![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The paragraph regarding the criticism of lawyers is very modest, and does not explain why they are so loathed throughout the world. Is it because they never seem to do what they are supposed to and delay everything because they believe you need them? 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Francis, in most cases there is no dispute between two lawyers. Most of the time it is a lawyer or body of lawyers providing legal service that does not include a dispute between a competing lawyer or lawyers. -- 216.165.32.160 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole section is POV and not terribly relevant to the article. Lawyers are also very much admired, and the hostility towards lawyers is somewhere between prejudice, a cliche, a literary device, etc. However, the subject of criticism of lawyers is notable, so I wouldn't support deleting the material. Just moving it to a place where it can stand on its own. Wikidemo ( talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Famspear: I just noticed your change and wanted to pipe in. Obviously supposed to be "conduct", but I don't agree with either the new or the old.
First of all, why are we defining Law in this paragraph at all. We should just say:
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law."
There may be more to the definition, but defining law is for that article to do, or better yet Wiktionary. I hate this idea that everytime an article uses some phrase that someone feels needs defining it gets defined right there, that's what wikilinks are for.
And why are we quoting Black's for this. Shouldn't we be telling people what a lawyer is, not giving them a definition. I have already brought up elsewhere my trouble with the whole "licensed to practice law". Black's Law or no, I am admitted to the bar by the courts, I do not hold a license except in the very general sense that I am allowed by the sovereign to practice.
And I'm sure there is a whole pile of discussion on this topic somewhere but why exactly is there an article on Lawyers and an article on Attorneys-at-Law. Sure these may not be identical terms in many jurisdictions, but in those where it's not it's because one of the terms doesn't exist at all, at least that's my understanding. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone from Romania (probably not a lawyer) keeps trying to add an irrelevant external link into the article. Wikipedia is not a link farm, a link directory, or an indiscriminate collection of random information per longstanding official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
If you are looking for a place to put links, see Yahoo! at yahoo.com or the Open Directory at dmoz.org. I am purging both external links (the one to U.S. statistics and the one to Romanian stuff) because (1) both are too country-specific for an article that takes a worldwide view (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) and (2) if we start allowing country-specific links within this article, then we will have 100 external links soon enough in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and eventually WP:NPOV (I have seen this happen before with other articles). If you do not understand why Wikipedia official policies are important, then please see what happened to the last user I ran into who refused to comply with them: User:Ericsaindon2.
If anyone from Romania or anywhere else feels that lawyering in their particular country is really special, then do the research (in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and write an article about lawyers in your own particular country in a new article titled "Lawyers of [country]." I'm doing the same for Attorney-at-law for lawyers in the United States on a subpage of my own user page, which I will eventually swap with the Attorney-at-law article when I'm finished. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:No original research policy, so you have to be restating assertions which were first published elsewhere in reliable sources in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Coolcaesar 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Quote For example, unlike their American counterparts,[80] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.[81] Unquote
Why would it be difficult for a German judge to become an advocate in private practice? This is simply not true. Judges in Germany are highly qualified. Therefore, judges have no difficulties at all joining a law firm, if they wish to do so. 212.43.71.31 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"For example, unlike their American counterparts,[80] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.[81]"
No, it isn't difficult at all. But only very few judges make use of this option, since this move works only one way. They will never ever get the chance to be reinstated as judges. Okay, they might earn more as lawyers but will be deprived of the highly valued prestige, job security and independance that judges commonly enjoy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
well im here to show yall what a laywer is. im an assistent for the lawyer aaron booker he is a famous lawyer in texas.. our work is easy the only thing we do is dont give up in the court and work very hard we also tell our client to tell us the truth and dont lie to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.144.50 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.jaywant ( talk • contribs)
See Talk:Corporate lawyer. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed some vandalism to the lead quote that apparently occurred back in April or May, and subsequently realized that the lead reflects the definition from the old 5th edition of Black's. The 8th edition, which I own a copy of, defines lawyer as: "lawyer, n. One who is licensed to practice law." Does anyone have the current 9th edition? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Lawyers and the practice of law are two separate and distinct concepts. The practice of law article deals with a term of art that refers to certain acts which if done by a nonlawyer are illegal in some jurisdictions. The practice of law article is a law and economics discussion which is quite distinct from the sociological approach to the legal professions in the Lawyer article. This is basically about the difference between economics and sociology, which should be self-evident. Merging makes no sense because the practice of law issue is very specific only to some jurisdictions, already receives adequate coverage in the Lawyer article, and is elaborated on at length in the practice of law article. Only a nonlawyer (or someone with no training whatsoever in law, economics, or sociology) would be naive enough to propose such a merge! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, could you please not delete relevant and sourced material as you did at least twice [1] [2] already? Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary is a cultural classic; this short and sourced quote is quasi universal and perfectly relevant in the context of a section entitled "Cultural perception of lawyers". Calling such quote in such place "POV" and "original research" and "systemic bias" is thrice inappropriate and has the appearance of wikilawyering, especially when using overly formal summaries such as "Countermand POV and original research which also violates the systemic bias guideline" that reek with false authority. Actually, as a lawyer yourself, your POV-pushing may be seen as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest when trying to suppress such cultural quote even in a minor section of this article. – Unless you are suggesting to counter the POV and systemic bias of using only an outdated Black's Law Dictionary quote for the WP:LEAD, and to move the Bierce quote there too? Maybe that would make the lead more complete, balanced, and NPOV.
If you want to work on that section, it seems to me that ADDING to it would be more relevant than deleting, as there is a lot of "cultural perception" missing, such as: (1) the perception of some lawyers as White Knights, especially for fights in the civil liberties arena (as touched upon U.S.-wise with the secondary meaning of country lawyer), and (2) the fact that a lot of criticism of lawyers is actually misdirected criticism of some laws and the Legal system (that should fall first at the feet of the Legislative branch). — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(out) I'm glad that we can at least agree on the kernel that one or two common criticism/prejudices lack documentation: from this we can work out the details of how to document and phrase it, possibly without the Bierce quote if something better is procured.
About completing this section, I have some other proposals. The main one I already touched upon above, but I'm going to open a new section below to propose and discuss it. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Many articles in the legal section suffer from poor drafting. This is partially as a result of repetitive information and a lack of focus, among other things. Therefore it is proposed that many of the articles be merged into sections of a single article in order to aid in drafting. It is hoped that this will encourage elaboration on the sections by editors. But it will also reduce the number of poorly drafted articles. Previous objections to mergers have not been followed by substantial improvements to editing. Therefore it is observed that the conservative approach is ineffective.
Plus, the "Attorney at law" title is simply stupid. It's like lawyers using the title of "Esquire." Come on! There's no difference between an "attorney at law" and a lawyer. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All the best, Wik idea 11:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this would be more productive if we zoomed out a bit, instead of arguing over specific ideas.
It would be quite a challenge to merge the "practice of law" article and the "lawyer" article because of the length of the articles, and although I haven't looked at the articles closely enough, presumably it is possible if an editor is willing to spend the time necessary, because the topics are so closely related.
Merging the "attorney at law" and "lawyer" articles should be much easier. Most of the content in the "attorney at law" article can be removed entirely, and mention can be made in the "lawyer" article that lawyers may be called by different terms in different jurisdictions, "attorney at law" in the US being one such example. Alternatively the "attorney at law" article could simply be retitled something like "Lawyers in the United States" or "Legal profession in the United States." Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I hereby ban use of the term "Attorney-at-law" ;) It's an archaic and meaningless term, and as Coolcaesar has stated, no one says, "I'm getting sued, I need to call my attorney at law" (as opposed to the attorney at the deli, or the attorney at McDonald's). The only title worse that "attorney at law" is "attorney and counselor at law." Jeeze. Ok, there's my rant. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see separate articles on lawyers of specific geographic areas. For example: Its embarrassing that " litigator" was redirecting to lawsuit until I recently changed it. In the US, a litigator can be a specialized discipline in a corporate law firm, along with the other specialties. I think other major jurisdictions would also benefit from more specific information in well-linked sub-article. -- Bobak ( talk) 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. Would you agree that solicitor and barrister should be merged here then? After all, attorneys, solicitors, and barristers are all legal professionals. Do that and I guarantee you will seriously anger Wikipedia editors from all three professions.
You keep reiterating your position without providing any support while I have provided numerous reasons in support of my position. You should at least have the decency to concede your abysmal ignorance of the comparative sociology of the legal professions.
There are enormous differences in the practice of law in the United States versus elsewhere that require a separate article be maintained for the U.S. legal profession. Major components of U.S. legal practice that are not found elsewhere (or are spreading elsewhere because they developed in their mature form here) include:
So my point is, the American attorney is unique in that compared to lawyers elsewhere in the world, he or she more likely has better academic training in legal analysis, is older and more mature, works for a larger firm, for more money, on more complex cases involving dozens to millions of parties (if the case is a class action) and more sophisticated legal issues, in a larger number of geographically disparate and/or legally distinct (federal v. state) courts, with the assistance of far more specialized staff, on the basis of more creative billing arrangements, and under relatively comfortable but much more mentally stressful conditions. In the U.S., in many contexts (like depositions and trials), if you don't object RIGHT NOW and with the RIGHT objection, you just WAIVED it forever. So that's why attorneys in the U.S. are so attentive while on the record (and get paid very well for it), because they have to be ready to interject the right objection to the other side's prejudicial question. You never know if that one objection, that one line on the transcript, might be what the appellate judge will focus on in granting a decision in favor of your client.
Of course, if you were a lawyer, or worked for a law firm in some capacity, you'd already know all this. Anyway, I think I've made my point that a merge is inappropriate at this time because of all these unique aspects of the U.S. legal profession.
I finally did the research and obtained good-quality sources specific to the sociology of attorneys in the United States two weeks ago and plan to complete my rewrite of the Attorney-at-law article when I have the time and energy during my next scheduled vacation. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Next time I'm introducing a lawyer at a cocktail party in the U.S. I'll be sure to tell people that the lawyer is an attorney-at-law and NOT an attorney-at-fact, so that there's no confusion. Because I'd hate for anyone to misunderstand the point. Boy, how embarrassing that would be. Or, wait, no... maybe saying that would make me look like an idiot! Zoticogrillo ( talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the view that lawyers in different jurisdictions should have different pages. There are details in the ethical and legal responsibilities that would be difficult to capture in one page...As I was told at my law school, lawyers are meant to be social engineers and since society in each jurisdiction is different, the lawyers (and their personal values) and the social engineering (the system they create and operate in) should be different too. At the same time, there is a lot of common ground that lawyers cover in different jurisdictions. I think it should be expected that an article on the general topic of lawyers will always be the subject of intense debate in all fora. In a nutshell, I am not sure this debate has an end to it. Perhaps it is the debate itself that brings to light the true nature of lawyers! Saurabh.jaywant ( talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I think the "Cultural perceptions of lawyers" section is not only lacking documentation of some criticisms, but should also briefly document those rare positive perceptions of lawyers. (It would not only balance the section, but should also make it flow better: currently, as before the Bierce quote, the section doesn't really end or conclude but just... stop after the quoted enumeration of grievances: I found it read a bit strange, that's also why I originally placed the Bierce quote there as a sort of closer.) I'm not going to add it now, but here's a prototype of a paragraph that could be appended to the section, to show what I mean:
It obviously needs work and a few more undisputed international examples, but it gives a basis to talk about. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Mahatama Gandhi's public appeal did not (does not) appear to be his identity as a lawyer, but rather as a political (and, perhaps, philosophical and moral) force, particularly in the context of the anti-colonial movement. But I do strongly agree that lawyers are often respected in culture, even if the functioning of the given legal system they operate in leaves something to be desired.
We cannot, for instance, appropriately cover this point for jurisdictions where the legal system is linked with other systems (religion? Communism?) since that would give rise to more (unresolvable) argument. We should record its (many) legitimate criticisms rather than delve into how it is reviled by any number of people (some of whom are ignorant and others satirical) since everything is reviled by someone. Unless such a criticism helps the reader understand what a "lawyer" is, it should be avoided. Derogatory remarks about lawyers may help understand lawyers (in which case they should stay) or may not help (in which case they should go). As far as I can figure, even lawyers enjoy some digs at lawyers! One more point - has anyone read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? Would that qualify as culturally significant? I hear the book did well in some parts of the world - the lawyer may have been imaginary, but the cultural impact (the subject of this discussion) of the book appears to have been quite real. Saurabh.jaywant ( talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that several of the citations are to primary sources (as examples of) rather than secondary (as synthesis or statement about). Plus the citations need work. Am I the only editor working on this article who actually knows how to draft citations properly? Okay, maybe the Bluebook is too much to ask (it takes about four years of study and practice to master) but Turabian or the Chicago Manual of Style are not that hard. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that I didn't have time to properly format the citations, although the citations were accurate and complete. Bryan Garner would admire your aspirations for perfection in the small details.
As I understand your postings, your objections are that the content is original research, it uses primary sources, the citations are to unreliable material, and that the citations could be an attempt at "Google bombing." I believe that further explaination can satisfy each of your objections.
Original research is, according to the wiki policy article, "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." The content at issue relies on no synthesis of material to make an original position, presents no unpublished arguments, speculation or ideas, but merely states facts which are evident, and gives examples. No inferences are drawn from the facts, but the facts are merely listed and stated as they can be found in the citations. The facts are published, as seen in the citations. The citations are direct and clear and require no interpretation or inference. Therefore, because the content fails to conform to the definition of original research in every way, the content is not original research and cannot be so characterized to any degree.
According to the section on primary sources in the above cited OR wiki article, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." As discussed above, the content makes no arguments, gives no explaination, and requires no analysis, but is merely a cold listing of facts (or descriptive claim) as plainly evident in the citations. No interpretation of the sources is necessary. Any literate person without specialist knowledge can clearly see in the sources the facts described in the content. Therefore, because the primary sources were properly used, no objection to the citations merely because they are primary sources can prevail.
It is of course important to use reliable sources, as also stated in the wiki policy article on the topic. That article states that sources should not normally be self-published, although, "reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations." Another wiki policy article states that, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." However, the disputed citations present no arguments, analysis or claims and are factual examples only. The article goes on to say that self-published sources that are questionable may be used so long as "it does not involve claims about third parties, [and] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." However, the article further states that, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." The sources do not make claims about third parties, there has been no issue raised with the authenticity of the sources, and the sources have no negative reputation for poor fact checking (etc.). Objections should be phrased in terms of wiki policies, or sould at least cite to guidelines. The objection to the citations because they are of individuals and firms that are not notable requires a subjective and overly-restrictive standard which cannot be supported by any wiki policies or guidelines. Nonetheless, most of the firms and individuals in the citations are significant in their regions, and are not insignificant internationally as many of their profiles can be found in important listings such as Martindale. Therefore, because no relevant objection to the reliability of the citations has been raised, and because the citations are probably reliable anyways, there is no justification for the exclusion of the citations because of their characteristics.
The inclusion of the citations by myself, a completely disinterested party, was not "Google bombing." The citations were good examples and were not unnecessarily duplicative. It is highly improbable that "Google bombing" for numerous professionals of greatly diverse backgrounds would be submitted at once by one individual in the format described. I am an editor with diverse submissions to wikipedia and with no disciplinary record, and I did not "Google bomb" by submitting the content at issue.
Therefore, because the content is highly relevant and informative, meets all of the wiki policies, and cannot be objected to for any objective or relevant reason, the content should remain. But the content must be verifiable, and because the citations also meet all of the wiki policies and conform to the guidelines, the citations cannot be excluded either.
I believe that I have discussed the issues thoroughly. Please feel free to comment or correct any errors below, but further debate should be submitted to arbitration and not extensively entertained here. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose to expand the current first sentence:
with the more referenced (and lively):
References that'll show up in notes:
(The chapter quoting Shakespeare was found by User:Gordonofcartoon.) — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with that edit:
Just a short and I hope helpful comment, which I have tried to make here and there in the law articles, but which may not be clear to everyone here. In some jurisdictions - mine being a case in point of course - not all lawyers are attorneys. On any analysis I count as a lawyer: I appear in court, representing clients, sometimes even wearing a wig and gown, and have to pass a bar exam (and a bunch of other things) in order to do so. But I am not an attorney. I am very keenly aware of this since, as a barrister qualified for direct access work, lots of my clients would like me to be.
If I were an attorney at law, I could appear on the court record, conduct litigation and so on. I can't do that because my professional rules forbid it.
The historical distinction that still exists in England is between solicitors (who are attorneys at law) and barristers (who aren't) and its a really practical difference. The fact that there's only one profession in the US means the distinction is blurred.
Its an arrangement that has its pros and cons, but good or bad, that's the way it is. Francis Davey ( talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we need this sentence "Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political and social authority, and deliver justice." -- or can I remove it?-- 达伟 ( talk) 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
i am on probation for domestic 1,my wifes cousin had a voicemail of us arguing she had taken this to my probation officer this voicemail has a hollow threat from me, the judge has removed me from my home witch has added a financial strain to an allready bad situation, my wife has called the judge to try to get him to lift this at no avail,is it legal for him to do this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.66.140 ( talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Lawyers are people who understand law and will do anything to put food on their table.Most lawyers are caring and think that it is not always about money but about helping the innocent and putting away the guilty. by:Na'Kyiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.168.95 ( talk) 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic?
Along similar lines, why does Wikipedia tolerate such blatant bias in its articles on law? Take for example, in the intro:
"Law is the system of rules of conduct...to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice."
I'll bet most lawyers even think of it that way.
Conversely, I could be just as biased and say:
"Law is a system in which people with power and money commit wrongs, practice coercion, and commit various forms of emotional and financial violence against people with less power and moooooooney."
Wouldn't it be more neutral to take out the value-based claims and include something like:
"Law is a system via which individuals use power to control others."
I mean, it could be expanded upon, maybe including a bit about the system's claims to be under the power of the people, etc., but at least it wouldn't be making POV claims about "correcting wrongs" and "delivering justice." 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The comments above are about this article, as indicated. The bias of the language in this article is of concern here. If people who write this and other articles about law are lawyers and thus indoctrinated into their system, they will naturally use very biased language that tends to support their belief in their system, as indicated in the above comments. Legal terminology implicitly builds bias into its structure. You need people who don't have a stake in the system to rewrite, put terms in quotation marks, and add criticisms. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't see the concerns as legitimate. You're a lawyer! You're probably one of those indoctrinated people who thinks this:
"Law is the system of rules of conduct...to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice."
is unbiased. Who says it corrects wrongs rather than committing them? Is helping people to sue others for the sake of revenge under the guise of 'compensation' correcting or administering a wrong? And what about delivering justice? Who defines justice?
My concerns are legitimate. Some of the language in this article is legal language (instead of encyclopedic language). Legal language is full of weasel words that attempt to legitimize the system a lot of lawyers and some others have a huge stake in. Using legal language to describe the system is like using mafia language in an article about organized crime, or filling an article on war with military terminology (euphemisms such as KIA instead of killed for example).
The use of the word "justice" should be a red flag. Law only = justice in the eyes of those who approve of it. I'm certainly not the first person to say that the legal system confuses justice with revenge. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want these arguments included. I want obvious weasel words such as "justice" removed. Anyone should be able to see a bias in these terms. If I wanted to include a citation, I'd look for arguments that discuss how lawyers are little more than pawns of the wealthy and powerful to abuse those with less power - how the system is responsive primarily to power under the guise of justice. But that is not my goal here. My goal is simply to change the language so it's less biased. Basic Wikipedia POV policy. But I'd rather get some kind of consensus before changing it myself just to be reverted. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about this article. This is a discussion, not an edit war. You only come to the conclusions you have by distorting what I've actually said and arguing as if I've said something that's easier for you to argue against.
Understanding that money, power, and bullying play a role in the legal system is hardly Marxist. Even businesses can be bullied with legal threats. And I'm not talking about whether power struggles are embedded in the system. I'm talking about whether the language in this article - such as the word justice - is biased, since the word implies legitimacy and fairness, and that such fairness exists in the system is questionable. I make my arguments only to point out how questionable such language in this article is, not because my argument is necessarily right, but to show such an argument exists - and to assume the opposite of my argument, which this article does by using words such as "justice," is bias.
Now, Coolcaesar, you are a lawyer. You're supposed to know how to give legitimate counterarguments to legitimate arguments. So why don't you do so rather than setting me up as your straw man? Ironically, you use an implied threat yourself - that I could be blocked - as a form of power to censor what I'm saying. And I give far fewer arguments on various articles than you do.
Please, Coolcaesar, recognize that I am talking about this article - its use of biased language. 209.121.24.38 ( talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia core policies. As much as you complain, you violate them more than just about anyone else. 216.232.242.7 ( talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you've fairly represented what I've said, and I think this article violates the very policies you refer to, by using language that creates a sympathy toward its subject. And that language is embedded in English legal systems and their derivatives. But I don't want to belabour the argument any more. I'm going to sign off talk pages for a while. And juging from all your comments over this page, maybe you should do the same. 209.121.24.38 ( talk) 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There can be no doubt that there are bad laws, so equating law with justice isn't really fair or unbiased, but it seems to me that the law is an (often flawed) attempt to be just. I don't see how anyone can argue that people of privilege and influence spend huge amounts of money to influence the law for reasons other than "correcting wrongs, maintaining stability, and delivering justice" any more than I can see anyone arguing that despite it's failings this is the intent and proper purpose of law. It seems to me much of this ire is misplaced. It would be a simple matter to change the language in such a way as to acknowledge both the intent and shortcomings of the law. "Law is the system of rules of conduct... which attempts to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice." -- Cpatechnut ( talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I came back from a vacation in Las Vegas and noticed that the vandals and inexperienced editors had run amok in the article again. IS ANYONE WATCHING THE VANDALS?!
For example, the Hazard quote about bad lawyers got totally mangled, so I restored it to the original version.
I also removed the following good faith incompetent edits as far too specific to the United States and in violation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. (Remember, my top-to-bottom revision of this article in 2005 was designed specifically to comply with the countering systemic bias project by carefully balancing information about lawyers in all major jurisdictions.) The following edits should have been inserted in Attorneys in the United States because they apply largely to that jurisdiction and/or Canada:
"The most basic specialization is between civil law (i.e. private law) and criminal law. As used in the United States, a "litigator" is a term used for a lawyer whose practice is based on civil and/or criminal litigation. [1] Criminal law specialists are almost all litigators. [2] Civil law (private law) practitioners often specialize by becoming either civil litigators or corporate attorneys. [3] In addition civil lawyers specialize topically, becoming, for example, labor attorneys, [4] patent ( intellectual property) attorneys, [5] municipal finance attorneys, [6] or divorce ( domestic relations) attorneys. [7] Lastly, lawyers specialize by tribunal, becoming, for example, appellate attorneys, [8] workers' compensation attorneys, [9] and even SEC [10] and NLRB attorneys. [11]"
"Attorneys in the United States who are employed by companies can assume not only various titles denoting their legal responsibilities (for ex., General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel or Director of Governmental Affairs) but also officer or other business titles (for ex., Vice President or Secretary). [12]"
The following were removed as cites to unreliable sources or original research (first publication of first-stage synthesis) in violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR:
E.g. Portugal: Alves Periera Teixeira de Sousa. Accessed February 16, 2009; Italy Studio Misuraca, Franceschin and Associates. Accessed February 16, 2009.
Peru: Hernandez & Cia. Accessed February 16, 2009; Brazil: Abdo & Diniz. Accessed February 16, 2009 (see Spanish or Portuguese profile pages); Argentina: Lareo & Paz. Accessed February 16, 2009.
Macau: Macau Lawyers Association. Accessed February 16, 2009.
E.g. University of Montana School of Business Administration. Profile of Dr. Michael Harrington. University of Montana, 2006. See also Distance Learning Discussion Forums. New wrinkle in the "Is the JD a doctorate?" debate. Distance Learning Discussion Forums, 2003-2005.
E.g. Peru: Hernandez & Cia. Accessed February 16, 2009; Brazil: Abdo & Diniz. Accessed February 16, 2009 (see Spanish or Portuguese profile pages); Macau: Macau Lawyers Association. Accessed February 16, 2009; Portugal: Alves Periera Teixeira de Sousa. Accessed February 16, 2009; Argentina: Lareo & Paz. Accessed February 16, 2009; and Italy Studio Misuraca, Franceschin and Associates. Accessed February 16, 2009.
E.g. Dr. Ronald Charles Wolf. Accessed February 16, 2009.
See the " Esquire" article in the English Wikipedia, particularly the "United States" section in that article.
Also see The Morrison & Foerster law firm website, one of the largest law firms in Asia and the United States, for an example of usage.
That's it for now.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Lawyers is the basic personality of court & I want to know abt some court law. Thanks. Lawyers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenglobas ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
All The Respected Lawyers Of World Are ardently requested to raise their voice against injustiness of Higher .....................Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.3.206 ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is more appropriate for a horror movie. I think the genre has its own page. Its unclear, sarcastic and deviant.-- Aleksd ( talk) 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Rewrite the lead. It is not just common law centered, it is US-only. Don't take my word for it, look in the OED: One versed in the law; a member of the legal profession, one whose business it is to conduct suits in the courts, or to advise clients, in the widest sense embracing every branch of the profession, though in colloquial use often limited to attorneys and solicitors. Let's make it clear in the lead that the usage {lawyer = attorney} is only in the US. Littledogboy ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out that two sets of words are equal in different contexts:
So while the article is about the concept described in set#1, many people will come here looking for #2. Therefore, Mr Coolcaesar, remove from the lead the (redundant) definition of what law is, and replace with a sentence explaining how the terms jurist and advocate (and probably barrister and solicitor) fit in. A side not: I wonder whether some of the interesting stuff you've written (eg Career structure) wouldn't belong within the scope of the more general article, jurist. Littledogboy ( talk) 12:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
politics in lawyer positions
This was removed because of disruptive editing???
In many jurisdictions extensive background checks are required to practice law. These include political, corporate and governmental involvement. In some countries like Canada, LSUC, allows politically active lawyers to serve in the highest positions of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.72.45 ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
references collapsed
|
---|
|
Corporate Counsel redirects here but there is no discussion of corporate counsels. I think this article should be explain what a corporate counsel is. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone has added unsourced mentions to Portugal without bothering to add references, with the result that the article has been distorted in three or four places because Portugal is not among the countries mentioned by the sources for a particular paragraph.
The last time I checked, no one has bothered to publish anything on the sociology of the legal profession in Portugal due to its relative lack of significance (it's not as exciting as examining the legal professions in France or Spain). If I am incorrect, please feel free to add sources. Otherwise I'm going to clean house soon.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone has added this questionable assertion: "In other states, the bar examination can be very challenging, such as in California where only 42.3% of applicants passed the examination administered in February 2011."
There are two problems here. First of all, the source cited only directly supports the second assertion in that sentence, not the first, which means the first assertion is original research in violation of WP:NOR.
Second, having actually read most of the literature on the comparative sociology of the legal profession (in order to write more than three-fourths of this article over the years), I can say that the foregoing assertion makes no sense. Many countries have bar exams with far lower pass rates, especially Japan. They consider bar exams with passage rates above 50% to be far too lenient and too likely to result in the admission of immature, incompetent, or insufficiently knowledgeable legal professionals. Under WP:NPOV, Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view, which means we take a global perspective, not one which is clearly provincial. Any objections before I pull that out? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The Texas bar exam is also three days (although the third day is just a half a day, if I recall correctly), and the sittings (if I recall) are three to four hours at a stretch.
Texas does not have its own "state" accreditation of law schools. To be allowed to sit for the Texas exam, you must either graduate from an ABA-accredited school or already be licensed in some other jurisdiction (as far as I know). The exam is given in February and July of each year. The pass rates for the February 2016 exam for first-time takers who graduated from Texas schools ranged from a low of 41.38% (Texas Southern University) to a high of 83.33% (University of Houston, where I graduated). The pass rate for examinees already licensed in another jurisdiction was 83.89%. The pass rate for examinees who had graduated from out-of-state law schools who were not already licensed in some other state was 49.68%. The July 2016 results are scheduled to be released this week.
I passed the Texas bar exam on the first try, but I took the exam only two months after graduation, and right after taking a well-known bar review course.
When I took the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination -- in the old days, before Moses, I think -- it was brutal. The CPA exam was always different, because it was not expected that you would pass the entire exam on the first try. Three days: a 19 and a half hour test. No electronic calculators of any kind. This was six sessions over the three day period, with three of the sessions (Auditing, Theory and Law) being 3 and half hours each and two of the sessions being 4 and a half hours each. The two 4 and half hour sessions counted together as one nine-hour "part" (called "Practice"), and the three other sessions each counted as separate parts of only 3 and a half hours each. So, you got four grades, one for each part. I passed the three shorter sessions on the first try without having taken a review course, but I studied almost every night for over four months to get ready. Ah, the good old days! (Not!)
Today, the CPA exam is different: it's shorter, it's administered by computer, and electronic calculators are allowed. Kids today have it easy! Hrrummmmph! Famspear ( talk) 04:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: In looking at the rest of the statistics for the February 2016 Texas bar exam, I note that the pass rate was 65.17% for the first time takers and 47.98% for the "repeaters." And, the over all pass rate for that exam for all takers was only 56.25%. I didn't realize that the Texas bar exam pass rate was that low. I don't think it was that low when I took the exam in the 1980s. Famspear ( talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The paragraph regarding the criticism of lawyers is very modest, and does not explain why they are so loathed throughout the world. Is it because they never seem to do what they are supposed to and delay everything because they believe you need them? 11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Francis, in most cases there is no dispute between two lawyers. Most of the time it is a lawyer or body of lawyers providing legal service that does not include a dispute between a competing lawyer or lawyers. -- 216.165.32.160 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole section is POV and not terribly relevant to the article. Lawyers are also very much admired, and the hostility towards lawyers is somewhere between prejudice, a cliche, a literary device, etc. However, the subject of criticism of lawyers is notable, so I wouldn't support deleting the material. Just moving it to a place where it can stand on its own. Wikidemo ( talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Famspear: I just noticed your change and wanted to pipe in. Obviously supposed to be "conduct", but I don't agree with either the new or the old.
First of all, why are we defining Law in this paragraph at all. We should just say:
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law."
There may be more to the definition, but defining law is for that article to do, or better yet Wiktionary. I hate this idea that everytime an article uses some phrase that someone feels needs defining it gets defined right there, that's what wikilinks are for.
And why are we quoting Black's for this. Shouldn't we be telling people what a lawyer is, not giving them a definition. I have already brought up elsewhere my trouble with the whole "licensed to practice law". Black's Law or no, I am admitted to the bar by the courts, I do not hold a license except in the very general sense that I am allowed by the sovereign to practice.
And I'm sure there is a whole pile of discussion on this topic somewhere but why exactly is there an article on Lawyers and an article on Attorneys-at-Law. Sure these may not be identical terms in many jurisdictions, but in those where it's not it's because one of the terms doesn't exist at all, at least that's my understanding. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone from Romania (probably not a lawyer) keeps trying to add an irrelevant external link into the article. Wikipedia is not a link farm, a link directory, or an indiscriminate collection of random information per longstanding official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
If you are looking for a place to put links, see Yahoo! at yahoo.com or the Open Directory at dmoz.org. I am purging both external links (the one to U.S. statistics and the one to Romanian stuff) because (1) both are too country-specific for an article that takes a worldwide view (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) and (2) if we start allowing country-specific links within this article, then we will have 100 external links soon enough in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and eventually WP:NPOV (I have seen this happen before with other articles). If you do not understand why Wikipedia official policies are important, then please see what happened to the last user I ran into who refused to comply with them: User:Ericsaindon2.
If anyone from Romania or anywhere else feels that lawyering in their particular country is really special, then do the research (in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources) and write an article about lawyers in your own particular country in a new article titled "Lawyers of [country]." I'm doing the same for Attorney-at-law for lawyers in the United States on a subpage of my own user page, which I will eventually swap with the Attorney-at-law article when I'm finished. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:No original research policy, so you have to be restating assertions which were first published elsewhere in reliable sources in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Coolcaesar 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Quote For example, unlike their American counterparts,[80] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.[81] Unquote
Why would it be difficult for a German judge to become an advocate in private practice? This is simply not true. Judges in Germany are highly qualified. Therefore, judges have no difficulties at all joining a law firm, if they wish to do so. 212.43.71.31 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"For example, unlike their American counterparts,[80] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.[81]"
No, it isn't difficult at all. But only very few judges make use of this option, since this move works only one way. They will never ever get the chance to be reinstated as judges. Okay, they might earn more as lawyers but will be deprived of the highly valued prestige, job security and independance that judges commonly enjoy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
well im here to show yall what a laywer is. im an assistent for the lawyer aaron booker he is a famous lawyer in texas.. our work is easy the only thing we do is dont give up in the court and work very hard we also tell our client to tell us the truth and dont lie to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.144.50 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.jaywant ( talk • contribs)
See Talk:Corporate lawyer. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed some vandalism to the lead quote that apparently occurred back in April or May, and subsequently realized that the lead reflects the definition from the old 5th edition of Black's. The 8th edition, which I own a copy of, defines lawyer as: "lawyer, n. One who is licensed to practice law." Does anyone have the current 9th edition? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Lawyers and the practice of law are two separate and distinct concepts. The practice of law article deals with a term of art that refers to certain acts which if done by a nonlawyer are illegal in some jurisdictions. The practice of law article is a law and economics discussion which is quite distinct from the sociological approach to the legal professions in the Lawyer article. This is basically about the difference between economics and sociology, which should be self-evident. Merging makes no sense because the practice of law issue is very specific only to some jurisdictions, already receives adequate coverage in the Lawyer article, and is elaborated on at length in the practice of law article. Only a nonlawyer (or someone with no training whatsoever in law, economics, or sociology) would be naive enough to propose such a merge! -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, could you please not delete relevant and sourced material as you did at least twice [1] [2] already? Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary is a cultural classic; this short and sourced quote is quasi universal and perfectly relevant in the context of a section entitled "Cultural perception of lawyers". Calling such quote in such place "POV" and "original research" and "systemic bias" is thrice inappropriate and has the appearance of wikilawyering, especially when using overly formal summaries such as "Countermand POV and original research which also violates the systemic bias guideline" that reek with false authority. Actually, as a lawyer yourself, your POV-pushing may be seen as a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest when trying to suppress such cultural quote even in a minor section of this article. – Unless you are suggesting to counter the POV and systemic bias of using only an outdated Black's Law Dictionary quote for the WP:LEAD, and to move the Bierce quote there too? Maybe that would make the lead more complete, balanced, and NPOV.
If you want to work on that section, it seems to me that ADDING to it would be more relevant than deleting, as there is a lot of "cultural perception" missing, such as: (1) the perception of some lawyers as White Knights, especially for fights in the civil liberties arena (as touched upon U.S.-wise with the secondary meaning of country lawyer), and (2) the fact that a lot of criticism of lawyers is actually misdirected criticism of some laws and the Legal system (that should fall first at the feet of the Legislative branch). — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(out) I'm glad that we can at least agree on the kernel that one or two common criticism/prejudices lack documentation: from this we can work out the details of how to document and phrase it, possibly without the Bierce quote if something better is procured.
About completing this section, I have some other proposals. The main one I already touched upon above, but I'm going to open a new section below to propose and discuss it. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Many articles in the legal section suffer from poor drafting. This is partially as a result of repetitive information and a lack of focus, among other things. Therefore it is proposed that many of the articles be merged into sections of a single article in order to aid in drafting. It is hoped that this will encourage elaboration on the sections by editors. But it will also reduce the number of poorly drafted articles. Previous objections to mergers have not been followed by substantial improvements to editing. Therefore it is observed that the conservative approach is ineffective.
Plus, the "Attorney at law" title is simply stupid. It's like lawyers using the title of "Esquire." Come on! There's no difference between an "attorney at law" and a lawyer. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All the best, Wik idea 11:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this would be more productive if we zoomed out a bit, instead of arguing over specific ideas.
It would be quite a challenge to merge the "practice of law" article and the "lawyer" article because of the length of the articles, and although I haven't looked at the articles closely enough, presumably it is possible if an editor is willing to spend the time necessary, because the topics are so closely related.
Merging the "attorney at law" and "lawyer" articles should be much easier. Most of the content in the "attorney at law" article can be removed entirely, and mention can be made in the "lawyer" article that lawyers may be called by different terms in different jurisdictions, "attorney at law" in the US being one such example. Alternatively the "attorney at law" article could simply be retitled something like "Lawyers in the United States" or "Legal profession in the United States." Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I hereby ban use of the term "Attorney-at-law" ;) It's an archaic and meaningless term, and as Coolcaesar has stated, no one says, "I'm getting sued, I need to call my attorney at law" (as opposed to the attorney at the deli, or the attorney at McDonald's). The only title worse that "attorney at law" is "attorney and counselor at law." Jeeze. Ok, there's my rant. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see separate articles on lawyers of specific geographic areas. For example: Its embarrassing that " litigator" was redirecting to lawsuit until I recently changed it. In the US, a litigator can be a specialized discipline in a corporate law firm, along with the other specialties. I think other major jurisdictions would also benefit from more specific information in well-linked sub-article. -- Bobak ( talk) 17:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. Would you agree that solicitor and barrister should be merged here then? After all, attorneys, solicitors, and barristers are all legal professionals. Do that and I guarantee you will seriously anger Wikipedia editors from all three professions.
You keep reiterating your position without providing any support while I have provided numerous reasons in support of my position. You should at least have the decency to concede your abysmal ignorance of the comparative sociology of the legal professions.
There are enormous differences in the practice of law in the United States versus elsewhere that require a separate article be maintained for the U.S. legal profession. Major components of U.S. legal practice that are not found elsewhere (or are spreading elsewhere because they developed in their mature form here) include:
So my point is, the American attorney is unique in that compared to lawyers elsewhere in the world, he or she more likely has better academic training in legal analysis, is older and more mature, works for a larger firm, for more money, on more complex cases involving dozens to millions of parties (if the case is a class action) and more sophisticated legal issues, in a larger number of geographically disparate and/or legally distinct (federal v. state) courts, with the assistance of far more specialized staff, on the basis of more creative billing arrangements, and under relatively comfortable but much more mentally stressful conditions. In the U.S., in many contexts (like depositions and trials), if you don't object RIGHT NOW and with the RIGHT objection, you just WAIVED it forever. So that's why attorneys in the U.S. are so attentive while on the record (and get paid very well for it), because they have to be ready to interject the right objection to the other side's prejudicial question. You never know if that one objection, that one line on the transcript, might be what the appellate judge will focus on in granting a decision in favor of your client.
Of course, if you were a lawyer, or worked for a law firm in some capacity, you'd already know all this. Anyway, I think I've made my point that a merge is inappropriate at this time because of all these unique aspects of the U.S. legal profession.
I finally did the research and obtained good-quality sources specific to the sociology of attorneys in the United States two weeks ago and plan to complete my rewrite of the Attorney-at-law article when I have the time and energy during my next scheduled vacation. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Next time I'm introducing a lawyer at a cocktail party in the U.S. I'll be sure to tell people that the lawyer is an attorney-at-law and NOT an attorney-at-fact, so that there's no confusion. Because I'd hate for anyone to misunderstand the point. Boy, how embarrassing that would be. Or, wait, no... maybe saying that would make me look like an idiot! Zoticogrillo ( talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the view that lawyers in different jurisdictions should have different pages. There are details in the ethical and legal responsibilities that would be difficult to capture in one page...As I was told at my law school, lawyers are meant to be social engineers and since society in each jurisdiction is different, the lawyers (and their personal values) and the social engineering (the system they create and operate in) should be different too. At the same time, there is a lot of common ground that lawyers cover in different jurisdictions. I think it should be expected that an article on the general topic of lawyers will always be the subject of intense debate in all fora. In a nutshell, I am not sure this debate has an end to it. Perhaps it is the debate itself that brings to light the true nature of lawyers! Saurabh.jaywant ( talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I think the "Cultural perceptions of lawyers" section is not only lacking documentation of some criticisms, but should also briefly document those rare positive perceptions of lawyers. (It would not only balance the section, but should also make it flow better: currently, as before the Bierce quote, the section doesn't really end or conclude but just... stop after the quoted enumeration of grievances: I found it read a bit strange, that's also why I originally placed the Bierce quote there as a sort of closer.) I'm not going to add it now, but here's a prototype of a paragraph that could be appended to the section, to show what I mean:
It obviously needs work and a few more undisputed international examples, but it gives a basis to talk about. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Mahatama Gandhi's public appeal did not (does not) appear to be his identity as a lawyer, but rather as a political (and, perhaps, philosophical and moral) force, particularly in the context of the anti-colonial movement. But I do strongly agree that lawyers are often respected in culture, even if the functioning of the given legal system they operate in leaves something to be desired.
We cannot, for instance, appropriately cover this point for jurisdictions where the legal system is linked with other systems (religion? Communism?) since that would give rise to more (unresolvable) argument. We should record its (many) legitimate criticisms rather than delve into how it is reviled by any number of people (some of whom are ignorant and others satirical) since everything is reviled by someone. Unless such a criticism helps the reader understand what a "lawyer" is, it should be avoided. Derogatory remarks about lawyers may help understand lawyers (in which case they should stay) or may not help (in which case they should go). As far as I can figure, even lawyers enjoy some digs at lawyers! One more point - has anyone read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? Would that qualify as culturally significant? I hear the book did well in some parts of the world - the lawyer may have been imaginary, but the cultural impact (the subject of this discussion) of the book appears to have been quite real. Saurabh.jaywant ( talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that several of the citations are to primary sources (as examples of) rather than secondary (as synthesis or statement about). Plus the citations need work. Am I the only editor working on this article who actually knows how to draft citations properly? Okay, maybe the Bluebook is too much to ask (it takes about four years of study and practice to master) but Turabian or the Chicago Manual of Style are not that hard. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that I didn't have time to properly format the citations, although the citations were accurate and complete. Bryan Garner would admire your aspirations for perfection in the small details.
As I understand your postings, your objections are that the content is original research, it uses primary sources, the citations are to unreliable material, and that the citations could be an attempt at "Google bombing." I believe that further explaination can satisfy each of your objections.
Original research is, according to the wiki policy article, "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." The content at issue relies on no synthesis of material to make an original position, presents no unpublished arguments, speculation or ideas, but merely states facts which are evident, and gives examples. No inferences are drawn from the facts, but the facts are merely listed and stated as they can be found in the citations. The facts are published, as seen in the citations. The citations are direct and clear and require no interpretation or inference. Therefore, because the content fails to conform to the definition of original research in every way, the content is not original research and cannot be so characterized to any degree.
According to the section on primary sources in the above cited OR wiki article, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." As discussed above, the content makes no arguments, gives no explaination, and requires no analysis, but is merely a cold listing of facts (or descriptive claim) as plainly evident in the citations. No interpretation of the sources is necessary. Any literate person without specialist knowledge can clearly see in the sources the facts described in the content. Therefore, because the primary sources were properly used, no objection to the citations merely because they are primary sources can prevail.
It is of course important to use reliable sources, as also stated in the wiki policy article on the topic. That article states that sources should not normally be self-published, although, "reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations." Another wiki policy article states that, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." However, the disputed citations present no arguments, analysis or claims and are factual examples only. The article goes on to say that self-published sources that are questionable may be used so long as "it does not involve claims about third parties, [and] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." However, the article further states that, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." The sources do not make claims about third parties, there has been no issue raised with the authenticity of the sources, and the sources have no negative reputation for poor fact checking (etc.). Objections should be phrased in terms of wiki policies, or sould at least cite to guidelines. The objection to the citations because they are of individuals and firms that are not notable requires a subjective and overly-restrictive standard which cannot be supported by any wiki policies or guidelines. Nonetheless, most of the firms and individuals in the citations are significant in their regions, and are not insignificant internationally as many of their profiles can be found in important listings such as Martindale. Therefore, because no relevant objection to the reliability of the citations has been raised, and because the citations are probably reliable anyways, there is no justification for the exclusion of the citations because of their characteristics.
The inclusion of the citations by myself, a completely disinterested party, was not "Google bombing." The citations were good examples and were not unnecessarily duplicative. It is highly improbable that "Google bombing" for numerous professionals of greatly diverse backgrounds would be submitted at once by one individual in the format described. I am an editor with diverse submissions to wikipedia and with no disciplinary record, and I did not "Google bomb" by submitting the content at issue.
Therefore, because the content is highly relevant and informative, meets all of the wiki policies, and cannot be objected to for any objective or relevant reason, the content should remain. But the content must be verifiable, and because the citations also meet all of the wiki policies and conform to the guidelines, the citations cannot be excluded either.
I believe that I have discussed the issues thoroughly. Please feel free to comment or correct any errors below, but further debate should be submitted to arbitration and not extensively entertained here. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose to expand the current first sentence:
with the more referenced (and lively):
References that'll show up in notes:
(The chapter quoting Shakespeare was found by User:Gordonofcartoon.) — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems with that edit:
Just a short and I hope helpful comment, which I have tried to make here and there in the law articles, but which may not be clear to everyone here. In some jurisdictions - mine being a case in point of course - not all lawyers are attorneys. On any analysis I count as a lawyer: I appear in court, representing clients, sometimes even wearing a wig and gown, and have to pass a bar exam (and a bunch of other things) in order to do so. But I am not an attorney. I am very keenly aware of this since, as a barrister qualified for direct access work, lots of my clients would like me to be.
If I were an attorney at law, I could appear on the court record, conduct litigation and so on. I can't do that because my professional rules forbid it.
The historical distinction that still exists in England is between solicitors (who are attorneys at law) and barristers (who aren't) and its a really practical difference. The fact that there's only one profession in the US means the distinction is blurred.
Its an arrangement that has its pros and cons, but good or bad, that's the way it is. Francis Davey ( talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Do we need this sentence "Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political and social authority, and deliver justice." -- or can I remove it?-- 达伟 ( talk) 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
i am on probation for domestic 1,my wifes cousin had a voicemail of us arguing she had taken this to my probation officer this voicemail has a hollow threat from me, the judge has removed me from my home witch has added a financial strain to an allready bad situation, my wife has called the judge to try to get him to lift this at no avail,is it legal for him to do this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.66.140 ( talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Lawyers are people who understand law and will do anything to put food on their table.Most lawyers are caring and think that it is not always about money but about helping the innocent and putting away the guilty. by:Na'Kyiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.168.95 ( talk) 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic?
Along similar lines, why does Wikipedia tolerate such blatant bias in its articles on law? Take for example, in the intro:
"Law is the system of rules of conduct...to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice."
I'll bet most lawyers even think of it that way.
Conversely, I could be just as biased and say:
"Law is a system in which people with power and money commit wrongs, practice coercion, and commit various forms of emotional and financial violence against people with less power and moooooooney."
Wouldn't it be more neutral to take out the value-based claims and include something like:
"Law is a system via which individuals use power to control others."
I mean, it could be expanded upon, maybe including a bit about the system's claims to be under the power of the people, etc., but at least it wouldn't be making POV claims about "correcting wrongs" and "delivering justice." 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The comments above are about this article, as indicated. The bias of the language in this article is of concern here. If people who write this and other articles about law are lawyers and thus indoctrinated into their system, they will naturally use very biased language that tends to support their belief in their system, as indicated in the above comments. Legal terminology implicitly builds bias into its structure. You need people who don't have a stake in the system to rewrite, put terms in quotation marks, and add criticisms. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't see the concerns as legitimate. You're a lawyer! You're probably one of those indoctrinated people who thinks this:
"Law is the system of rules of conduct...to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice."
is unbiased. Who says it corrects wrongs rather than committing them? Is helping people to sue others for the sake of revenge under the guise of 'compensation' correcting or administering a wrong? And what about delivering justice? Who defines justice?
My concerns are legitimate. Some of the language in this article is legal language (instead of encyclopedic language). Legal language is full of weasel words that attempt to legitimize the system a lot of lawyers and some others have a huge stake in. Using legal language to describe the system is like using mafia language in an article about organized crime, or filling an article on war with military terminology (euphemisms such as KIA instead of killed for example).
The use of the word "justice" should be a red flag. Law only = justice in the eyes of those who approve of it. I'm certainly not the first person to say that the legal system confuses justice with revenge. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want these arguments included. I want obvious weasel words such as "justice" removed. Anyone should be able to see a bias in these terms. If I wanted to include a citation, I'd look for arguments that discuss how lawyers are little more than pawns of the wealthy and powerful to abuse those with less power - how the system is responsive primarily to power under the guise of justice. But that is not my goal here. My goal is simply to change the language so it's less biased. Basic Wikipedia POV policy. But I'd rather get some kind of consensus before changing it myself just to be reverted. 206.116.166.97 ( talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about this article. This is a discussion, not an edit war. You only come to the conclusions you have by distorting what I've actually said and arguing as if I've said something that's easier for you to argue against.
Understanding that money, power, and bullying play a role in the legal system is hardly Marxist. Even businesses can be bullied with legal threats. And I'm not talking about whether power struggles are embedded in the system. I'm talking about whether the language in this article - such as the word justice - is biased, since the word implies legitimacy and fairness, and that such fairness exists in the system is questionable. I make my arguments only to point out how questionable such language in this article is, not because my argument is necessarily right, but to show such an argument exists - and to assume the opposite of my argument, which this article does by using words such as "justice," is bias.
Now, Coolcaesar, you are a lawyer. You're supposed to know how to give legitimate counterarguments to legitimate arguments. So why don't you do so rather than setting me up as your straw man? Ironically, you use an implied threat yourself - that I could be blocked - as a form of power to censor what I'm saying. And I give far fewer arguments on various articles than you do.
Please, Coolcaesar, recognize that I am talking about this article - its use of biased language. 209.121.24.38 ( talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia core policies. As much as you complain, you violate them more than just about anyone else. 216.232.242.7 ( talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you've fairly represented what I've said, and I think this article violates the very policies you refer to, by using language that creates a sympathy toward its subject. And that language is embedded in English legal systems and their derivatives. But I don't want to belabour the argument any more. I'm going to sign off talk pages for a while. And juging from all your comments over this page, maybe you should do the same. 209.121.24.38 ( talk) 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There can be no doubt that there are bad laws, so equating law with justice isn't really fair or unbiased, but it seems to me that the law is an (often flawed) attempt to be just. I don't see how anyone can argue that people of privilege and influence spend huge amounts of money to influence the law for reasons other than "correcting wrongs, maintaining stability, and delivering justice" any more than I can see anyone arguing that despite it's failings this is the intent and proper purpose of law. It seems to me much of this ire is misplaced. It would be a simple matter to change the language in such a way as to acknowledge both the intent and shortcomings of the law. "Law is the system of rules of conduct... which attempts to correct wrongs, maintain stability, and deliver justice." -- Cpatechnut ( talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I came back from a vacation in Las Vegas and noticed that the vandals and inexperienced editors had run amok in the article again. IS ANYONE WATCHING THE VANDALS?!
For example, the Hazard quote about bad lawyers got totally mangled, so I restored it to the original version.
I also removed the following good faith incompetent edits as far too specific to the United States and in violation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. (Remember, my top-to-bottom revision of this article in 2005 was designed specifically to comply with the countering systemic bias project by carefully balancing information about lawyers in all major jurisdictions.) The following edits should have been inserted in Attorneys in the United States because they apply largely to that jurisdiction and/or Canada:
"The most basic specialization is between civil law (i.e. private law) and criminal law. As used in the United States, a "litigator" is a term used for a lawyer whose practice is based on civil and/or criminal litigation. [1] Criminal law specialists are almost all litigators. [2] Civil law (private law) practitioners often specialize by becoming either civil litigators or corporate attorneys. [3] In addition civil lawyers specialize topically, becoming, for example, labor attorneys, [4] patent ( intellectual property) attorneys, [5] municipal finance attorneys, [6] or divorce ( domestic relations) attorneys. [7] Lastly, lawyers specialize by tribunal, becoming, for example, appellate attorneys, [8] workers' compensation attorneys, [9] and even SEC [10] and NLRB attorneys. [11]"
"Attorneys in the United States who are employed by companies can assume not only various titles denoting their legal responsibilities (for ex., General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel or Director of Governmental Affairs) but also officer or other business titles (for ex., Vice President or Secretary). [12]"
The following were removed as cites to unreliable sources or original research (first publication of first-stage synthesis) in violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR:
E.g. Portugal: Alves Periera Teixeira de Sousa. Accessed February 16, 2009; Italy Studio Misuraca, Franceschin and Associates. Accessed February 16, 2009.
Peru: Hernandez & Cia. Accessed February 16, 2009; Brazil: Abdo & Diniz. Accessed February 16, 2009 (see Spanish or Portuguese profile pages); Argentina: Lareo & Paz. Accessed February 16, 2009.
Macau: Macau Lawyers Association. Accessed February 16, 2009.
E.g. University of Montana School of Business Administration. Profile of Dr. Michael Harrington. University of Montana, 2006. See also Distance Learning Discussion Forums. New wrinkle in the "Is the JD a doctorate?" debate. Distance Learning Discussion Forums, 2003-2005.
E.g. Peru: Hernandez & Cia. Accessed February 16, 2009; Brazil: Abdo & Diniz. Accessed February 16, 2009 (see Spanish or Portuguese profile pages); Macau: Macau Lawyers Association. Accessed February 16, 2009; Portugal: Alves Periera Teixeira de Sousa. Accessed February 16, 2009; Argentina: Lareo & Paz. Accessed February 16, 2009; and Italy Studio Misuraca, Franceschin and Associates. Accessed February 16, 2009.
E.g. Dr. Ronald Charles Wolf. Accessed February 16, 2009.
See the " Esquire" article in the English Wikipedia, particularly the "United States" section in that article.
Also see The Morrison & Foerster law firm website, one of the largest law firms in Asia and the United States, for an example of usage.
That's it for now.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 02:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Lawyers is the basic personality of court & I want to know abt some court law. Thanks. Lawyers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenglobas ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
All The Respected Lawyers Of World Are ardently requested to raise their voice against injustiness of Higher .....................Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.3.206 ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Is more appropriate for a horror movie. I think the genre has its own page. Its unclear, sarcastic and deviant.-- Aleksd ( talk) 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Rewrite the lead. It is not just common law centered, it is US-only. Don't take my word for it, look in the OED: One versed in the law; a member of the legal profession, one whose business it is to conduct suits in the courts, or to advise clients, in the widest sense embracing every branch of the profession, though in colloquial use often limited to attorneys and solicitors. Let's make it clear in the lead that the usage {lawyer = attorney} is only in the US. Littledogboy ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out that two sets of words are equal in different contexts:
So while the article is about the concept described in set#1, many people will come here looking for #2. Therefore, Mr Coolcaesar, remove from the lead the (redundant) definition of what law is, and replace with a sentence explaining how the terms jurist and advocate (and probably barrister and solicitor) fit in. A side not: I wonder whether some of the interesting stuff you've written (eg Career structure) wouldn't belong within the scope of the more general article, jurist. Littledogboy ( talk) 12:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
politics in lawyer positions
This was removed because of disruptive editing???
In many jurisdictions extensive background checks are required to practice law. These include political, corporate and governmental involvement. In some countries like Canada, LSUC, allows politically active lawyers to serve in the highest positions of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.72.45 ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
references collapsed
|
---|
|
Corporate Counsel redirects here but there is no discussion of corporate counsels. I think this article should be explain what a corporate counsel is. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone has added unsourced mentions to Portugal without bothering to add references, with the result that the article has been distorted in three or four places because Portugal is not among the countries mentioned by the sources for a particular paragraph.
The last time I checked, no one has bothered to publish anything on the sociology of the legal profession in Portugal due to its relative lack of significance (it's not as exciting as examining the legal professions in France or Spain). If I am incorrect, please feel free to add sources. Otherwise I'm going to clean house soon.-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone has added this questionable assertion: "In other states, the bar examination can be very challenging, such as in California where only 42.3% of applicants passed the examination administered in February 2011."
There are two problems here. First of all, the source cited only directly supports the second assertion in that sentence, not the first, which means the first assertion is original research in violation of WP:NOR.
Second, having actually read most of the literature on the comparative sociology of the legal profession (in order to write more than three-fourths of this article over the years), I can say that the foregoing assertion makes no sense. Many countries have bar exams with far lower pass rates, especially Japan. They consider bar exams with passage rates above 50% to be far too lenient and too likely to result in the admission of immature, incompetent, or insufficiently knowledgeable legal professionals. Under WP:NPOV, Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view, which means we take a global perspective, not one which is clearly provincial. Any objections before I pull that out? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The Texas bar exam is also three days (although the third day is just a half a day, if I recall correctly), and the sittings (if I recall) are three to four hours at a stretch.
Texas does not have its own "state" accreditation of law schools. To be allowed to sit for the Texas exam, you must either graduate from an ABA-accredited school or already be licensed in some other jurisdiction (as far as I know). The exam is given in February and July of each year. The pass rates for the February 2016 exam for first-time takers who graduated from Texas schools ranged from a low of 41.38% (Texas Southern University) to a high of 83.33% (University of Houston, where I graduated). The pass rate for examinees already licensed in another jurisdiction was 83.89%. The pass rate for examinees who had graduated from out-of-state law schools who were not already licensed in some other state was 49.68%. The July 2016 results are scheduled to be released this week.
I passed the Texas bar exam on the first try, but I took the exam only two months after graduation, and right after taking a well-known bar review course.
When I took the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination -- in the old days, before Moses, I think -- it was brutal. The CPA exam was always different, because it was not expected that you would pass the entire exam on the first try. Three days: a 19 and a half hour test. No electronic calculators of any kind. This was six sessions over the three day period, with three of the sessions (Auditing, Theory and Law) being 3 and half hours each and two of the sessions being 4 and a half hours each. The two 4 and half hour sessions counted together as one nine-hour "part" (called "Practice"), and the three other sessions each counted as separate parts of only 3 and a half hours each. So, you got four grades, one for each part. I passed the three shorter sessions on the first try without having taken a review course, but I studied almost every night for over four months to get ready. Ah, the good old days! (Not!)
Today, the CPA exam is different: it's shorter, it's administered by computer, and electronic calculators are allowed. Kids today have it easy! Hrrummmmph! Famspear ( talk) 04:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: In looking at the rest of the statistics for the February 2016 Texas bar exam, I note that the pass rate was 65.17% for the first time takers and 47.98% for the "repeaters." And, the over all pass rate for that exam for all takers was only 56.25%. I didn't realize that the Texas bar exam pass rate was that low. I don't think it was that low when I took the exam in the 1980s. Famspear ( talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Lawyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)