a story of corruption and what a lot of you dont get.

[tmg19103]

Interesting how many law students are posting. I hope you all know what you are getting yourselves into. I'm 42 and have several close friends who are lawyers. None seem real happy with their jobs. Lawyers these days are rarely in court. It's all about finding clients and writing briefs and settling the case. Very mundane, yet high pressure to bill, stuff. With the glut of lawyers these days, you have a chance of getting an associate job with a decent law firm, but unless you are one of the top 5% of those associates, they will work you for 90 hours a week for a couple years and dump you. Then you either hang your own shingle, which is VERY competitive and not very lucrative, or take a pay cut to be a corporate lawyer - or, as with many, you dump the profession.

Hate to be such a downer, but that is what I have witnessed with many. I went the MBA route and found the corporate world to be so corrupt and political I started my own business and am fortunate enough to have had some success with it.

I remember when I was in my 20's and full of great expectations of being CEO. Only happens to a lucky and cut-throat few.

The key, like I have now, is to find something that will make you happy even if you were not paid. I could see the legal profession being that way in an ideal world, but the profession is all about billable hours and what have you done for me lately? Nothing noble about it these days unless you want to work as a public defender or for a non-profit for $40k a year. That I respect.

Still, I hope those in law school who support RP break the mold and have happy and proseprous law careers where you also do some good for the world.

 

[tmg19103]

Oh lord.... okay.

Prosecuting attornies do nothing but serve the peoples interest in criminal cases.

Pro bono work and orgas like the ACLU.

Tort law is the alternative to legislative policy like the FDA.

You don' seem to understand... law and lawyers EXIST because the community wants them to. Lawyers are the alternative to restrictive statutes. If someone poisons ponds you can either A) pass a restriction on poisoning pnds B) club them to death C) Sue them with a lawyer.

If everyone who poisons ponds knows that they will lose a lawsuit for doing so, they won't poison ponds... Community benefit. Go look up RP's discussion of environmental law and you'll udnerstand what I'm saying.

40 years ago in the county I live in that has about 400,000 people, there were about 400 lawyers. Today the county is the same size but hase 4,000 lawyers.

There are some good and decent people who are lawyers out there. However, it is not just the "community" wants them. Unscruplulous lawyers have made whole industries out of suing individuals, doctors, hospitals, businesses that did not exist even 10 years ago. Because there are so many (too many) lawyers, they need to get creative to find new ways to litigate and make money, and that is exactly what they have done. Society plays a role in going along with it, but the legal industry is no different than the business world - they are ALWAYS looking for ways to drive more revenue.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Construction, huh?
Is that why many Italians (I am one myself) went into it? Sort of as a "legal" mafia?
Makes sense... I always wondered why Italians so predominate the construction arena.

 

[ionlyknowy]

40 years ago in the county I live in that has about 400,000 people, there were about 400 lawyers. Today the county is the same size but hase 4,000 lawyers.

There are some good and decent people who are lawyers out there. However, it is not just the "community" wants them. Unscruplulous lawyers have made whole industries out of suing individuals, doctors, hospitals, businesses that did not exist even 10 years ago. Because there are so many (too many) lawyers, they need to get creative to find new ways to litigate and make money, and that is exactly what they have done. Society plays a role in going along with it, but the legal industry is no different than the business world - they are ALWAYS looking for ways to drive more revenue.

If you think there are too many lawyers, then you have the American Bar Association to blame.

They continue to approve new law schools every year. If these same people would limit the approval of new law schools and/or limit the class sizes of existing law schools then we could have fewer lawyers.... But until that happens we will continue to see more and more lawyers.

Now, I do agree that some lawyers have made the rest of lawyers have a bad name. But I think that lawyers are a vital elements to a functioning society.

For all of the lawyers out there I need to direct you to this board

www.lawschooldiscussion.org

It helped me when I was going through.. and if you read enough on this board it explains that unless you go to a top 14 or so school, have a hard science degree and do IP prosecution, or make top 15% or so of your 1L class, then you will have a hard time getting a Big firm job.

Big firms like 100+ lawyers - make $160,000/year straight out of law school
Medium Firms 50+ lawyers - make $70,000/year straight out of law school
The rest - Make in the $50,000 range per year.

The competition is very rough, and usually at large firms you will be representing large companies as their defense attorney.

In Biglaw, you not only make the money but you also regularly work 60-65+ hours per week.

Check out the message board
www.lawschooldiscussion.org

And some other good websites

www.nalpdirectory.com - look up firms and what they pay
www.martindale.com - look up where lawyers work and went to school

Ranking of law schools
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php

 

[garrettwombat]

Construction, huh?
Is that why many Italians (I am one myself) went into it? Sort of as a "legal" mafia?
Makes sense... I always wondered why Italians so predominate the construction arena.

your in construction also? you can agree with me than that builders care nothing more than earning a damn buck. hiring out illegals to get the job done quicker.

builders could give a shit less about the american economy.
they want there dirty money from there dirty banks.

 

[garrettwombat]

Now, I do agree that some lawyers have made the rest of lawyers have a bad name. But I think that lawyers are a vital elements to a functioning society.

there is no doubt in my mind that lawyers are a vital element in a functioning society... no one has stated otherwise here.

but, at the same time, im telling you they are all for there clients... no lawyer wants to lose a case wether its bro bono or not.

and the point is we dont need lawyers to be commissioners... its just a very bad idea.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

your in construction also? you can agree with me than that builders care nothing more than earning a damn buck. hiring out illegals to get the job done quicker.

builders could give a shit less about the american economy.
they want there dirty money from there dirty banks.

I'm not in construction, but my father was(he died when I was a teenager). He was tight with the Mayor and important town committee members. Made a lot of money in a few years, but lost much of it somehow.
His father (Grandpa) flew drugs for the mafia and did some time (died before I was born).
Maybe they deserved early deaths.

 

[ionlyknowy]

Society needs lawyers.

Everyone that supports Ron Paul is against the police state.

If you did not have lawyers, then that is exactly what you would have, a police state.

For instance... the legislature write a law that says the following:

"You can carry your gun in your car if you are traveling"

Now, suppose you read this statute, and think YAY now when I go see my buddies in that bad part of town, I can carry my gun because I am traveling to their house.

This house happens to be 2 hours away.

On the way to your friends house, you get pulled over, and they ask you why you have the gun. You tell them, you were going to visit your friend. The police do not see any packed bags in your car or anything else that shows you are traveling or on vacation, so they arrest you.

Now if there were no lawyers, the story would stop here... and you would probably go to jail.

But if you have lawyers, then your lawyer will argue that the definition of "traveling" in the statute was meant to be interpreted broadly. Meaning maybe if you are going a distance of more than 60 miles you are considered to be traveling.

Whereas the prosecutor will argue for a strict meaning of traveling, arguing that you need to be on some sort of official vacation. Or even arguing that most people that are considered to be traveling are going a distance of more than 2 hours or driving...

You see, the legislature writes statutes very broadly... then the judicial branch i.e. lawyers and judges determine what the intent of the legislature was and try to interpret what it means exactly, by adjudicating cases that dont exactly fit within the statute.

If there were no lawyers, then police could make a snap judgment about a law and enforce it without due process. This is in violation of the constitution.

And as RP supporters we should uphold the constitution, therefore we should value and uphold the lawyers (uncorrupted) in this country.

All I am saying is this... you want lawyers to be good advocates for their clients... even if they are on the losing side... If you did not have this then the system would not work. The way a court room is set up, is to flesh out the truth. Both sides argue the case, and the truth will come out. With enough evidence and witnesses and questions, the truth usually can be seen. And without the lawyers trying their best to advocate both sides of the argument this would never happen.

 

[jmcmsu]

there is no doubt in my mind that lawyers are a vital element in a functioning society... no one has stated otherwise here.

but, at the same time, im telling you they are all for there clients... no lawyer wants to lose a case wether its bro bono or not.

and the point is we dont need lawyers to be commissioners... its just a very bad idea.

Yes of course lawyers are all for their clients... but they still have to be within the law (see the lawyer's oath). You can be sanctioned for taking up cases that have no merit. Lawyers are all for their clients because this is how the adversarial system works. If you get into a contract dispute with your neighbor or get hit by a drunk driver won't you want a lawyer to be all for you? What about if your neighborhood association tries to ban you from hanging enormous ron paul signs in your yard, don't you believe a your lawyer should vigorously pursue your defense? By allowing two parties (or more) to have lawyers that serve their clients we create a system that tries to create a just end result. I'm sure many of the people at Guantonomo are actual terrorists but our legal system affords them the right to an attorney and a chance to have a neutral decision maker here their claims (or at least it should be).
Furthermore, criminal defense lawyers must pursue a vigorous defense of their clients even if they know they're guilty. This is because our founding fathers knew how important it was to have lawyers act as a check against the power of the state. If a lawyer isn't doing his best to represent a client he can be sued by the client for legal malpractice (depending upon the circumstances of course).

 

[garrettwombat]

Yes of course lawyers are all for their clients... but they still have to be within the law (see the lawyer's oath).

no one here is debating wether or not we need lawyers... i dont know where all you law students came from and started proposing someone here said we dont need lawyers... because no one has done so..
everyone knows lawyers are important so why are you guys giving big long lectures on why they are...

all that has ever been said is that we... do... not... need... lawyers... as... commissioners...

we need lawyers as lawyers...

understand people?

if this thread is to continue can we talk about something other than lawyers... this was not the purpose of my post.

 

[jmcmsu]

I find it antithetical to the idea of freedom that you would tell me that once I get my law degree you won't allow me to run for public office. It's contrary to the freedom message to start telling people that you won't allow people to do things solely because they chose to spend three years of their life pursuing a J.D. degree. It's one thing to say that we don't "need" lawyers as commissioners but it's a whole other thing to say we shouldn't "allow" lawyers to be commissioners.

 

[ionlyknowy]

no one here is debating wether or not we need lawyers... i dont know where all you law students came from and started proposing someone here said we dont need lawyers... because no one has done so..
everyone knows lawyers are important so why are you guys giving big long lectures on why they are...

all that has ever been said is that we... do... not... need... lawyers... as... commissioners...

we need lawyers as lawyers...

understand people?

if this thread is to continue can we talk about something other than lawyers... this was not the purpose of my post.

yes but when you make a sweeping generalization about a whole class of citizens, then you are mistaken.

The "law students" on this board are merely trying to point out that not every or even most lawyers are the kind that you would not want as a commissioner.

Yes some of any profession are corrupt.

You cannot say that just because some lawyers are potentially corruptible that they should not be commissioners. That is like saying just because Iran has the potential to make a nuclear weapon we should bomb them..

That is Bush neocon logic!

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

I find it antithetical to the idea of freedom that you would tell me that once I get my law degree you won't allow me to run for public office. It's contrary to the freedom message to start telling people that you won't allow people to do things solely because they chose to spend three years of their life pursuing a J.D. degree. It's one thing to say that we don't "need" lawyers as commissioners but it's a whole other thing to say we shouldn't "allow" lawyers to be commissioners.

why not? we don't allow those born in other countries to be President.
It's simply a conflict of interest - just as ALL foreign borns wouldn't necessarily be bad presidents, not ALL lawyers would be poor public servants.
But in reality, most lawyers ARE corrupt.

 

[garrettwombat]

Oh Jesus, where do I start...

1. Builders - Then please explain why most every government puts in place deed restrictions, limitations on zoning, impact fees, etc. I have developed many parcels in my life and to say the builders are hand and hand with the government is out of control. Try sitting in on a planning board once in your life... it will open your eyes.

ok yes i have sat in many planning boards... you think there is no way around deed restrictions, or zoning limitations?? jesus christ hand over a 50,000 dollar check and it will get done... limitations are easy to get around... this still has nothing to do with my overall statement... its just builders now, it doesnt matter who the sower is... it could be any small businesses for all that matters, im just saying right now its the builders.

2. Politicians - Are some of the most spineless, clueless people I have ever met... especially as you move up the food chain. To call them the "brains" is out of line. The succeed because the people with brains have better things to do with their time.

are you kidding me, they may not be smart, but they are smart enough to know how to look the other way and get slipped a check at the same time.

3. Drug Dealers - Put the bong down... it is causing psychosis

i have never done drugs in my life you idiot and when have i claimed i have?

4. Banks - Oh yes... the bankers...

What is clear to me is that you are potentially against capitalists and assume that just because your are where you are in your life... It has to be the builders, drug dealers, and banks...

im not talking about "banks in general" you dufass, im talking about local banks owned by a commissioners... do some research on all your local banks and find out who own them.

and what the fuck is that supposed to mean? "where i am in my life"???
im a 19 year old skilled trade worker going to college as a criminal justice student with a family tied deep into the government of where i live... fuck off you prick.

What keeps the cycle of shitty politicians continuing is the fact that most people who have a clue are out making money. A lot of the politicians in office now (on all levels) are Socialists who believe in wealth distribution.

IM TALKING ABOUT CURRUPTION HERE... AND CURRUPTION THAT EXISTS...
every politician takes bribes... AND THAT IS CURRUPTION. THAT'S ALL IM FUCKING SAYING.

In order for this grassroots movement to continue past Dr Paul is for people who are successful to step into the light and use their own abilities & funds to effect change on the local level.

that IS exactly what needs to happen and all im saying is be careful....

take my advise as someone who has been involved with what im talking about...
its not fucking theory, i was a part of it first hand...

im just telling you guys how the fuck it is in some places... get the fuck over yourselves.
HAVE YOU EVER HAD POLITICAL EXPERIANCE??? NOO... SO SHUT UP.

 

[dude58677]

Interesting how many law students are posting. I hope you all know what you are getting yourselves into. I'm 42 and have several close friends who are lawyers. None seem real happy with their jobs. Lawyers these days are rarely in court. It's all about finding clients and writing briefs and settling the case. Very mundane, yet high pressure to bill, stuff. With the glut of lawyers these days, you have a chance of getting an associate job with a decent law firm, but unless you are one of the top 5% of those associates, they will work you for 90 hours a week for a couple years and dump you. Then you either hang your own shingle, which is VERY competitive and not very lucrative, or take a pay cut to be a corporate lawyer - or, as with many, you dump the profession.

Hate to be such a downer, but that is what I have witnessed with many. I went the MBA route and found the corporate world to be so corrupt and political I started my own business and am fortunate enough to have had some success with it.

I remember when I was in my 20's and full of great expectations of being CEO. Only happens to a lucky and cut-throat few.

The key, like I have now, is to find something that will make you happy even if you were not paid. I could see the legal profession being that way in an ideal world, but the profession is all about billable hours and what have you done for me lately? Nothing noble about it these days unless you want to work as a public defender or for a non-profit for $40k a year. That I respect.

Still, I hope those in law school who support RP break the mold and have happy and proseprous law careers where you also do some good for the world.

I was a pre-law stdent at Pitt and it was such a corrupt field that I gave up on it. I didn't like the "might makes right" mentality. Such as if the Supreme Court upholds torture then that is what lawyers will go along with. I wanted to get into it at first because I wanted to make a career suing the government for violating the Constitution. I even took a pro se case against the Selective Service System which was not surprisingly rejected by the Judge before there was even a trial and the Judges corrupted the system by denying me a right to a jury trial which is what I demanded under the 7th amendment. I also don't like how they violate due process to anyone claiming the Tax laws are unsconstitutional. They don't even consider being taxed as legal standing to sue.

 

[ionlyknowy]

I was a pre-law stdent at Pitt and it was such a corrupt field that I gave up on it. I didn't like the "might makes right" mentality. Such as if the Supreme Court upholds torture then that is what lawyers will go along with. I wanted to get into it at first because I wanted to make a career suing the government for violating the Constitution. I even took a pro se case against the Selective Service System which was not surprisingly rejected by the Judge before there was even a trial and the Judges corrupted the system by denying me a right to a jury trial which is what I demanded under the 7th amendment. I also don't like how they violate due process to anyone claiming the Tax laws are unsconstitutional. They don't even consider being taxed as legal standing to sue.

" I even took a pro se case against the Selective Service System which was not surprisingly rejected by the Judge before there was even a trial and the Judges corrupted the system by denying me a right to a jury trial which is what I demanded under the 7th amendment."

This made me laugh No one gets a trail by jury when suing the government.

And you have to be granted permission to sue the government. Yes, that is right, the Govt. cannot be sued unless they tell you that you can sue. Read the Federal Torts Claims Act. And even if the Act says you can sue, then you cannot have a jury only a judge.

It is called sovereign immunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

The reason for this
the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.


So I guess when they rejected your claim, and denied your trial by jury you just assumed it was due to their corruption.. Or did you actually check to see if your claim against the Govt. was permissible and just forget that you cant get a trial by jury when suing the Govt.?

 

[ionlyknowy]

why not? we don't allow those born in other countries to be President.
It's simply a conflict of interest - just as ALL foreign borns wouldn't necessarily be bad presidents, not ALL lawyers would be poor public servants.
But in reality, most lawyers ARE corrupt.

"most lawyers ARE corrupt"

How could you ever even come close to even have a small shadow of a reason to believe this statement is true?

This is a general statement to which there is absolutely no basis for.

You just assume they are corrupt.

 

[chinaCat]

I got tired of this around page 5. My family has several friends who have been lawyers for a few decades. I don't hear first hand accounts, but talk like this is quite common. In some form or another this is true. He makes a point of saying local level, and makes another point of saying most.

So I would agree with him, as to the severity, well it varies probably.