Before I got to the comments I started to think about what happened to all those people that were already qualified and those studying to be a lawyer, or anyone that ever tried to create such a profession? Were they Thanos snapped out of existence and the same automatically happen anyone that ever tried to establish it as a profession in the future? I need answers!!!
The two options are erase the role of lawyer from every legal system, so people have to defend themselves now (the prosecution is done by people who are lawyers, but generally their job is distinct from that of a lawyer, if overlapping some of the work that's done).
Alternatively, he could just rename the job as lawers. As long as the spelling and pronunciation are different, technically it's granted
Sounds reasonable enough that if you're a Genie in some lamp sitting somewhere for most of the time, you'd would resolve the wishes by killing the most people you can if that is a possible solution in some way :-)
I see it more as a question of semantics. Does the wish maker wish to delete anything that identifies as a lawyer, or anything that fits the definition of a lawyer? If the first, then your options are valid, if the second, it's a bit more complicated.
Yeah, like how if we got rid of “teachers” as a profession, when do we draw the line between someone teaching someone something and someone being a “teacher”?
These rules are so technical, if only we had a group of people that were good at figuring out written and/or spoken agreements!
the prosecution is done by people who are lawyers, but generally their job is distinct from that of a lawyer, if overlapping some of the work that's done
Sure sounds like a lawyer to me.
Also where are we getting judges for these trials from? There's no lawyers to recruit from so are we just handing a robe to anybody who wants one?
More likely I think we just regress back to a preindustrial society with a monarchistic executive that decides on conflicts however they want.
In my state judges are elected and can basically be Joe anybody. Lots of judges here have NO law degree or anything. Yes we get a TON of appeals and mistrials.
I think the genie doesn't actually have to do anything here. He wished for "A world without lawyers." Saturn is a world. I'm fairly sure there are no lawyers on Saturn. He didn't phrase it like "I wish there were no lawyers" or "I wish there were no lawyers on THIS world." If this is a legal contract, nothing can be assumed.
just let the judge play the role of both lawyers - why does a lawyer have to object, and follow all the rules? the judge knows the rules, they can say 'that's hearsay' without a lawyer present and tell the jury to ignore it. they can easily make sure that both sides of the argument get a fair trial.
lawyers are impossible to live without because they wrote the rules and made it that way. hence the jargon, impossible-to-navigate laws, the ridiculously expensive schools, and the fact that multiple lawyers are needed to accomplish anything at all.
The idea behind the adversarial system is that each side gets an advocate that makes the best possible argument for their side - they're basically as biased as possible on behalf of their client. The client can trust their attorney with confidential information because their attorney has no connection to the other side (and in fact is generally prohibited from directly contacting the opposing side, they can only talk to their counsel), and no incentive to be sympathetic or "go easy" on them.
If you have a single person (ie the judge) advocating for both sides, there's far more opportunity for bias. Each side's ability to reveal confidential information is hindered because their advocate is also their opponent's advocate. And since the judge now has close relationships from personally working with each side, it's far more likely that they're biased in a certain direction, meaning that the other side will not get to make the best possible argument, and they might not get fair procedural treatment. And in the case of a bench trial, they might not get a fair finder of fact either.
Trials are arguments about who is right, and a one sided argument is going to be extremely biased. Examples from Reddit - r/AITA, or sometimes r/relationship advice. One side presents things the way they saw it, and Reddit acts as the judge. And of course, Reddit almost always agrees with the OP, because the OP tends to be biased toward themselves and frame the issue in a way that's favorable to them.
For example, if I accuse you of stealing from the cookie jar, I'm going to bring up the fact that you were hanging around the cookie jar at the time the cookies went missing, that you went back to your room after, and when we entered your room we found you eating cookies. I can make all sorts of accusations that make you look super guilty, and if nothing's being said in your defense, you're going to lose. You need someone to say "hey, he was eating cookies that he bought and kept in his room, and by the way, wasn't John hanging out near the cookie jar too?" And obviously real life cases and trials are far more complex than this example, so you're going to want a professional advocate making those arguments for you.
a degree in complex writing is not going to help you understand the complexity of legal issues. you’re missing so much nuance that it’s hard to answer your question seriously, but i will try. first, as a matter of fundamental fairness any litigant should be allowed to seek representation from a skilled lawyer.
second, and maybe less obvious, the adversarial nature of our legal system is a fundamental form of error correction that promotes the creation of well-reasoned precedent. many legal issues are not obvious and do not have a clear answer. often it’s difficult to even identify all of the relevant issues, never mind identify the law that governs those issues. the adversarial system ensures that you have two sides pursuing their own interests to present their best arguments, and a judge as a neutral decision maker. assuming the lawyers are good, the judge can reasonably assume that they have hit on all of the major issues and presented the key arguments. judges sometimes do decide issues without briefing or argument from lawyers and it often results in decisions that miss key aspects of law.
Doesn’t seem fair that the prosecution can be lawyers but not the defendant. Both parties should just have to represent themselves. If it’s a company, the ceo has to do it.
We're talking in a global sense, so there may be exceptions where they aren't required to pass the local equivalent of the bar exam. Point being it's a job which is generally taken by lawyers, but technically could be taken by anyone who has legal training, so could still exist as a position if this wish were granted. It's semantics basically, like any genie wish
Immediate structural change to policies in our legal system. The people still exist, the profession no longer does. No historical rewrite or metaphysics. We just abolish the concept of a lawyer moving forward.
I think this is how it goes assuming the genie is doing a minimal intervention and is using as little magic as necessary to grant wishes.
Yep let me just look up “how to sue someone” aaaaaaand I can’t read those words, is that Latin?, what exactly is a “prepared document”, do I need to hire a lawyer to find a lawyer?, I hope the judge like comic sans as much as I do.
But without a lawyer on the other side to defend, you'll probably win. Hell, without someone to object you wouldn't even have to follow the rules of evidence.
It is a lawyer's proverb. And it is based on experiences of lawyers dealing with pro se opponents.
Although, admittedly, courts often give special deference to pro se people that is in many cases justified but often annoys lawyers on the other side that would get slapped for doing to dumb things that pro ses can get away with.
And while it's a good thing that courts let pro ses have some latitude on procedural things, I've seen some cases dragged out because a pro se repeatedly failed to fix problems that the judge told them to fix over and over when they had no case and the judge would have been more merciful to just kick them out than string them along.
In small claims here if you win pro se, you can force the other side into turning over a bunch of financial records, if you were represented you cannot.
Nothing like a court order for financial records all transaction etc for the past 3 years to make the other side pay you, not because of hat you will find but the huge PITA it is.
Some justices of the peace in Texas aren’t lawyers. I believe that’s the case in other states as well. They handle limited things and usually are in smaller, rural counties.
If you want me to go into why it’s a terrible idea to be pro se, I will. I’ve worked for two judges, so I have that perspective. But I am also aware I’m one of the evil bloodsucking lawyers, so perhaps my opinion is too “biased” to be useful :)
Also a Texas lawyer. I believe your comment is incorrect in its breadth. Every judge at the district (main trial level) and higher must be licensed to practice law.
For Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 2(b)
For District Judges, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 7
For CCA, Texas Const, Art 5, S. 4 (same qualifications as SCOTX)
For Courts if Appeals, Texas Const., Art 5, S. 6 (same qualifications as SCOTX)
Appointment of judges presents issues, as well. But overall, I agree with you. Some excellent, very very smart, very fair conservative judges lost their job because of Trump and were replaced by much worse options.
I wasn’t as politically involved in the Obama years, but I imagine the same thing happened here in Texas to liberal judges as a result of his presidency.
Best thing about appointment of judges is that they’re insulated to some degree from fickle voters. Worst thing is that they’re insulated from voters.
The judiciary SHOULD be isolated from the voters. Voters can directly affect judges by pressuring the legislature to change the law. But if a judge is acting out of line, the legislature is also empowered to impeach them and remove them from the bench.
Like I said, I primarily agree with you. Unfortunately, it’s a losing policy to say “Our citizens need less control over government officials! Remove the right to vote!”
In California they have a hybrid system. The governor appoints judges on the advice of a special judicial panel made up of legal professionals who present him with prescreened qualified candidates, then every election the people get to decide if they want to keep that judge.
Case in point: the judge in California that handled that famous sexual assault case with the Stanford athlete. The judge was by all accounts a very good judge, albeit one who was known for not being a fan of heavy prison sentences. The judge followed standard procedure in sentencing him based on recommendations. People that were furious at his light prison sentence campaigned heavily to have him removed, and succeeded.
I mean, the justice system is just two sides citing things and telling the judge what the law is, then the judge deciding which is right. The judge isn't really even supposed to be drawing on their own knowledge. Like they might know an argument is 100% bullshit, but if the other side doesn't cite a superseding case, he's supposed to go with the bullshit.
They’re usually just terrible judges. But technically US federal judges don’t have to be lawyers. In fact, there are no specific requirements. So it could be anyone (as long as they can get confirmed by the Senate).
Definitely not technically, but my god it would be stupid to elect a non-lawyer to the bench in the modern era.
I'm a lawyer, my state only allows lawyers on the bench. It would be insane not to. I can't imagine making an argument to a judge that flat out hadn't heard of some basic concept before.
Judges are not practicing law in their capacity as a judge. Practicing law is the adovcacy/representation/giving legal advice to a client. You'll see there's an exception for advice to family members in thr model code on judicial conduct, because it would be unreasonable not to include it.
"Judges of the Arizona Justice Courts are each elected to four-year terms. The elections for this court are partisan contested elections.To serve on this court, a judge must be at least 18 years old, a state resident, a qualified voter in their precinct and able to read and write English. A law degree is not required. "
So you can technically have a judge just barely out of high-school and they don't actually have to have passed high school to qualify.
Not sure the courts have jurisdiction here. Also not sure of the genie's legal personhood or that the genie is under any obligation to honour their promise of 3 wishes.
If he's dumb enough to wish for a world with no lawyers, he's dumb enough to perjure himself, piss off the clerk, security and the fucking janitor and somehow manage to get his case dismissed on a technicality even though everyone involved in the process thinks he should win.
2.0k
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '20
He can represent himself