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 wonderfulexamples ofgracious professionalism, have become the example of everything that we FIRSTers shouldn’t be.
In postafterpostafterpostafterpost, 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.
On one hand, I think the jokes are made to light-heartedly tell us to not be nitpicky when it comes to the rules.
On the other hand, I feel that FIRST is within a growing stage. We have gotten to the point where we have changed the face of engineering culture, but we’re still working on that general culture thing. With that, we’re partly making jokes about other professions to make ourselves feel good that we’re all on a better track that is different from what we make fun of. I strongly feel that the next step for FIRST is to recognize that just because you’re in the program doesn’t mean you’re going to become an engineer or go into something science-based…but it means that you have an appreciation for the healthy integration of technology into our everyday lives…no matter what profession you go into.
But then again, I think it’s just that Dean likes to make fun of lawyers (just like I like to make fun of Brandon just because he’s Brandon ), and we all follow along because it’s Dean. Which isn’t a bad thing, necessarily…it used to be that Dean’s speeches weren’t complete without a lawyer joke thrown in there. That’s just how he is.
I think everyone needs to chill. Lawyers try to interpret laws to their advantage, even when there isn’t much room to do so. People are simply making a perfectly acceptable analogy between the way people nitpick the rules, and the way lawyers study laws for any inconsistancies they can find.
Besides, everyone knows lawyers like to debate the meaning of stuff all the time. My dad tells me I’d be the best lawyer he’s ever met
Yeah, I’ve noticed this too. Heck, I just got back from a meeting at UVA … during which, the head of the Rodman program (the honors program in the engineering school) was asked if ethics was part of the bio-engineering curriculum; then, as a follow up if the law school offered any ethics classes (presumably that engineering students could then take). So he pondered for a minute and said: Ethics in the Law School? … No, I think I’d like my engineers to learn ethics from people who actually practice them! (Rough paraphrase.)
Granted, making jokes is fun and all, and I’m not annoyed at any of it … but some of us engineering types want to be lawyers! (So don’t assume it as an insult, eh?)
It’s not so much the actual lawyers that are to blame, it would be the people who hire them.
The lawyer’s are just doing their job, favorable or unfavorable. Unfortuntely, it’s the lawyer’s that are defending their clients. It, for the most part, wasn’t the lawyer themselves who challenged someone else.
There’s always someone who sues for a stupid reason (i.e. the Winnebago one). Let’s blame them from now on. We’ll refer to them as…umm…‘dics’.
So, don’t be a dic.
You want someone to blame? Try the root of the problem – CONGRESS! Hrm, let’s see here … bloated government, intentionally vague laws and an absence of reasonable tort reform. Does that sound like a friendly combination? Lawyers are just trying to interpret the law they are given; they work in a well defined, advesarial fashion – for all that people complain, they just do their jobs. And sure, we have a litigious society; but what is wrong with people trying to get there due? And it’s up to the courts to determine that “due” – but the courts don’t make law (well, some try awfully hard to, but that’s another discussion entirely). It’s congress; the courts/lawyers/clients are all confined to the laws congress makes. But for the most part, that is very little confinement … blame the real source, crummy politicians.
Before this thread is closed for political mud slinging, let just say that lawyers interpret the law and try to apply it to their people. I agree that lawyer slamming is way to common here, even from some larger members of FIRST, but I still think that bending of the rules is part of engineering. It’s needed under pressure from deadlines, cost constraints, and labor restraints to solve the complex and hard problems thrown at us. The use of teathers like in 2002 is a great example.
Lets chill guys. Drop the lawyer slams and jokes and lets all enjoy our last few sane days before Championships. :ahh:
I have noticed this, and it does disturb me. Lawyers serve an important function in society, and while many of them are famously unethical many of them are courageous and generous individuals who dedicate themselves to serving their communities. I would venture a guess that there would be a lot fewer engineers without intellectual property lawyers and we would all be a lot worse off without our much derided judicial system. Now, I don’t think I would ever be a lawyer, but I don’t think that its right for Dean to be bashing lawyers, I know for a fact that he employs quite a few, and many, many lobbyists to boot. What’s wrong with saying “don’t be a weasel?” instead of “don’t be a lawyer?”
There are good people and bad people in every profession. Einstein was a scientist, but so was Josef Mengele, Usama Bin Laden is an engineer, so lets try to to keep a little perspective.
Ok, since I’m the lawyer-ish type I am always angry when people say “Don’t be a lawyer.” So, (a) don’t diss the lawyers.
(b) Why not stick to the rules (Yes, this is related)? The rules are there to be followed, not bent. And don’t say don’t follow the rules to the letter, ‘cause that’s what the rules’ letters are for!!!
Well it’s a very tricky issue. I actually did several debates (LD debate) on this issue: the letter of the law verse the spirit of the law. On the one hand, you need to follow the letter for consistency, and to allow people to actually know what in the heck they need to do. This is more applicable to actual laws, though, where for obvious reasons people need to know what to do. So far as FIRST is concerned, the emphasis is on learning, not winning. You need to realize that if the spirit of the rules is in conflict with the letter of the rules, that means its a bad rule … why arbitrarily follow it (remember not everything can be forseen), to the detriment of those involved? Now obviously it depends on the situation … but sometimes the rules need to be bent … othertimes they need to be followed. You have to weigh everything, and try to figure out just what your goals are.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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:
