I have not read every word of this thread, but I did read most of the posts. If my statements are already mentioned by someone else, so be it.
Oddly enough.. I'm writing this to the spotlight for Dave:
"Lawyers find loopholes. Engineers find solutions. For which would you rather be known? -
dlavery "
Most major engineering companies have a department or partnership with lawyers who find out what is legal to do, what isn't, and what might be. I say what might be, because the "might be" is the point where loopholes are. It is the job of the lawyer to find out those three points, and then use them to the best advantage of their clients.
You can't shoot someone because they stuck their tounge out at you. That's illegal.
But, if for some reason you had a traumatic childhood disturbance (which could be proven) from someone sticking their tounge out at you, there is a chance you could get off scott-free on a plea of Mental Disturbance (Sorry, I don't know the technical term).
There are many cases which are won based on profoundly stupid points. Lately, the US has become sue-happy (you may remember
www.sue-it.com [gone now] which was bent on creating lawsuits against the Segway HT BEFORE it was even released to the public!). There have been cases of "Fast Food made me fat" or the recent one.. A High School girl on the basketball team was told by her coach that "[She] would be a better player if [she] dropped 10 pounds." According to the case, this statement alone caused her to have eating disorders and a feeling of disgust for herself. She was awarded $2 Million from the School District, but the case is going to be under appeals.
There was also a case a ways back, called the "Twinkie Defense". A man claimed that malnutrition (based on his own decisions to eat nothing but Twinkie's and other Junk Food's during the 2 weeks before commiting murder) led him to a state of mental unrest. Due to the malnutrition, he was unable to reason as he normally would and should be aquitted of his murder charge. He won the case.
So, why do most people generally dispise lawyers? Because it is a lawyer's job to perform in the best interest of their client by interpretting laws which may apply profitably to their client.
Few other professions require their professionals to study the laws governing their business. As all people are flawed, so are the things created by people. There will always be loopholes in laws, and most commonly it will be lawyers who find them. The stereotype that "Lawyers are bad people" stems from people seeing lawyers win cases that are based on loopholes that the normal people don't see themselves (because normal people don't search for them).
It is probably quite rare that a malicious action is performed knowing of a loophole which can be used. It is when the lawyer is hired that the loophole is discovered.
So why the bad rep on lawyers?
I personally don't like them because of many of the high profile cases which surround their profession.
Are there lawyers out there who want to help people that
deserve to be helped? Yes.
Are these lawyers the top money-makers of their field? No.
In a materialistic society, to grow in value and class you need more money. Many people make their money in dishonest ways. It seems, however, that most people see finding loopholes in laws a dishonest practice.
So, to be a high class and highly paid lawyer, you must perform a dishonest practice.
</rant1>
About previous comments:
KenW's comment about the first lawyer in recorded history.. to save you the trouble of finding out.. it was the Serpent (symbol of satan) in the Adam and Eve tale.
I don't think that the Bible should be considered "recorded history" in a public forum. Many do not believe any of the Bible to be factual, while others claim it to be the greatest writings of all time. "Recorded History" is writtin (pen/paper, film, etc.) as the event happens or soon after. The bible makes no claim of Adam and Eve actually writing Genesis, so any information would be through a 3rd party. We all know that things get skewed when told to someone else (ever played the "Telephone" game in a line when you were a kid?). In short: The Serpent may or may not be a factual occurance, and therefore can not be fully counted as factual. (Now I feel like the lawyer...)
Ogre's comment: "There's always someone who sues for a stupid reason (i.e. the Winnebago one)." While I gave a few stupid cases above, the "Winnebago" case is a hoax. The hoax goes basically.. a man driving his new Winnebago on the highway set the cruise control to 70 MPH, then went to the back of the Winne to get a cup of coffee. The Winne was totaled when the cruise control didn't follow the lines of the road. The man was awarded a new Winne and some money because the owners manual did not claim it the vehicle wouldn't follow the road.
More on this:
http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx
Short story, an old friend of my girlfriend was dim witted enough to believe her SUV's cruise control would follow the road. She set it to 45 MPH and began fiddling with the radio and talking on her cell phone. The road turned and she didn't, causing the car to flip and finally land against a tree. Car was totaled, but at least she didn't sue.