Lawyer bashing on CD

[Adam Y.]

So, what gives? Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.

In all honesty I think it has to do with the fact that people consider lawyers to be slightly higher than telemarketers.

Gates is not one of us - he never got a degree in anything, and he not an engineer

I don't think Dean Kamen never got a real degree. That doesn't make him any less of an engineer.

[Rafi A]

no he didn't ever get a real degree, but he did receive honorary degrees from many educational institutes.
Personally, I'm all for following the spirit of a rule/law vs. the text. Although in a debate round I might say other wise

[KenWittlief]

lawyers have earned the reputation they have - it didnt land on them for no reason.

In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position - think about it -how often do you see a guilty person plead guilty?

lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Pixel_Perfect

no he didn't ever get a real degree, but he did receive honorary degrees from many educational institutes.
Personally, I'm all for following the spirit of a rule/law vs. the text. Although in a debate round I might say other wise

Dean Kamen never got his degree because he was too busy running his business and BEING an engineer

Gates never got his degree cause he was too busy buying someone else work (Dos 1.0) and selling it to IBM.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

lawyers have earned the reputation they have - it didnt land on them for no reason.

Even if this were true, it still wouldn't justify a stereotype used across the whole profession. To use some familiar language, how many decent, hardworking lawyers are you willing to offend?

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position

That's what the lawsuit or trial is for, to determine which position is right. If everyone knew how it was going to end ahead of time, well, then, the whole process would be a lot easier.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.

It is a lawyer's job to get the best possible judgement for their client. That's what the client pays them to do. That's what you or I would pay our lawyer to do if either of us were falsely (or even rightly) accused of a crime.

That's what the sixth amendment to our Constitution guarantees us:

Originally Posted by Hancock, et al

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[MikeDubreuil]

Engineers can be just as unethical as lawyers. Sure, it's more often than not indirect. For instance, a lot of people in this forum will or currently work for a defense company; engineering the next fighter jet, automatic assault weapon or bomb.

The fruits of their labor are usually used responsibly and for the correct reasons. Unfortunately, they can also be used to kill civilians accidentally or purposefully when they end up on the black market.

Not every engineer creates insulin pumps or better wheel chairs, some create better methods for killing people.

To wrap things up, engineers are no better than lawyers; often we do good, but sometimes we do bad.

[Mr. Ivey]

There are two kinds of lawyers, good and bad. The good ones protect and defend the innocent much like the police, fire fighters, and the armed forces, yet they do it in a court. These lawyers defend people who are accused of things they didn't do, or help fight for people's rights. They take up the cause of single mothers with children, against the dead beat dads, the keep children away from predators, and they fight for the rights of equality. And they never make the morning headlines nor do they make the 6 o'clock news. They are do gooders, they don't cause scandal or upset. The bad ones do. These guys bend the rules so much that if Dean says this is stratteling the line, they will find a loop hole somewhere, somehow. They are Johnny Cockren, and Mark Garragos, the represent those that you know have done wrong, yet the whezile into the minds of the people that you can not convict just because of a small piece of otherwise inconclusive evidence. And this is why layers are bashed. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bunch, or in the case of lawyers, ther reputation to society. You see when someone uses an annology of a lawyer they are not taking into consideration the Ken Pacciccacos of the word (Ken is the parent of a good friend of mine, he got arson charges droped from a young boy who was only involved because his brother was driving the car, and he was not old enough to drive, nor did he know what was going on). Nor are the Bob Rices considered, who fight for justice, and for free helped my mom and grandpa settle the assets of my grandmother when she passed. When the term lawyer is put into context in some of the posts mentioned, you are more substituting the term for the correct term of stickler of the rules, one who can not see in grey, it's either black or white. In some ways some lawyers have tainted their profession by defending the not so innocent, but go down to a local court house and go to the juviniale and domestic relations cases, there you will find men and women with a heart of gold, people that fight for what is right. Not bottom feeders that we so commonly associate with the term of lawyer. This is just my rant on lawyer bashing. I see it as not saying a lawyer is the target, but an alternate name for a target. I don't rightly know if that makes perfect sence, but I hope someone gets the gist of it.
ivey

[David66]

My best friend's father is a lawyer. He is a great person, with a HUGE heart for his community, his friends, and his family. But when it come to his profession, he ahs emntioned to me personally that he does "whatever it takes". It is impossible IMO to be a lawyer (at least a good one) without fitting into the stereotype sometimes. The laws of our United States of America were written vaguely for a reason. take say...the constitution for example. it was written over 200 years ago....how could they possibly know what types of needs and wants-both politically and socially- we would have today? Allthey had was the foresight to make sure laws were vague enough to be adapted to any social situation. laws are vague to protect the innocent. and the mostly innocent. and-unfortunately-sometimes the guilty. they were written to prevent tyranny. they were written to give us the freedoms we enjoy today. they were written by some of the 'best' lawyers. they may not have had the best profession in the world-and they may not have always been truthful-but they are good people. this applies to every profession. so i believe this 'lawyer bashing' isnt about bashing poeple who are lawyers, but ratehr the mentality it refers to. i believe FIRST is right in their want for us to avoid this mentality. it is the main reason that so many flags are being thrown. (ie, i wasnt hurting anyone in that corral-no you werent, but you WERE in it). They are promoting healthy PROFESSIONAL attitudes,because they know that we are all good people privately (we hope

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Dean Kamen never got his degree because he was too busy running his business and BEING an engineer

Gates never got his degree cause he was too busy buying someone else work (Dos 1.0) and selling it to IBM.

It seems by your quote that engineers are more worthy people than others, like businessmen. What makes the engineering better than other careers?

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

[Ryan F.]

Okay, I would have to say it's pretty simple in my view. Lawyers are necessary to protect peoples rights. Next time your on trial (which I hightly doubt) and believe your being falsely accused, don't come back telling me that having a lawyer is a bad thing. The thing that sickens me is lawyers that defend people they know are guilty just to make money. OJ Simpson ring a bell to anyone? Also, the current fad of stupid cases such as suing fast food places for obesity sickens me. Lawyers are there for a reason, but some of them definetly go overboard just for the money.

Caution Coffee is HOT!

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

You know, it's that 90 percent of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

I've noticed that lately, the civilized discourse on these forums has been sullied by repeated attacks on a specific group of people. These people, some wonderful examples of gracious professionalism, have become the example of everything that we FIRSTers shouldn't be.

In post after post after post after post, lawyers are slammed, or more often, simply held up as the de facto example of pure evil. Why? No other profession faces such disparagement on these boards, we are largely a civilized group who are loath to use stereotypes (except occasionally in a self-disparaging sense).

So, what gives? Why do we act in this way with regard to lawyers, and what can be done to bring an end to it? Or is the stereotype a valuable illustration as to how not to look at the rules? I'm not sure. I do know that I cringe every time someone brings up "lawyerism" or some other such nonsense as the reason their interpretation of the rules is right.

Sounds like you are taking these attacks personally..
<looks up at your team role - Engineer..>
Hmm..
<Wonders why Kris Verdeyen has such deep interest in defending lawyers>

/me Totally confused!

[10intheCrunch]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Gates is not one of us - he never got a degree in anything, and he not an engineer

more of a pirate/business shark

BTW - who is the first lawyer mentioned in all of recorded history?

Hint: "did God say you may not eat from any tree in the garden?" :^)

Ken, I don't like Gates very much either, but this comment seems to highlight the exact problem we are having. The FIRST community is great to itself but not always to the people who aren't "one of us." The point is that there are people of the engineering profession who are just as despicable as some lawyers, just as there are lawyers that are fantastic human beings. Judge person by person, not by title.

And Hammurabi's set of laws predates the Bible, I believe.

[Gabriel]

Here's a question for you guys - Under the Constitution, the Federal Government has very limited power. So, in 1964, what Federal power did Congress use to establish the Civil Rights Act that helped ensure African Americans could vote, desegregated the south and prevented employment discrimination?

Why the power of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce!

Apparently, when they had to solve a desperate problem a bunch of lawyers got together and came up with a clever solution and they managed to help solve an enormous social problem despite massive opposition. Not too shabby.

I think a lot of engineers involved in FIRST have to deflate their professional egos a little. Its not what you do for a living that matters but who you are as a person. There are plenty of wonderful engineers out there and plenty of bad ones (Usama Bin Laden for example), just as there are plenty of good lawyers out there and plenty of bad ones.

Alright, you guys are going to flame me for this one, but I'm going to say it anyway:

I hate to say it but I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the FIRST philosophy and that is that many leaders in FIRST choose to promote engineering as a contrast to something they say is bad, like law or entertainment. There's nothing WRONG with wanting to be an entertainer, and I can't believe the number of people who roll their eyes every time Dean says he's rescuing American youth from dreaming about being rockstars. Engineering is a wonderful profession, but we should be inspiring people by being positive about science and math and technology rather than being negative about what other people do.

I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for Dean Kamen to talk about the problems with our media-oriented culture when he refuses to learn anything about or participate in any way in that culture! I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for him to run a business that relies on influencing legislation (the legislative affairs people at Segway were so powerful they actually ran the sales department at one time) and then turn around and pretend that lawyers are the scum of the earth.

The world needs lawyers, and it needs engineers and entertainers and scientists, but it mostly needs good people who are passionate about what they believe in whatever field they go into.

[Gabriel]

And Ken - for what its worth, most defendants DO plead guilty.

[Grommit]

Reading through the posts, I don't think anyone has really hit on the essence of the matter: I don't think that we personally bash lawyers at all. To be more precise, we dislike the philosophy behind the concept of the study of law.

We dislike the approach to law that involves drawing precise conclusions from the wording, and we dislike the approach to writing law that creates this wording. We dislike the mentality of trying to find loopholes and we dislike the mentality of trying to find contradictions.

But we do not dislike lawyers. We just have a distaste, after years of sifting through meaningless legal jargon, for the spirit of law writing and the mess of law interpretation.

Where does our distaste come from? Can it be our everyday experience? No, because although America in general has a similar feeling towards law, people in Robotics have a particular dislike that glows in posts on this forum.

The answer lies in FIRST and Gracious Professionalism. We don't see the necessity of precision in lawwriting or law interpretation. Although outsiders might desire very precise guidelines behind a game or sport, such as ping-pong, whose rules are unmistakably precise about the most obscure of situations, under Gracious Professionalism, we have a stronger respect for the general idea and attitude that governs a game's existence than for the precision in crafting the specifications of the game itself. We see it as Gracious that teams should observe what most reasonably appears to fall within the legitimate boundaries of the intent of the game. We see it as professional to abide by the referees' ruling, especially considering how much thought the referees have put into most fairly carrying out the intent of the creators of this year's game. We feel that the attitude of those who overly examine the wording of laws and take unneeded precision in crafting rules that define every possible situation clearly are in conflict with the general values of FIRST. We do not necessarily feel that such procedures would be entirely unwelcome, but we do not welcome criticism that stems from "inaccuracy of the rules" nor "finding loopholes" in the game manual.

Kris, please realize that we bear no contempt towards the hardworking lawyers that keep our streets safe... we only find bitter an attitude that subtitutes nitpicking for common sense and bickering for gracious professionalism.