epiphany Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share Posted June 4, 2009 There you go. If you are daft enough to use a faulty stepladder, you don't deserve to be employed. Yet you and your employers would look to make money out of the situation. That was just an example, which I'm sure you'll find convenient to use when tarring all lawyers and personal injury cases with the same brush. So every instance of work equipment being faulty is OBVIOUS? Ever heard of safety inspections? Employers are supposed to carry these out on a regular basis. Most do. Some don't. Since legal services are... services... why shouldn't they make money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share Posted June 4, 2009 I know a couple of lawyers, and couldn't agree less with you. They both have the morals of a shark; one completely screwed up a house purchase she'd agree to assist with on my behalf, the other seems to slag off her clients relentlessly and sleeps with married men. Lovely people, neither of them. Damn. Yep. You're right. There are only two lawyers in this country and I didn't realise you know them both. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlin Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Damn. Yep. You're right. There are only two lawyers in this country and I didn't realise you know them both. I stand corrected. No, there are three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 That was just an example, which I'm sure you'll find convenient to use when tarring all lawyers and personal injury cases with the same brush. So every instance of work equipment being faulty is OBVIOUS? Ever heard of safety inspections? Employers are supposed to carry these out on a regular basis. Most do. Some don't. Since legal services are... services... why shouldn't they make money? I don't tar anyone ... you are the one using generalisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack Jack Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 can someone tell me what the difference is between a lawyer, a solicitor, a barrister and a QC? I've always wondered. I believe they all just need different size vehicles to take home their daily wage - from the basic wheel barrow to articulated lorry at the top end. Inclined though I am to hate solicitors our lass works for one and so currently they are paying my bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share Posted June 4, 2009 I don't tar anyone ... you are the one using generalisations. You don't tar anyone? No, only an entire profession. I noticed you only responded to d) from my previous list. So I'll ask again - what would the following people do without lawyers/legal services to aid them in claiming compensation? Those who have: a) been diagnosed with mesothelioma? b) suffered severe brain injury due to someone else's fault? c) been a victim of medical malpractice or negligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuey Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I don't think this thread has gone the way you intended. I know a few solicitors. Do i trust them, I suppose i do, but they are all fairly ruthless. I genuinely think that the money comes before and sense of right or wrong for most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I don't think this thread has gone the way you intended. I know a few solicitors. Do i trust them, I suppose i do, but they are all fairly ruthless. I genuinely think that the money comes before and sense of right or wrong for most of them. Snatched the words right out of my mouth! of course the world cannot operate without them,but I do think lot of them should be better disguised...............................like with a Zorro mask! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 I genuinely think that the money comes before and sense of right or wrong for most of them.'Right' or 'wrong' is a question of moral stance, the Law and its practice are a matter of fact. The perennial example is: is it 'right' to defend a child molester? Morally, probably not. But the Law says he/she is entitled to a defense and a legal representative, and someone has to do the job. So, if this 'placing money before right or wrong' remark is in relation to the morality of a particular area of practice (debt recovery, injury compensation, etc.), then it's simply an ill-informed, populist stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andco Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 They don't rip the claimant off, dumbass (unless you've not "shopped around" properly). Perhaps you should learn how most legal fees are acquired. There's also a lot of pro-bono work that people don't hear about. Anyway, without legal expertise, many people wouldn't even have access to compensation in the first place. Legal services are like a lobbying power on behalf of people who don't have the immediate capacity to lobby themselves. And since parliament is full of lawyers, it's good to have lawyers lobbying on our behalf, either for access to denied treatment or a change in the law, through the various precedents they set in their cases. Aah you mean the place where lawyers go when they want to get a new take on rip-off Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.