying the price for lying while at it. You might as well threat them with death if they do not become corrupted. No, scratch that, it would be better to.

Judges are slightly better, but not nearly enough to bring much hope. It is not healthy to expect a human being to hold so much power and somehow be fair while so doing.

Judges we need outright, but we should strip them of much of their power and ourselves of nearly all of our expectations about them.

However, it is conceivable that they might be substituted by a random system of some kind, perhaps. The challenge is in finding practicable ways of representing the decisions in such ways that the conflicted interests accept the random decisions.

Lawyers should probably be outlawed, ironically enough. Or more exactly, it should be fiercely forbidden for people to be paid for advocacy.

Let's say you're accused of a crime, & face life in prison.
To defend yourself in court, someone must fully understand the law, research the evidence, investigate your claims, interview witnesses, see that you're properly represented in your many court appearances, etc, etc.

Who would do this for you if lawyers cannot (either cuz they're banned or cannot be compensated)?

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's say you're accused of a crime, & face life in prison.
To defend yourself in court, someone must fully understand the law, research the evidence, investigate your claims, interview witnesses, see that you're properly represented in your many court appearances, etc, etc.

Who would do this for you if lawyers cannot (either cuz they're banned or cannot be compensated)?

You might as well ask who would kill my enemies for me, you know.

I am telling you outright that I don't find that line of thinking defensable. It creates huge, lasting problems for very little discernible benefit.

I will grant that the appeal is there. But once we reason about the framing environment, it is just not worth it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You might as well ask who would kill my enemies for me, you know.

Huh?

I am telling you outright that I don't find that line of thinking defensable. It creates huge, lasting problems for very little discernible benefit.
I will grant that the appeal is there. But once we reason about the framing environment, it is just not worth it.

Well, there will always be courts, laws, accusations, judgments, & punishment.
I'd much prefer that we little folk be afforded a quality defense, & not be restricted to our own personal efforts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Huh?

It is a comparison. Some goals are just too expensive to be worth the trouble. They are, in fact, self-defeating.

Well, there will always be courts, laws, accusations, judgments, & punishment.

Perhaps. But they don't have to be influential, now do they?

I'd much prefer that we little folk be afforded a quality defense, & not be restricted to our own personal efforts.

So would I. But since that is not a reasonable expectation, it seems to me that we ought to settle for realistic goals instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps. But they don't have to be influential, now do they?

They're necessary, but they needn't be influential outside of their function.
That will happen at times though, as groundbreaking case law occurs.
This is not just unavoidable...it's also useful, eg, Brown v Board Of Education.

So would I. But since that is not a reasonable expectation, it seems to me that we ought to settle for realistic goals instead.

Au contraire, it is quite reasonable to expect professional representation.
I pay for it, I get it, & it's worth it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Talking about the law with some laymen is like arguing property with a communist or taxes with someone who considers it theft. There's no real context for meaningful discourse. That said, here goes...

A lawyer is an advocate, a protector of the rights of his client and, less directly, the laws and principles of the compact. His role varies slightly depending on the nature of the cause of action, whether it is criminal or civil. Rights and their interactions are complicated matters, which is why we enact complicated laws to resolve conflicts and contextualize the outcome of competing interests. The lawyer navigates those often murky waters, steering a jury (should it come to that) through the nature of the complaint before it, the defense raised against it and the relief/penalty sought. The judge has two roles. He may be called upon to decide the question or he may instead act as a guardian of process and arbitrator of the rules of procedure.

In any event, while both lawyers and judges hold immense power in the legal system, that power is usually checked in a number of ways. In the U.S. we have both judicial codes of conduct and ethical constraints for practicing attorneys and a process of appeal by which whole judgments may be contested on merit.

To suggest that a lawyer isn't worthy or his wages or that wages inherently corrupt the process or role is on par with suggesting your surgeon should provide his years of education and service for free so we can be sure of his motives and the purity of the healthcare system. That is, it seems more of an argument about economics than a particular complaint about the profession...or it's a remarkably myopic complaint that could be broadened to include most professions of moment.

As I noted, the practice of law is subject to ethical standard. In my experience (and the numbers of realized complaints bear this out) most lawyers do a pretty good job of abiding by them. There is a strict and exacting ethical standard for anyone licensed to practice law and the penalties for violating the cannon can be remarkably unyielding and harsh as one might expect, given the power and point involved. This will not stop unethical practice or unethical men from entering into it, as they will in any activity where money and power are involved.