User talk:Ohnoitsjamie

Criticism of lawyers

The paragraph regarding the criticism of lawyers is very modest, and does not explain why they are so loathed throughout the world. Is it because they never seem to do what they are supposed to and delay everything because they believe you need them? 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I originally did not want to elaborate on the underlying content of such criticism because when I first started the major revision that led to the current version of the article, I had not yet read enough to draw broad universal generalizations about why people do not like lawyers. Also, the prior version was being vandalized almost every day by people who do not like lawyers in their particular part of the world (and we still see such vandalism from time to time).

I did not want to make generalizations that are too closely bound up with North American legal culture (e.g., lawyers are corrupt, vicious and power-hungry like Richard Nixon) as opposed to, say, European or Asian or African or South American legal culture (which would then cause users from those areas to hit the article with a Globalize template). But in the year and a half that I've been working on this article, I am beginning to see certain common universal threads in criticism of lawyers from around the world in the books on the sociology of the legal profession that I have been reading. When I have the time I will look at those sources again and get the citations and extend the criticism section a bit. Thanks for pointing that out. --Coolcaesar 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I suspect that part of the reason lawyers are generally viewed with suspicion is that there will, in any dispute, be a lawyer on either side. This means that (i) there will almost always be a lawyer that loses (and most lawyers lose about half the time on average); (ii) there will be a perception (through failing to understand the role of a lawyer, whether advocate or attorney) that in acting for someone you feel is wrong, the lawyer is somehow tainted by that. Its the active involvement in disputes that does it. Francis Davey 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Francis, in most cases there is no dispute between two lawyers. Most of the time it is a lawyer or body of lawyers providing legal service that does not include a dispute between a competing lawyer or lawyers. --216.165.32.160 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried parsing your response and I'm afraid I can't even make sense of the second sentence, so I'm not sure what you are saying. If what you are saying is that most people's experience of legal services is non-litigious (which seems reasonable) then a further factor comes into play in my jurisdiction, namely that the most common use of a legal professional is for conveyancing, which area of practice attracts far fewer of the better candidates and thus has a tendency to undermine the standing of the rest of the profession. Was that what you were meaning? Francis Davey 12:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that the lawyers are not representing themselves against one another, but are instead representing clients (who are not lawyers) - it is indeed a rare circumstance for lawyers to be suing one another and representing themselves. bd2412 T 09:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole section is POV and not terribly relevant to the article. Lawyers are also very much admired, and the hostility towards lawyers is somewhere between prejudice, a cliche, a literary device, etc. However, the subject of criticism of lawyers is notable, so I wouldn't support deleting the material. Just moving it to a place where it can stand on its own. Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing a split; I disagree. The topic is not notable enough to support an article on its own. Also, neither myself nor anyone else has the time to keep a close eye on such an article, with the result that it will inevitably become a blog stuffed full with poorly drafted complaints from various disgruntled former legal clients (the kind who already vandalize this article too often). For an example of why poorly thought-out article splits are bad, look at the massive overlapping mess between Juris Doctor, Law school, Law school in the United States, Legal education, and Legal education in the United States. No one, myself included, has the time, energy, or inclination to clean up or organize that mess (and keep in mind that any attempt to do so would probably result in a nasty edit war), with the result that all five articles are an incoherent (and ultimately useless) disaster, none of which serves Wikipedia's purpose of being an informative encyclopedia.

Also, as the drafter of that section, I also disagree with your position that the issue is not relevant. Lawyers have been and still are often heavily criticized to an extent rarely seen with other occupations or professions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph Definition of Lawyer and Law

Famspear: I just noticed your change and wanted to pipe in. Obviously supposed to be "conduct", but I don't agree with either the new or the old.

First of all, why are we defining Law in this paragraph at all. We should just say:

A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law."

There may be more to the definition, but defining law is for that article to do, or better yet Wiktionary. I hate this idea that everytime an article uses some phrase that someone feels needs defining it gets defined right there, that's what wikilinks are for.

And why are we quoting Black's for this. Shouldn't we be telling people what a lawyer is, not giving them a definition. I have already brought up my trouble with the whole "licensed to practice law". Black's Law or no, I am admitted to the bar by the courts, I do not hold a license except in the very general sense that I am allowed by the sovereign to practice.

And I'm sure there is a whole pile of discussion on this topic somewhere but why exactly is there an article on Lawyers and an article on Attorneys-at-Law. Sure these may not be identical terms in many jurisdictions, but in those where it's not it's because one of the terms doesn't exist at all, at least that's my understanding. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear DDHME/Doug: I was thinking "contract" but that didn't make much sense to me.

I don't edit here that much and I would tend to defer to those who do, at least right now. I do think you have an interesting point about the need or lack thereof to define the term "law" here, as opposed to simply linking to the article on "law" and reading the definition there.

As far as "telling" versus "defining" I do have a personal preference in Wikipedia in general for giving a formal definition with a citation to a source, such as a dictionary. That's just me.

As best I can recall, I think the article on "attorney at law" is focused on lawyers in the USA, while the articl on "lawyer" is more general. I think it was that way before I came to Wikipedia, so I don't know the history. As I said I don't edit very much here, as compared with some other areas, at least not lately. Does anyone else have thoughts on Doug's questions? Famspear 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I said "obviously", maybe it wasn't so obvious.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am pulling both external links because Wikipedia is NOT A LINK FARM or DIRECTORY

Someone from Romania (probably not a lawyer) keeps trying to add an irrelevant external link into the article. Wikipedia is not a link farm, a link directory, or an indiscriminate collection of random information per longstanding official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

If you are looking for a place to put links, see Yahoo! at yahoo.com or the Open Directory at dmoz.org. I am purging both external links (the one to U.S. statistics and the one to Romanian stuff) because (1) both are too country-specific for an article that takes a worldwide view (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) and (2) if we start allowing country-specific links within this article, then we will have 100 external links soon enough in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and eventually WP:NPOV (I have seen this happen before with other articles). If you do not understand why Wikipedia official policies are important, then please see what happened to the last user I ran into who refused to comply with them: User:Ericsaindon2.

If anyone from Romania or anywhere else feels that lawyering in their particular country is really special, then do the research (in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and write an article about lawyers in your own particular country in a new article titled "Lawyers of [country]." I'm doing the same for Attorney-at-law for lawyers in the United States on a subpage of my own user page, which I will eventually swap with the Attorney-at-law article when I'm finished. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:No original research policy, so you have to be restating assertions which were first published elsewhere in reliable sources in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Coolcaesar 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

German judges/Career Change

Quote For example, unlike their American counterparts,[80] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.[81] Unquote

Why would it be difficult for a German judge to become an advocate in private practice? This is simply not true. Judges in Germany are highly qualified. Therefore, judges have no difficulties at all joining a law firm, if they wish to do so.212.43.71.31 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Blankenburg essay from Abel's book says. If you have a citation to a article in English that states that the situation in Germany has subsequently changed, feel free to provide it. My understanding is that judges in Germany can join law firms under the current regulatory regime, but only in an advisory capacity and not a representative one. In contrast, American judges can join law firms very quickly, and within days, they can be back in court arguing cases in front of their former judicial colleagues. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a statutory prohibition in Germany, or just 'the way things are done'? bd2412 T 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm inclined to believe the person in Germany. Where does Abel get his information from, and what's his footnote backup? It might be that he was just making a generalisation, and it might have changed since he wrote this. Things are always changing, even in European law practices. Wikidea 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

lawyer assistant

well im here to show yall what a laywer is. im an assistent for the lawyer aaron booker he is a famous lawyer in texas.. our work is easy the only thing we do is dont give up in the court and work very hard we also tell our client to tell us the truth and dont lie to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.144.50 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I hope your work product doesn't look like what you just wrote. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, but yeah. bd2412 T 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to the proposed merge

See Talk:Corporate lawyer. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also object to the proposed merge. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The merge is a bad idea. Corporate law is a major specialty that is highly notable on its own. This article is long(ish) as it is. If we merged in every major practice area it would be as long as a small book. Admittedly, the corporate law article is fairly weak but it should be improved. Wikidemo (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a brief overview of corporate lawyers with a link to the main corporate lawyer article. Idag (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

merge: legal advice

• Oppose: Instead of merging legal advice with lawyer, I request that legal advice be expanded into a full-length article. The legal-advice section in lawyer is already in a nice summary style. It would also be interesting to consider the question of whether accepting payment or some form of consideration is an element of legal advice or not. Maybe it is in some jurisdictions and not in others? I haven't researched this question, so I don't know the answer. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead isn't quite right, does anyone have a more recent dictionary?

I just fixed some vandalism to the lead quote that apparently occurred back in April or May, and subsequently realized that the lead reflects the definition from the old 5th edition of Black's. The 8th edition, which I own a copy of, defines lawyer as: "lawyer, n. One who is licensed to practice law." Does anyone have the current 9th edition? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LAWYER 2

Lawyers are people that understand the law and will do anything in their power for their client to win.Most lawyers are caring and thinks that it is not always about the money but about helping the innocents and putting away the guilty.

                                                     by:Na'Kyiah