Are Lawyers really better than the rest of us?

After an ineteresting article by Jordan Furlong on the 17th Feb 2012 - http://www.law21.ca/2012/02/17/who-should-have-the-right-to-own-a-law-firm/#comments - he poses the question that lawyers should be seen as a special case/or not, as they are not business but profesionals. In answer I observed the following.

I have been dealing with lawyers in the USA and the UK for very many years as an acknowledged authority in my field. It is quite offensive to assume that being a lawyer makes you somehow morally elite, indeed if this were the case why are lawyers reputations where they are? Conversely does this assume that us non-lawyers are a bunch of vagabonds? One assumes that lawyers are human and therefore will display normal human behavior — good and bad in equal measure. My learned friends I have seen lawyers give time freely to good causes and prop up charities. I have also however been engaged with lawyers who’s self interest is much more evident than their ethics or the needs of their clients. Where para legals run case loads whilst lawyers do the more important stuff. (quite what this is I have no idea). The ABS system will as has been mentioned not make any material difference save for two areas bad lawyers who don’t perform will be out of the door. Non profitable cases will not be fought, leaving those lawyers who find them selves out of work picking up the slack. This will mean less justice for those cases who do not provide enough financial recompense. Wait a minute is this not all ready happening? The UK’s model to date is far from satisfactory with lawyers fees often far exceeding their clients awards, with US lawyers picking up only those cases they have a better than even chance of winning.

I can tell you as a non lawyer I do not consider my ethics to be inferior to yours, just remember if you are on your high horse taking the moral high ground you are well positioned for a proud fall.

www.carbonmonoxidekills.com