Skip to main content

View Diary: Whole Foods and the Lawyers. (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ummmm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enough already

    having worked for one ... the two big ones are ignoring blatant violations of law by your client ("You didn't just tell me that and you are never going to mention that again, ok?") and intensive preparation/drilling of slanted testimony.  I've brought in the refreshments for days-long sessions of the latter and been on the phone calls of the former.

    Fact is, I started with the idea that even the Devil deserves his own advocate, too.  I found out that the Devil can pay more a lot more advocates to do a hell of a lot more work than a score of angels can afford, which is why he tends to win.  And while corporate attorneys don't EXACTLY lie ... they become very good at only seeing and believing what will butter their bread, regardless of the evidence staring them in the face.

    •  How does that relate to large firms? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noweasels, LynneK

      The assertion was that large firms get to be large by being unethical.  Take a look at any publication by a state bar listing ethical violations/suspensions/etc and you'll probably see predominantly solo practitioners.  

      That said, all lawyers - regardless of the size of the firm - are subject to investigation for ethics violations as well as sanctions for the type of discovery abuse you'd cited.  

      But, the point remains that those types of violations aren't things that are inherent in large law firm practice, and the suggestion that all lawyers in large firms are unethical or that they knowingly benefit from such practices, is bullshit.  And yeah, that's the legal term for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site