On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Joe McCray wrote:
Keith: I'm sure you saw this story [“Lawyers Call for Drastic Change in Educating New Lawyers”] in the NYT a couple days ago. I've seen it every year for as long as I can remember. I even recall writing to the ABA about suggested changes, naively believing we were on the brink. But, no. Worse, none of these suggestions hits what I think is a basic need in the profession, i.e. change the shark mentality. Lawyers have simply got to stop being the problem - not "part of the problem" but THE problem and instead be the solution to unfair contracts that result in legal fleecing of lay ppeople - usually poor. So, I thought I'd seize the publication of this years faux alarm and vent on my old partner.
Joe
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Keith Roberts <keithofrpi@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear Joe,
As you know, I hate disagreeing with you. But here I must. You are a trial lawyer, and in the domain of trial lawyers the attorneys have a lot of control over what they do and how they proceed. But fewer than 2% of all cases are decided in trial, and a miniscule fraction of all legal work involves litigation. For the vast majority of lawyers, who in the buzzword of the day perform "transactional" work, the goal is to achieve, without violating criminal laws, what the paying client wants. Law, in other words, is a business.
It was striking to me that in naming a commission to look into election law, Obama named Romney's chief counsel, Ginsburg, as well as his own counsel. As commission members, they may well suggest good reforms aimed at allowing everyone to vote. But as a working lawyer being paid to do his client's bidding, Ginsburg undoubtedly worked to subvert the votes of everyone likely to favor Obama. There, I think, you have the distinction between lawyering as a job, and lawyering as a public service. We can teach attorneys to do both, and we can teach attorneys the appropriate public values. But we cannot expect attorneys, in their jobs, to pursue those values to the detriment of their clients.
Keith
On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Joe McCray wrote:
Keith: So, a good legal education includes accepting the notion that you will get a license to lie, cheat and steal - so long as you serve the needs of your client and avoid criminal prosecution ( not the same thing as avoiding criminal behaviour). We must, therefore, drastically reduce the number of people who have a license to practice law. Those who would otherwise be lawyers can go be bankers and hedge fund people. Sort of turns the idea of an honest day's work on its head, doesn't it?
Joe
Joe,
Helping
clients do what they want is hardly ever a matter of lying, cheating, or
stealing, at least in the US so far. Most business here is conducted
straightforwardly, and legal educations are geared toward learning the rules of
operation and how easily matters can be misinterpreted. In Japan and Europe
there are many fewer lawyers, but far more notaries and others who do what is in
the US considered legal work. Licensing fewer lawyers would be a good thing
because it would shift a lot of work to less expensive hands--a move that the
guild has always resisted--but not because it would reduce dishonest practices.
And maybe then those would-be lawyers would become plumbers or electricians.
Keith
On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Joe McCray wrote:
Keith: Yours is an interesting lesson on the lay of the lawyer land, but, I'm afraid, you've never read a real estate mortgage contract or a liability insurance policy. Had you ever done that, you'd see what is clearly evidence of sharp practices, bullying, deception and just plain ignoring the notion of mutual consent. Such things, of course, are the result of standard, mainline lawyering. Firms, in particularly large firms, compete for corporate business by demonstrating their deception chops and schemes only barely within the line the criminal law draws. "Helping" clients is not what they are doing; they're getting and keeping business at the cost of personal integrity - or at least shoving such matters into the dark corner of memory.
Joe
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Keith Roberts <keithofrpi@earthlink.net> wrote:
Dear Joe,
Abusive contracts? Only now you tell me? Heavens! What you seem to be ignoring is the essence of day to day legal work. It isn't drafting villainous one-sided contracts, or laying out deceptive schemes to prospective clients. It's slogging through the routine minutiae, punctuated by the occasional bright idea that brings a deal together, or saves a client some taxes, or resolves a budding dispute. There are also plenty of really dumb, disorganized, and CYA attorneys who lose papers, misplace them, and try to cover up their errors. Nevertheless, lying, cheating, and stealing are no more the essence of legal work than they were in our office practice. They are shameful behaviors: that's why nobody claims credit for those clauses of adhesion in leases, mortgages, and consumer service agreements.
Keith
PS: I might want to post this thread on a blog. Would that be ok with you?
Keith: Sure, post it. But include this anecdote: I foolishly bought some commercial property financed in part by a securitized mortgage loan. The "contract" was seventy one pages long - seventy one pages of 9pt font and 1/2 spaces. Among the provisions was a requirement that I hire a lawyer in the venue of the property ( Chicago) and that the lawyer for the mortgagee choose the freakin' lawyer. The designated contact for the lender was a law firm in Baltimore - I only remember one of the named partners, "Poe", for obvious reasons. After surviving a once through on this...paper...I telephoned that firm with a code for the transaction. When I gave that code, a woman comes and introduces herself as "Victoria". I ask my first question. She stops me. "You do understand, Mr. McCray, that you will be paying my fee for this advice?" Of course, I didn't understand that at all and told her I wasn't seeking advice, only an answer to a question raised by the tome her firm had generated for this deal. She apologized and wished me a good day. Eventually that deal blew up after the mortgagee was found to be lacking in standing to sue me. So much for the skill and integrity of lawyers driven only to "help" their clients.
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment