Are lawyers really unpopular? A four year study

There is only one reason left to go before I reach number 101 in this blog.

Four years ago, I started this blog when a report was released concluding that judges enjoyed their work. Frankly, they could have fooled me. Now there is a study to suggest that lawyers in general are very happy with their job. However this was a UK study. Lawyers in the UK are known to be exceedingly happy whereas as you may be aware the rest of us can struggle.

I posted the next reason when I saw  lawyers in suits bravely fighting riot police in the streets of Islamabad, Pakistan. They were prepared to risk injury defending the independence of judges, even if an Economist report suggested that in another part of town, other Gucci clad lawyers cynically had photo ops in police vans.

After that, one reason followed another, intermittently. I decided on 101 reasons as I didn’t want to depress the entire legal profession by having 1,001 reasons.

I examined at length why lawyers and the law are still not fulfilling clients’ expectations.

I covered the general failings of some lawyers such as scruffiness and being dull based mainly on the observations of my own wife. I was soon looking back to when I started as a lawyer to explain that young lawyers can be a little bit full of themselves while conceding even the older ones are difficult to live with. I urged young lawyers to be more sensitive especially during the mandatory visit to the cells immediately after a client had received a prison sentence.

Complaints ranged from lawyers being too busy and ignoring clients to lawyers not being aggressive enough or even that they irritatingly tried to talk clients out of suing people rather than just getting on with it. But, basically it boiled down to the same 12 issues which have dogged lawyers for centuries, The Twelve.

By 2009 I had a strong suspicion that it was all the judges fault , although, I felt that legal receptionists needed to bear some, if not most of the responsibility for the supposed unpopularity of the profession.

I became convinced that many legal issues could have been avoided if clients could be directed away from situations which have so often have adverse legal and social consequences, such as:

• teaching their children to drive
• suing the wrong people
• disputes with mothers in law
• giving money away to anyone in their family
• admitting anything
• fighting the household cat
• leaving their spouse out of a will
• resisting their adult son’s attempts to put you in a home.

I suggested new forms of trial and innovative legal practice business models. I explained that procrastination by a lawyer was not just an inconvenience to their clients but to the other lawyer in the transaction.

In a desperate effort to try and keep the readers’ attention, I turned to sex -  obscenity, disgusting filth and my limited experience defending alleged Chinese brothel keepers in a tastefully written piece entitled “The Copper with the Golden Chopper”.

Also, I managed, as most lawyers do, to squeeze in a few of my own small successes such as my first appearance at the Old Bailey, my dispute with a lady over a car parking space and my fight with my own neighbour. I took the opportunity to defend my own record, yes one client did fall asleep when I was pleading for his liberty, but only once. 

I came to five conclusions:

• Certain classes of people had an irrational bias against lawyers, such as those married to them and I decided (quite some time ago) that their opinion should be ignored, or at least heavily discounted.
•  People generally liked their own lawyer – one man had four of them. Expressions such as clubbable and like an old Labrador were not uncommon.
• Everybody seemed to dislike other peoples’ lawyers, government lawyers, trainee lawyers and understandably law students.
• No one dared make a comment about legal receptionists or legal journalists.
• There was a strong dislike of in-house lawyers or anyone else receiving stock options mainly by private practice lawyers.

We lawyers are far more popular than we thought and it may be safe to encourage our own children to become lawyers, after all.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

http://www.brennanlaw.com.au/

# 99. They make some questionable submissions

The Diarrhoea Defence

If we lawyers do seem occasionally wistful it may be because our moment of fame has eluded us.

In my case, a client had been charged with failing to supply a sample of breath. His car had been stopped by the police, he had tried to run away and during a struggle with a police officer had had an attack of diarrhoea.  

Suspected drunken drivers often fail to provide sufficient breath and are routinely convicted unless they have a reasonable excuse.  An attack of diarrhoea seemed a good reason for not doing any strenuous blowing, or at least it was in my book.  We entered a plea of not guilty.

The cross examination of the police officer began tastefully enough, given the circumstances. But soon descended into unnecessary detail. The failure to control bowel movements seemed further evidence of my client’s bad character and the officer did not want to leave anything to the imagination.

The magistrate remained throughout the evidence with a pained, constipated expression. She seemed unable to step over the diarrhoea part of my submission onto the firmer ground of the legal principles behind the defence. She convicted my client with what seemed to me indecent haste.

My footnote in legal history was snatched from under my nose.

(c) Paul Brennan is a business and property lawyer 'deals and disputes" on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland.  Both  "Deals and disputes".

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 67. Judges

Quiet in the Court!

Nowadays, judges often feel that they should give the appearance of being impartial even when one party has a hopeless case.

This impartiality could have been achieved by listening quietly and politely. However, judges have found it difficult to restrain their traditional pent up anger, general grumpiness and twisted sense of humour which has always made listening such a challenge for them.

Therefore, judges took to criticizing both sides in what they believed was an even handed manner. In practice, this usually amounted to launching blistering attacks against anyone who raised their head above the parapet.

Advocates became fearful to say anything at all, which only encouraged judges to greater outbursts.

Lawyers became too embarrassed to bring their clients to Court who turned out to prefer short upbeat briefings rather than wasting a day at Court. Lawyers began to send clients text message updates often during the hearing itself.

Lawyers who had always made their bravest and most confident speeches in conference with their clients at their own offices, days or weeks before the court case, now wondered, why go to court at all? So they didn’t.

Client meetings were no longer rushed and could take all day. Without the oppressive atmosphere of a court room and in the comfort of their own offices, lawyers started to enjoy advocacyonce again. They were able to quote Henry V and even Mel Gibson without snide remarks from the Bench. They even got a few laughs which had become almost impossible in the Courtroom.

Lawyers were no longer “In Court” when clients called. They became quite efficient and were able to get on with their real work. They no longer had to bother reading court rules or old cases; there was no need to prepare lengthy affidavits and written submissions. Litigation became cheap and even cheerful.

With the advent of Twitter some lawyers reduced lengthy reporting letters to 140 characters. But other lawyers included romantic interludes, car chases, Vampire Ushers and Zombie Clerks in their reports which were snapped up by publishers and some became best sellers.

Judges promised to be less cranky and offered 5 day trials in Bali but it was too late. Lawyers had become so popular that the Attorney General finally accepted that Judges had been to blame all along and they would all need to go out and get proper jobs.

So ended the Era of the Judges.

 (c) Paul Brennan 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

Click here to go to the Judges Just Want to have Fun Gift Shop

# 65. They can be a little too sensitive

The murderer and the bail application

To be a regular client of a criminal firm you not only need to persistently commit crimes (allegedly or otherwise) but also be caught, often.  As criminals reach their mid 20s many find it difficult to maintain this level of commitment.

In the London criminal firm where I worked as a newly qualified lawyer there was such a client.  Although, in his mid 30s, when he was not allegedly stealing in a violent sort of way he was being arrested for driving offences and assaults.  Eventually, he committed a murder and changed law firms.

My boss who was prone to hysterics, took this badly and marched down the police station with the words “he is not going to get away with this”.  He angrily confronted the alleged murderer in his police cell and insisted that he change back to our firm, which he did.

Next morning, the client was understandably disappointed when my boss sent me to court to represent him. 

The client wanted me to make a bail application and I recall saying “We may not get it” in the hope that he might decide that he would leave it.  He didn’t.

In the circumstances the bail application, apart from the fact that it was refused, went quite well. He was later convicted.

My boss continued to be let down.  The local Italian cafe owner had a 16 year old daughter who was kept on a very short lead.  The father sent her for two weeks of work experience at our firm.  On her first day she agreed to a date with a client charged with administering date rape drugs.  This was quickly cancelled by my boss.  On Day Two she wore less clothing and more make up.  From that point, we all lived in a state of fear of Mafia type reprisals until she was returned safe and sound to the unsuspecting father at the end of the work experience.

Two years later my boss died of a brain tumour.  His increasingly paranoid behaviour did not seem to put off our clients, in fact, they really liked it.

(c) Paul Brennan 2009.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 59. They sue people for no reason

How to apportion blame.

We all make mistakes. However, in my experience, it is easier and more convenient to blame others for your own mistakes.

Your family and friends can be relied upon to accept your version of events, however skewed they may be. But, others often try to understand your enemy’s position. This is of course infuriating. Suing your enemy is the best way to shut these doubters up.

Isn’t it risky to sue someone for something that was your own fault? Not at all, people do it all the time. However, it is prudent to let your spouse think it was his or her idea then even if things go wrong it will give you useful ammunition for years to come. Likewise, do not make the mistake of choosing your own lawyer, it is best to follow a recommendation of say a hated in-law.

It is essential to get rid of your first lawyer early on then you can blame him or her for messing up your case. If it is a particularly hopeless case, change lawyers several times. This should help to muddy the waters.

At some stage, it will start to become clear to the other lawyers that your case is particularly weak and even the judge could start to side with your opponents. Please don’t worry. You are going to court to insist on your right to a fair hearing, the facts should soon become secondary to the various skirmishes. A good tactic is to sack your lawyer and represent yourself. The fundamental wish to give you a fair hearing can often override the judge’s sense that your case is a joke.

At the end of the day, provided that you have laid the groundwork of multiple lawyers, a domineering spouse who doesn’t listen to reason, interfering relatives and a crazy, unreasonable opponent then you can feel safe in the knowledge that the legal system, lawyers and society in general, are to blame.

Extract from Suffering 101. (c)Paul Brennan 2009.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 56. They hate cats

John Fytit’s International Problem Page

- Your Legal problems shared

Dear John

Despite having a cat door, every night, my cat wakes me up wanting to be let in and out or vice versa. My sleep is being severely disturbed. Is it illegal to kill a cat?

H.M. Dublin, Eire

Dear H.M

Cats do not have nine lives. This old adage is a reference to failed assassination attempts by their owners, so you are not alone. My own cat has a permanent scowl.

Your cat is your property and you can kill it, provided it is not done in a cruel manner. For instance, drowning in a bucket although quick, may be prohibited as an extreme form of water boarding. Even a pillow placed gently over the face after it has dozed for 20 hours straight in its favourite chair may be considered cruel in the cold light of the court room.

Therefore, it is best left to your Vet. But, most Vets, not all, are animal lovers and treat requests for execution of a healthy albeit malevolent animal as motivated by cruel intent and therefore illegal.

This is why many regimes, when dealing with subversives, use “trumped up” charges. As the Vet’s determination is behind closed doors with no witnesses, no investigation and no appeal, accusations of attacks on pregnant mothers, babies, widows or, as a last resort, puppies should work fairly well. As many cats have a night life that Hannibal Lechter would be proud of, the Vet should be easily convinced that he is dealing with an enemy of the state and any delay on his part may result in a law suit against him by one of the victims.

But, your cat’s untimely death may not improve your sleep. Guilt may weigh upon you as it did with Lady Macbeth. Alternatively, your small triumph may result in you turning on other members of your family who are even more irritating.

If you have reached an age where you find that your only nemesis is your cat it probably means that you should get out more. At least, that is my plan.

J.F.

(c)Paul Brennan 2009.

John Fytit is the name of the central cartoon charter in Law & Disorder cartoons which started in Hong Kong in 1992. He is from the fictitious Hong Kong firm Fytit & Loos (pronounced “Fight it and Lose”). A very unsuccessful name as people read “Fytit” as “Fit it”. The International Problem Page started in 2005 and was merged into Paul Brennan’s blog. But, not before John Fytit started to receive real legal questions from various parts of the world.

For further extracts from John Fytit’s International Problem Page sign up to the free monthly Law & Disorder eZine.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 36. They are shambolic

In England defendants will be forced to change their lawyers if the Judge believes they are causing delays in complex cases.

It is an ancient right for defendants to have the lawyer of their choice however shambolic that lawyer may be. Lawyers will fight to the last man (or woman) to defend that right.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 9. They can be so scruffy

Q. My lawyer is so scruffy that I am ashamed to be seen with him in court. I am worried that the other lawyers look down on him. What can I do to make him more presentable?

A. I, for one, believe that there is no excuse, even for inept lawyers, not to look their best when in the company of clients. It is the least they can do. Standard of dress is something that judges look for in addition to legal argument. I have seen cases lost for the want of a trouser press.

Tell him that you do not expect Beau Brummel but to get a grip.

J.F.

An extract from John Fytit's International Legal Problem Page

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 3. They can be a little tactless from time to time

Q. I am a young criminal lawyer. Custom dictates that after I lose a case I go down and visit my client in the cells. Although, I would regard myself as a fairly able conversationalist, it is difficult to know the right thing to say; I am reluctant to say “sorry”.


A. Small talk such as, “What are you doing for your holidays?” or “Nice weather outside” is inappropriate. Avoid sage advice such as, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” as it could lead to a violent reaction. If an appeal is mentioned say that you will consider it, however hopeless it may be. Saying, “This is regrettable” is preferable to “Sorry” as the latter could be interpreted as an admission that it was your fault and could be cited in an appeal. On leaving, a simple “Good bye” is best rather than “Cheerio”, “Call me” or “we must do lunch sometime”.

Extract from John Fytit’s International Legal Problem Page

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors