Lawyer bashing on CD

Your "we" seems too general. I don't think EVERYONE in FIRST agrees with that.

I know I definitely do not. Rules need to be followed to the letter because that gives everybody a 100% level playing field. Team X cannot say that they interpreted/bent the rules one way and have an advantage over the rest of the teams. That is the precise reason the rules are created by FIRST. Otherwise FIRST would say, do whatever you want, just be GP. Well, they don't say that, so let's all follow the rules, completely.

[Joe Ross]

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.

Bill Gates was a prelaw (maybe that's why you don't like him) student at Harvard. He dropped out in his junior year so he could concentrate on making BASIC interpreters for Microsoft, the company he founded the year earlier. Dean also dropped out in his junior year, also to run a business.

Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote a simulator for the 8008, which they then modified to simulated the 8080 used in the Altair. Then, they wrote a BASIC interpreter that ran on their simulator. All this was without ever touching an Altair. When they finally got their hands on an Altair, the code worked fine. To do this, without ever touching hardware takes a level of software engineering (or genius) that most people don't have.


In Dean's earlier speeches, he often said that his goal was to make Bill Gates as much of people's hero as Michael Jordan. I'm pretty sure that Dean respects Bill Gates.

I know you don't like Bill Gates (I don't like much of microsoft's current software, nor some of their business dealings) but to say what you said, without anything to back you up, borders on slander.

Edit: a lawyer-to-be just PMed me and said it's libel not slander, since it's written.

[Jessica Boucher]

I've read this thread a couple of times, and I've been asked to say something, but I don't know what to really say...but I can see that it's getting kind of heated. Can we bring it back to the original topic of the thread?

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.

[AzNiCe]

why do we regard lawyers in this way? in the US it seems to me that the richer guy with the better lawyer wins, and the better lawyer seems to be the smoother-talking one who can find the loophole. i know this obviously doesnt apply to the majority of lawyers but i have no idea how to correct this.

but before we go on, id just like to say that lawyers are paid to do their jobs, and their jobs are to win cases.

[Jack Jones]

In reviewing your post after post after post after post examples, I think you have confused our contempt of ill-conceived, poorly worded, and/or ideological rules with contempt for the legal profession.

The circumstance is that engineers are the legislators of FIRST. So, given some the results, we should welcome participation by a lawyer or two. Provided, of course, they don’t try to play engineer.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

The circumstance is that engineers are the legislators of FIRST. So, given some the results, we should welcome participation by a lawyer or two. Provided, of course, they don’t try to play engineer.

I realize you're kidding, but just so you (and more importantly, others) know... There are a lot of very well respected robot designers in FIRST who aren't engineers, and aren't interested in becoming an engineer. Also, there are many lawyers who have engineering degrees, some of which had been in that profession before they turned to law.

I spent about an hour or so composing a post meant for this thread about 8 hours ago. I was put off by a few of KenWittlief's comments about lawyers and the whole devil thing. I've since decided not to unleash hell, as was my original reaction, in favor of just saying how disappointed I am that someone would say that all people in one group deserve to be prejudged as evil or otherwise demonized.

-Bill Gold @ 4:50am

[jonathan lall]

Why is there lawyer bashing in the FIRST community? One huge reason that has barely been touched on is that Dean Kamen, and others, have made on more than one occasion, degrading comments about lawyers. Is that unexpected? No. But I think it is a tad uninformed. Nobody here needs me to lecture them about how lawyers are the only group of people out there to protect their personal rights. Most people here are smart enough to figure that out themselves. In this thread, I keep seeing comments like, 'crooked lawyers like Johnny Cochran' are out there to screw you. To a small extent, you are right, but to a bigger and much more important extent, there's another truth.

You are all wrong.

Are you honestly saying the guilty do not deserve the best defense they can get? Are you honestly saying that the burden of proof and the rights of the accused are not to be protected? Johnny Cochran and his team put up a pretty brilliant fight, and while they defended a man who kill--sorry, it's called "wrongful death" in the States' civil court--who caused wrongful to his wife, they also did their job, fulfilling a bigger need of society than punishment for the guilty. The Government's case and prosection against a guilty man were bad, and it's as simple as that.

Now, back to FIRST, the thread's original topic, and the second reason people hate lawyers on CD and in FIRST. The truth is that people are not born with jurisprudence. As such, we end up with those not trained in that field despising people who are capable of thinking in that way. It's perfectly natural, but it's also disappointing. I find it difficult to respect someone who sees in black and white and can't put up an argument. For some here, it's the opposite. When the average person sits down and reads the rules, he sees the rules. When a so-called 'lawyer' sees them, he sees the rules to mean exactly what they mean. If a rule is open to interpretation, it is either meant to be that way or it is a bad rule. Yes, there is such thing. FIRST's resident 'lawyers' jump on this and get flak for it.

In the end, before you jump on the bandwagon and hang you a lawyer on CD, make sure you're not doing it because said lawyer thought of something you wouldn't have thought of. I find that the majority of lawyer-bashing incidents on CD occur when someone comes up with a brilliant idea that is seemingly within the rules. I find it especially annoying when someone gets it clarified and approved by FIRST and still gets flak for it. A lot of the time, it's an engineer who comes up with a device that needs a 'lawyeristic' interpretation of the rules.

</rant> *ducks*

[mtrawls]

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.

And such is their job ... and no, it doesn't matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault! We have an adversarial legal system -- one advocate for the accused and one advocate for the victim. Throughout the centuries it's been found out that this works best; afterall, what kind of country would it be if my lawyer wasn't concerned with my best interest? I think you are complaining about people getting off on "technicalities" and such ... but it is these "technicalities" that keep the government from busting down your door! I know people complain when some criminal gets off because the police mishandled the evidence, or something else ... but these rules/procedures are in place to protect you. It's one of those funny little ideas that liberty should be preserved (albeit the concept seems to be dying out these days).

Originally Posted by Grommit

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.
...

The answer lies in FIRST and Gracious Professionalism. We don't see the necessity of precision in lawwriting or law interpretation. ... 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...

This wonderful idea about GP and not needing "precision in lawwriting" works fine for the very small scale and relatively unimportant FIRST competition. But you can't be advocating this on a large scale can you? For say, the nation's laws? It's hard enough for people to understand the laws as they are passed now ... but not only do you want them to know what the law says, but now they've got to interpret the "spirit" and figure out what 535 bandits meant -- and it's very likely that they all had different intentions. Oh, and then it would just be wonderful if we trusted every judge and let his decision be final -- 'cause, as you know, judges are above normal people, they're perfect and never make any mistakes or hold any grudges. The idea of specific laws is that people know what they have to do. If this is not the case you give the judge a very wide lattitude; you give the judge the power to convict anybody for anything. You can talk about GP, but the world ain't gracious or professional -- people are rotten ... that's the premise the constitution was written under, anyway, and I'd trust that a lot more than blindly trusting any judge to protect my rights. To summarize, my point is that all that "precision" and "loophole"-finding is necessary ... it might not sound glamorous, but without lawyers here to keep it all in check, believe it or not, our society would be in utter chaos!

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by mtrawls

I think you are complaining about people getting off on "technicalities" and such ... but it is these "technicalities" that keep the government from busting down your door! I know people complain when some criminal gets off because the police mishandled the evidence, or something else ... but these rules/procedures are in place to protect you. It's one of those funny little ideas that liberty should be preserved (albeit the concept seems to be dying out these days).

Reminds me of those silly essays they tried to have you write for scholarships. "How to Balance Freedom and Security". Right now we are leaning more towards the security side but it is a balance. Their is a definite tradeoff between the two. "Do you want police busting down your door, taking you downtown, suspending habeus corpus, torturing you until you admit to crime you didn't commit, and sentencing you without a lawyer or jury or with reasonable doubt or do you prefer getting attacked by terrorist? Personally I prefer somewhere in the middle.

Lawyers are alright by me. I guess I have some of the questioning and looking for loopholes. My school must of done a horrible job at creative problem solving..huh? But I guess that should be in the public vs. private thread. But really they are just people doing a job. Stereotypes aren't particularly good. Let lawyers be lawyers and engineers be engineers.

[Gadget470]

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.

[KenWittlief]

wow , I make a couple tongue in cheek comments in here and my reputation page fills up like a christmas tree (both green and red)!

where to start?
at the beginning?

taken at face value biblical genesis is the account of the 1st man and women, so you could not have human history that predates it. It was written by Moses who was reportedly in the presence of God on Mt Sini for 40 days - and it was from that meeting that Moses wrote Genesis - since God was present when Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden, the event was what? a second hand account? God told Moses, Moses wrote it down? (as I said, if taken at face value).

Some people got really upset for me pointing out that the serpent was the first to question the law of God - the one simple law, 'dont eat from that one tree' - cross examined Eve, questioned what God really said or meant, and in the process confused her to the point where she thought God said she could not touch the fruit either, or she would die (God said nothing about touching it, only eating it)

Techincalities? yes. If the serpent was the first to bring up technicalities in the law, and confuse the issue, why get upset with me if you read Genesis and see the legal profession reflected in the act of the serpent? I didnt write Genesis. If you read it and dont see the connection, then you dont see it - maybe its my imagination - but why get upset with me for noticing it and pointing it out in a lighthearted fashion?

Bill Gates: back when small computers first started being developed with disk drives an engineer took on the incredibly complex and cryptic fuctions of what was normally called "job control language' and created the first easy to use disk operating system, CPM. Forgive me I forget the guys name - He was an engineer, not a businessman, and he did not make any money off this incredible leap in computer system technology.

another engineer took the concepts of CPM, and since he could not copy the source or hex code line by line (that would be a copywrite violation) he rewrote the whole thing, sorta like paraphrasing the other mans work. This was the basis of Dos 1.0. He tried to sell this code to IBM for the original PCs, but could not agree to a price. Along comes Bill Gates, who buys the code from the guy, and then sells it to IBM (with some minor modifications) on a machine by machine lease basis. If it were not for this deal Microsoft would be a footnote in computer history books. This is what I was referring to about Gates selling 'someone elses' SW to IBM. Gates did not write Dos 1.0, he bought it from someone else. It may have been a briliant business deal, but that does not make him a exceptional engineer. (I dont see how anyone could say this is slander or libel)?!

The engineer who originally came up with the concepts for CPM tried unsuccessfull to sue Microsoft. He died several years ago, pennyless.

so the genius who came up with the revolutionary concepts for CPM got practically nothing for his innovation or hard work in making it a reality. There was no legal means to protect his ideas (you cant patent a concept). The engineer who laboriouisly cloned CPM into Dos 1.0 got something on the order of $30 or $50 thousand for his work. Gate/Microsoft who contributed very little to it, made a fortune.

Lawers in general: finally back to the topic of this thread. I dont know about where you live, but here in my town you cant watch TV or turn on the radio for more that 10 minutes without being flooded with commercials from lawyers who want to help you sue people for car accidents, malpractice, insurance.... They are everywhere, the cover of the phone book, the newspapers, billboards.

The US is the only country in the world where you can sue for friviouls reasons and have no fear of recompense - in every other county in the world if you bring a suit against someone and there is no basis for it, YOU have to pay the other persons legal fees - but here in the US its out of control - it IS a nighmare - companies routinely settle claims out of court that have no basis, but it will cost more in legal fees to goto court than it will to pay off the plantiff.

and from an ethic perspective, there was a case here several years ago where a very young girl dissapeared from her apartment complex in broad daylinght. A guy in his 20's had lured her into his apartment and killed her. The police were going door to door looking for her, and he refused to let them check his apartment (only a few doors from hers).

A few days later he disposed of her body, and then pretended to help the search parties look for the girl. After a few years his conscience caught up with him, he called the local police chief (or sherrif), met him in a resturant, and confessed - telling them where her body was.

He was arrested and the little girls body was recovered, right where he said it was. Case closed. Right?

no. This guy ends up with a lawyer who tries to get the case THROWN OUT because the confession was made in a resturant and not at a police station - the lawyer convinces the guy to plea not guilty at his arraignment!

the beginnings of a huge trial got underway, jury selection was started, but someone else (minister or someone) convinced the guy that this was a mistake and he changed his plea to guilty, took his punishment.

Are there good lawyers out there doing a valuable service to society? of course there are - but all it takes is a handfull like these in the public spotlight to taint the entire profession.

If lawyers dont like the perception the public has for them, they need to clean up their profession. Most congressmen are lawyers. Most judges are lawyers. They have the power to clean up the profession, if they choose to. Its not like this in the rest of the world.

[mtrawls]

since God was present when Adam and Eve was in the garden of Eden, the event was what? a second hand account? God told Moses, Moses wrote it down? (as I said, if taken at face value).

Ah, but II Timothy says that all scripture is God-breathed ... so if you were to look at it from a technicality, you could even say it was a first hand account

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The US is the only country in the world where you can sue for friviouls reasons and have no fear of recompense - in every other county in the world if you bring a suit against someone and there is no basis for it, YOU have to pay the other persons legal fees - but here in the US its out of control - it IS a nighmare - companies routinely settle claims out of court that have no basis, but it will cost more in legal fees to goto court than it will to pay off the plantiff.

Hrm ... companies used to settle out of court, but I thought in general that practice is on the turn around because it only encouraged more frivolous law suits. Either way, you struck at the head of the problem which is no fear of recompense ... which gets back at laws and congress being the problem, not lawyers. Lawyers are going to exploit the current system to their client's advantage; such is their job. A dash of tort reform from congress, and all would be well in the world (well, perhaps not everything ).

no. This guy ends up with a lawyer who tries to get the case THROWN OUT because the confession was made in a resturant and not at a police station - the lawyer convinces the guy to plea not guilty at his arraignment!

It's the lawyer's job to defend his client's rights. It seems to me the lawyer made a foolish decision, because I don't think he has much of a case so far as case law is concerned. But merely trying to get the case thrown out is not bad -- he should fight for his client's rights and if he is mistaken the state should win the case. He makes a claim, the other side counters; don't get upset until a judge comes back with some crazy decision!

Are there good lawyers out there doing a valuable service to society? of course there are - but all it takes is a handfull like these in the public spotlight to taint the entire profession.

Well, I guess that depends on your perspective.

They have the power to clean up the profession, if they choose to.

Really? How? You said it just takes "a handfull" to "taint the entire profession." People can only control their actions ... and it is human nature that there will always be some rotton scum around. Granted, serious tort reform is needed, I agree with you inasmuch ... but it is Congress that has to pass this, and the lawyers, for the time being, are stuck in the current system.

Its not like this in the rest of the world.

True. But in "the rest of the world" the police can do some pretty frightening things. In "the rest of the world" you can't depend on the judiciary for your rights. Personal freedom, liberty and such are things I value very highly ... as do most Americans. I will cede that they come at a cost, but I'm willing to pay it.

[KenWittlief]

Either way, you struck at the head of the problem which is no fear of recompense ... which gets back at laws and congress being the problem, not lawyers....

by a wide margin the state and federal legislatures ARE made up almost exclusively of LAWYERS

they write the laws, they sit in the judges benches, they argue the cases on both sides

that was my whole point - they already are in complete control of the entire system.

It's the lawyer's job to defend his client's rights....

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

[mtrawls]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

by a wide margin the state and federal legislatures ARE made up almost exclusively of LAWYERS

they write the laws, they sit in the judges benches, they argue the cases on both sides

that was my whole point - they already are in complete control of the entire system.

Well, sure, if everybody agreed then their "complete control" might mean something. As it is, the "they" you speak of is not so unified. And sure, many congressmen used to practice law ... does that mean "lawyers" as a whole group of people are responsible for everything Congress does or doesn't do? It seems that not only are you painting with a wide brush here ... but you are assuming that the whole lot of them are controlled by some central leader. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying?

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

Oh, the guy's guilty sure. Let's string him up and get rid of him, I'm all for it -- but not until due process has been followed. He confessed, yes. Then the lawyer brought up a question as to the validity of that confession. "What rational person would have any doubt"? I don't know ... but either way I think that the question deserves to be resolved in court, so that rational people can debate the issue to see if there is any doubt. As you said, it all worked out in the end, no? You can bring in emotional aspects of the case, but it doesn't change the fact that the guy has rights until he is proven guilty. On a whole, it may take a long time, but the legal system tends to work things out mostly ... and just remember all that time and legal proceeding is designed to protect the innocent -- if we automatically knew who were guilty and who were innocent it wouldn't be so darned difficult.

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

rights?! the guy told the police that girls body was wrapped in a chain at the bottom of a cooling tank in a building where he use to work as a security guard - he put it there -the police drained the tank and found her body

what rational person would have any doubt that person was guilty of murdering a 6 year old girl, but the lawyer tries to get the guy OFF?!?!? on a technicality?!

the accused have rights, he was not accused by anyone - he called the police and confessed of his own free will.

Are there sleazeball lawyers out there? Absolutely. I've never met one, but, then, I don't know many lawyers. I do, however, know lots of engineers, teachers, electricians, and umpires, and I've run across sleazeballs in each of those categories. I figure, since engineers, teachers, electricians, umpires, and lawyers are all people, there are bound to be some shared characteristics between the groups.

The fact that I've met some sleazeball engineers in my life doesn't mean that they are representative of every engineer.

A lawyer's job is not to tell his "obviously guilty" client to throw himself on the mercy of the court. A lawyer's job is to do what is in the best interest of his client. The system works better if there's someone who knows the rules of the game on both sides. Would a better alternative be to have the judge and the arresting officer get together before each trial and decide who was guilty and who wasn't? Maybe that's how they settle things beyond Thunderdome, but not here in the good old US of A.

---

Regardless of all this, whether the lawyer-as-weasel stereotype is a valid one or not, it is still a stereotype. In using it, you lump together every tireless crusader for the rights of the underdog with the slick, money-grubbing sleazeballs who earned the stereotype in the first place, and that's not right.