There should be a slight correction to this page, the Oxford BCL is no longer a two year degree, and has not been a two year course for some time. The two year course is the BCL, MPhil. The BCL being solely a one year course which can be taken by non Oxford graduates in one year. As a student about to commence the BCL, but with a law degree from another University I may attest to this. (see www.ox.ac.uk). Cambridge also is slightly different from the normal UK system- I have also made this correction.
By removing Greg Palast from the lawyer article you are destroying the wiki's credibility and leaving the number of lawyers in the US as a figure for which we list no source. Although I agree that Palast is not the ideal source for this figure, he is better than no source at all. Susan Mason
- Oh yeah, that is the only piece of information on Wikipedia that is now not attributed to an outside source. Salsa Shark 06:49 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
The fact that the wiki is largely unsubstantied is no reason to purge it of what little references there are. Susan Mason
- I tend to agree with Susan on this one, oddly enough. The fact that few articles have attributed tidbits does not mean this particular one should not. A better goal would be to get information from a more credible source, and cite that. -- cprompt
Oddly enough, I continue to agree with myself despite Cprompt's assertation of his viewpoint. The Greg Palast article should be removed only after we have obtained a more official statement. Susan Mason
I put a little bit in on the current problems the legal profession is facing. Specifically how the legal profession's reputation has taken a hit in recent times. Such as the acts of Ambulance chaser sand the health care crisis. I know there are many good and hardworking attorneys out there who only want to protect the legal rights of others. But there are others out there who are only in it for the money, and love getting their hands of large cash settlements, which they take a large part of. I think in the interests of NPOV, we need to devote part of the article to current issues facing us.
JesseG 04:11, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I re-wrote this section somewhat to make it clear and also to try to minimise some generalisations. The consequences of ambulance chasers may not be as readily identified as you suggested. --195.166.17.214 09:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Section about Lawyers in the US
Specifically, the paragraph that deals with lawyers/capita in the us
Could an argument be made also that the presence of a Common Law system almost mandates a larger legal sector as most law is judge-made and thus subject to interpretation? Contrasted with the civil law system, where laws are more codified and thus the size of the legal profession managing these laws isn't as great, this could account for the greater proportions of lawyers in a Common law nation. Additionally, since the US is a common law system with the largest number of internal political divisions (i.e. 50 states) and a federalist system of government, it would seem that a larger legal profession would be almost a foregone conclusion.
do you think this argument is something that should be added?
what happened to the poland section now we have no representation of civil law countries in this article. Paladine
- It was still there. Anon removed Wiki markup, thus section from TOC disappeared, but data was still there. Reverted. Przepla 19:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lawyers??
I didn't understand a thing on this page. Perhaps because it was written by lawyers? ;) Details about law practices in US/UK/Pol should be moved to a separate article and more text should be devoted to the profession and history. Nichalp 20:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at; the page is no more unreadable than other Wikipedia pages on other professions like "Physician."
In my opinion, the page, as is, does a decent job explaining what a lawyer is at present, what they do, and how to become one.
If the page were to be rewritten to focus on the history of the profession, that would actually make it much harder to understand, for virtually everyone but lawyers. The profession has changed radically depending upon which country and time period you are talking about. Although modern American lawyers like to see themselves as the intellectual descendants of the great Roman orators, they have very little in common except for their general responsibility to advocate on behalf of specific named clients.
And if you're talking about law as a profession in the strictly "professional" sense, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The professional responsibility of lawyers is an important topic, but not appropriate for this article. It's really a subject of legal ethics, which most non-lawyers find boring.
--Coolcaesar 03:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
POV section on tort reform
The section discussing tort reform etc. seems highly biased towards support for lawyers and high damage awards. David.Monniaux 11:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I've attempted to address the issues slightly, though I am by no means an expert in the field, other than knowing a physician that has been the subject of (what he describes as) frivolous tort claims. The person in question firmly believes that tort is at least partially responsible for recent increases in premiums. --Bletch 22:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In my reading, the first paragraph now seems predominantly unbiased, but the second paragraph still uses politically-based terminology ("big business," a favorite for liberals like myself--but no place here) --Bastique 16:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I took a bit of a heavy hand to the article and rewote a bit of the first paragraph and just excised the second. If you think it can be saved, feel free to rewrite it.
- In the United States, judges, lawyers and jurors give power to each individual to appear before the court; allowing one person to stand against a government, a big business or an insurance company to fight for what rightfully belongs to that individual, whether it be against a large business who has injured a worker, an insurance company that refuses to pay out a fair premium for an accident, or a government that seeks to take away civil rights. Of particular importance to the system of law is the juror. Each member of every jury holds the power of the Constitution in his or her hands, and the knowledge that the system works because that juror has given his or her valuable time to make it work. Most jurors take this responsibility very seriously, as each juror realizes, at some point in one's life, one may be required to depend upon a jury of one's peers to adjudicate a case at bar.
- --CVaneg 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right to counsel
I wonder which were the first countries:
- To allow the defendant in trials for severe crimes to have a lawyer. If I understand it correctly, in England, before the Prisoners' Counsel Act of 1836, felony defendants could not have a lawyer in court. This probably extended to other common law countries.
- To mandate, in such trials, that the defendant should have a lawyer, and to appoint a lawyer if he did not have one. In France, this was mandated in the Napoleonic Code of Criminal Instruction.
- I'm unsure about US courts at the time. It seems that the right to counsel was a much later addition when it came to trials in state courts. One finds a mention of a 1853 Indiana Supreme Court decision declaring it a right, and a 1963 US Supreme Court decision making it a right for some crimes even in trials under state law. [1].
David.Monniaux 07:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms section missing?
A lawyer was in the #Wikipedia channel talking, and I was wondering why lawyers are so disliked (and also why jews are so disliked as well in society, I plan to go there next to check out the roots of antisemitism but anyway...) I see there is no criticism or public opinion section in this article to my disapointment. I think the article is unbalanced unless we give the factual account of how the public seems to dislike lawyers (almost as disliked as politicians are they not?). We'll find some polls and other info hopefully to flesh out the facts and add it to the article :). --ShaunMacPherson 06:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree; I'd imagine that crticisms toward law are rooted in a realization of how law becomes more about a game rather than justice. I'd like to see more too, but I just removed a section that was original research. --Bletch 22:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed Original Research
I've removed the following section under the heading 'public opinion':
- Lawyers are also the object of scorn in many lawyer jokes and are usually identified one of the more disliked profession, often just a head of politician. The reasons for this dislike are numerious and varied although cheif among them could be that: defense lawyers are seen as helping morally corrupt individuals get off on technalities, that in the american adveserial system the object isnt truth but 'winning' and that lawyers play fast and loose with the truth.
- This low opinion is somewhat paradoxical in that many lawyers enter the profession because of a desire to help for and advocate on behalf of individual and their freedoms. It could be that in a nonloser pays system in America, the fear of the large cost of being sued (since you lose money even if you 'win') translates into a fear and dislike of lawyers.
I've had some mixed feelings about removing this; as the first paragraph has some truth to it, though the second paragraph is a bit more argumentative. --Bletch 22:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why can't this section be properly written. I take issue with the silly and factless comments made here and the attacks on the legal profession.
Please clean up your act.
Tim
Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.
How can I find the definitions of New Zealand terminology. Is it the same as the british system? I understand the difference between solictor and barristor but what is the definition of attorney? C Nicol
Benefits of Admission
Fascinating revert to omit "permission to practice law" from the "Benefits of admission" section. Real contribution there. (Sixten8 06:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC))
I see your point. I will add that text back in, but I believe the existing text about the bar identification numbers should stay. Unauthorized practice of law (the problem of "fake lawyers") is a serious problem in the most populated states like California and New York. --Coolcaesar 23:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality?
Is there really a necessity for the neutrality disputement in the Current Issues section?
Why this passage had to go...
I just removed the following paragraph:
- In recent years, there has sometimes been competition for graduates of first and second tier law schools such that various mega firms in New York City and other large U.S. cities hired graduates of Canadian top tier law schools in preference over graduates of U.S. third tier law schools.
I read Law.com regularly (as well as the ABA Journal, and the Daily Journal, the main legal newspaper in California) and I have never seen anything about such a bizarre trend over the past 3 years. Law.com is the online operation of American Lawyer Media, which publishes American Lawyer magazine and the National Law Journal.
Of course, self-authenticating assertions can stay on Wikipedia, but this is a rather daring assertion that frankly, sounds ridiculous. After all, Canadian law is quite different from American law, both in terms of substantive rules and preferred writing styles. Until someone can bring in a citation to prove it, I think it has to stay out of the article. --Coolcaesar 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
One citation would include the following off the official University of Ottawa Faculty of Law website:
http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/eng/student_services/career/handbook/ch4_job_market.htm
"Going South of the Border
Canadian law students at the top of their class are increasingly sought after by major firms in New York, and to a lesser extent, Boston. Currently, US firms conduct OCIs at McGill University and the University of Toronto early in the fall semester. The rigorous legal training, lavish monetary compensation, and prestige of working on some of the world's major transactions are but a few of the highlights offered south of the border. As well, students may seek work in the US to gain international experience and contacts which they intend to bring back with them when they return to Canada. On the other hand, the demanding hours, fast pace, and intensity of the work will certainly not be for everyone. Typically, competition is fierce, with firms getting thousands of applications from law students across the US. For more information the CDRC has a copy of the National Association for Law Placement's NALP Directory of Legal Employers 2002-2003, as well as copies of the New York Law Journal available for in-office viewing."
- Right, but that's a rather subjective observation by one law school's career services office. Do you have any citations to legal newspapers or magazines to demonstrate that point? --Coolcaesar 13:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess
Hello everyone:
At 38 kilobytes, I think we are getting to the point where the Lawyer article has to be broken up into separate articles.
Here is my suggestion for how to break it up:
Lawyer becomes a very general description of what lawyers do. I mean REALLY general. Maybe we can have one description for what common law lawyers do and another for civil law lawyers. And then all the other messy details (education, admission, career path, statistics, etc.) should be shunted off to country-specific articles. Like Lawyers in the United States, Lawyers in Poland, etc.
Some things (like freeways) are similar enough around the world to remain mostly together in one article, but I think the whole concept of what it means to be a lawyer is different enough from one country to the next that it has to be broken up. Otherwise, people will keep on wandering in and adding stuff, and we will end up with a 200KB overview of lawyering in 55 countries which no one will actually read.
What does everyone think?
Complete Rewrite / Request for Split
I propose a rewrite of this article. I have copied the wiki to a new sandbox on my user page, see it here User:Davidkinnen/Legal Sandbox I also propose country specific information be split off into seperate pages. I have already started to create country specific pages. Davidkinnen 13:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Lawyer Jokes
Forgive the flippant comment, but do you think there's room for something on Lawyer Humour? It's a genre of humour that represents something of public opinion of the trade. Could be a useful (and dare I say, entertaining) addition to the article. --Sweet-indigo 15:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Nearly all lawyer jokes are probably in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and notability policies (that is, they are neither neutral nor notable). However, a mention of some of the more famous cultural references to lawyers might be appropriate, such as the famous line from Hamlet about "Let's kill all the lawyers," which was actually spoken by one of the bad guys. --Coolcaesar 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)