If clients stopped requesting and otherwise seeking out destructive lawyers who are making a tremendous amount of money doing nothing but wreaking havoc and destroying families among other things, the supply of such lawyers would decrease.
When cases to go court, they become a gamble. A crapshoot. If you have been involved in a civil court case that went to trial, you know it. People who should win, lose. And people who should lose, win.
While there are lawyers on both sides who are the salt of the Earth (I believe I know some) and guided by an ethical conscience, society should remember that a license to practice law is a license to uphold that law, not subvert it.
I know that the public won't find it strange that elite Wall Street lawyers could not muster a single hero while the appraisers produced tens of thousands. The public does not expect much from Wall Street lawyers.
When attorneys, mediators and others are involved in the process, their concepts of fairness may well differ from those of one or both of the parties and from those of the other professionals involved.
Our present legal system has evolved from legal and social structures that regarded certain categories of human beings as chattel. That immorality has never been officially disowned. It has never been fully and courageously addressed.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that he thought lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court shouldn't answer any questions if they were asked too many, too fast -- and Justice Clarence Thomas has taken this a step further, to its logical conclusion by not even asking questions.
New attorneys and interns will be told to "dress conservatively," but what does that mean beyond the obvious? I shadowed a senior attorney at the Legal Aid Society for 13 weeks and came up with the following tips for effective personal style in a courtroom setting:
As the Supreme Court's criminal procedure jurisprudence becomes more and more like a giant game of Jenga, our public dialogue needs to shift. We can't just talk about which rights we possess; we need to talk about how effectively they can be used -- and how well they match what we think we know.
I live in a vital, racially and ethnically diverse Chicago neighborhood and I watch it happen -- racial profiling, the stop-and-frisk game. This is not making my neighborhood safer. It's wrecking lives at enormous public expense.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "That sounds awesome and I see few if any problems with implementing it. Let's do it." Though I tend to agree, it may be worth assessing with a slightly more critical eye. Let's a take look at some of the "Pros" and "Cons" of the TbC system.
"I went to law school to make a difference. I became a public defender to ensure poor people have access to the same justice as those with money. But I find myself spending my days processing people through a system that does not give them a chance."
With little fanfare, more than five million people every month are now getting online advice from real lawyers in their practice area and state. Have a child custody question in California? No problem. Bankruptcy in Baltimore? Deportation in Dallas? Covered.
Due to the nature of our adversarial justice system, it's more often than not going to be the party with the high-priced attorney who wins in court rather than the party with the more meritorious case.
Private litigants have no basis to force a court to abandon its role and efforts, including a jury's verdict, once the system produces an outcome the parties don't like. They also can't cry foul and have erased an outcome produced by a system that taxpayer money supports.
Does our justice system need to accept the harsh reality that wrongful convictions happen all too frequently and that exchanges of Alford pleas for prison release do nothing to serve the ends of justice but rather re-affirm the distrust many have about the fairness of the criminal justice system?