compared2what? wrote:FourthBase wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but it came to me suddenly last night, watching local coverage of the three roommates' defense attorneys, and I do not intend this right now to be a moral judgment, just a factual observation, although obviously there are some, uh, moral judgments awaiting some of these people someday, even if they never arrive. Here it goes:
More or less than half of all attorneys are, by definition, crisis actors. Literally.
They are always emerging to perform for someone else in a crisis.
Logically, about 50% of them are full of shit, give or take 25%?
Like, necessarily full of shit. Lying. Professionally. Yes? No?
They're definitely actors who can do a little crisis-acting when called for.
I'm not sure all of them are professional liars, though. They kind of go with the style that suits their natural strengths best. The ideal would probably be the criminal defense attorney who had such consummate showmanship that he/she could tell the truth in a way that left the impression of the right falsehood.
I think you're onto something, though. And not just for criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, either. All litigators. They're showboats.
No, they are almost all professionally trained to be able to lie well. And the ones who practice in court are all professionally trained to be able to act semi-competently. Most who are trained so, use their training in their careers, however continuously, frequently, or occasionally. I've been briefly represented by a few lawyers in my 35 years. They don't really need much information about you or your situation in order to make your case. Why? Because, sure, they have such a grasp on core legal principles and a familiarity with so many real and hypo cases, that they can slot you into a preconceived template within minutes. Because, also, they are lifelong masters in the art of bullshit, aka, sophistry. Many lawyers, especially the premier ones, were sophists-in-training as early as middle or high school, if they were members of a forensics society or debate team. I myself probably could've been a statewide all-star for the BLS team, but I bailed after our first practice, because arguing for something I don't believe is true makes my skin crawl, makes me feel violated, and I had no interest in that kind of competition, those kind of rewards. The best lawyers, are usually the kind of person who does. Usually. Not all of them suck. Quite a fucking few of them, rock! I worked as a low-level admin for BARBRI for about 15 years. In a minuscule, indirect way I helped give birth to tens of thousands of lawyers. Literally that many. I have no doubt that a significant percentage of those law students were good people, and I'd wager that most of them have probably stayed good people, despite the pressures to conform to a sociopathic model of behavior. Most of that significant percentage, I bet, have become good lawyers, forces for good. But the temptations are grand, man, grand. I almost felt tempted enough by 12 bucks an hour to be outsourced to Ropes & Gray as an admin, despite the claustrophobia and horrific fear of heights and powerful premonition of an imminent attack in that area of Boston. What chance does anyone stand of resisting a temptation in the form of a six-figure salary? None. Almost none, I should say. Still a chance. It's a matter of integrity, and how strong of a will you have to preserve your integrity. These kids pass the MPRE with flying colors, with few sad exceptions. But after that, it's the Wild Wild West. Shit gets dirty. And even the best of the good ones are sometimes forced, are legally-bound by professional duty, to act. To act against their conscience. To act against common decency, in the interests of a client in a crisis. Yes, it can be a noble, righteous profession. It can also be Satan's legalistic playground.
