Moderator: Nicole Marie
just as there are bad doctors (anyone into holistic medicine will give the same, if not a more, vehement argument), auto mechanics (as anyone who's gotten repairs and the accompanying bill lately), contractors (why is everything two weeks???) and so on...Originally posted by barfle:
I recall a movie called "The Firm" with Tom Cruise and Hal Holbrook. However, doing unnecessary work and charging for it is in the eye of the beholder.
That's a movie...a work of fiction...that panders to the general misunderstanding...
do attorneys do it? sure - they get caught. Do doctors, mechanics, contractors and all else do it? yes, and they get caught...
Many patent attorneys charge by the word to write an application, as I understand it. And verbosity is almost universal.
Hire one that doesn't
Those contracts that should be crystal clear should not require any special training other than reasonable knowledge of the English language to understand. Requiring special training to "know how to read them" is a big part of why there are law schools.
They shouldn't be - most courts require that contracts and policies be in a "plain and ordinary meaning" - understandable by a layperson. This is a requirement - if you can't understand it, get it written so that you can.
This is the plain language movement that's been going on for quite some time - anyone should be able to pick up a contract and read it front to back and understand it - now, for a speciallized contract, that is probably a different standard - I don't come anywhere near claiming I can ever read a patent application.
But to be a patent attorney you have to have an engineering degree and a JD - so unless I want to spend another 2 or 3 years in school, I'll never see that field. It's has it's own Bar as well...
I'm not saying that lawyers are a universal enemy - not at all. However, there are enough of the kinds of lawyers around that fit the civilian stereotype that the general opinion of lawyers is not totally unjustified.
You have to have a jury that believes he is innocent when you start - the standard is innocent until PROVEN guilty - and that's the onus of the prosecution...in a poll of Oklahoma City, 80% of the population said he was guilty and should be condemned - kinda hard to get a fair and impartial trial when 4/5 of the population readily admits that they're ready to hang him before the opening argument...Originally posted by treebeau:
McVeigh got the same verdict in Colorado as he would have gotten in Oklahoma City. Guilty is guilty no matter where the trial is moved.
I think that lawyers would have weeded out biased potential jurors during voir dire. And during a trial the judge instructs the jurors. If they hear all the evidence and make a decision based on feelings and not facts, the judge would know that and probably overturn the decision.
So, why move the trial?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]