WTF is wrong with lawyers?...wait, don't answer that.

[TalkingDog]

Pieces of crap....

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/01/15/domestic.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. There are attorneys on the other side prosecuting the people also.

[liberalhistorian]

7. Exactly, and

as a paralegal, I can tell you that there are many, many, many attorneys who do their best to help and not hurt people, who work in lower-paying jobs so they can serve those who might not otherwise be able to afford a lawyer and who desperately need one, and who do plenty of pro bono work helping such people, at great cost to themselves.

The attorneys I have total contempt and disdain for are those who are corporate and collection attorneys and "creditors rights" attorneys (like creditors don't already have all the rights!), who use their knowledge and skills to screw people who are already in bad situations just so they can make the big bucks. Why the hell any attorney would be in collections on the creditor's side, or be a corporate attorney, is beyond my comprehension.

I'm in Ohio, and I read about this in the Cleveland Plain Dealer the other day with total, complete disbelief, anger and disgust. I was totally against Issue 1 to begin with, but to see this is just something else and I don't think it was anticipated even though it damn well should have been. I know some prosecutors and they are spitting nails right now, they're so mad.

[AuntiBush]

16. Thank you!

Yes! There are both good and bad on all sides, and I've known plenty of unethecial, bad attorneys, but I also know of a few good ones, as well.

[Walt Starr]

2. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with those lawyers

A defense attorney is bound by a rigid set of ethics to vigorously defend their client. It doesn't matter what the client does or what the charges are, they are bound to that code of ethics and would be disbarred if they purposefully did not use this as a means to defend their clients.

And in this case, the defense attorneys are correct. Since unmarried couples do not have legal status under the newly passed amendment and the domestic violence laws specifically target violence within marriages, the people of Ohio have decided what the outcome will be, not the attorneys.

Ohio must now alter the domestic violence laws, and many other laws, in order to bring them into compliance with their newly altered state constitution. That's the problem with amending constitutions willy-nilly.

[Jo March]

5. I agree with Walt on this one

Lawyers do have to use whatever is legal to defend their clients. We may not like it but that's how it is.

The laws need to be changed.

[liberalhistorian]

12. That's absolutely correct,

and it's one of the many things most people not in the law don't understand about defense attorneys. They HAVE to do their best under the law to defend their clients, regardless of what they may personally believe.

People think that defense attorneys like their clients and must be "on their side" if they defend them, but that really isn't true. Attorneys don't like their clients a lot of the time, they just are required under the law to do their best in defending them. My former boss and I had plenty of clients we didn't like but we still had to represent, that's the law.

Think about this-if you were unjustly accused of something, you'd want the law to be on your side as far as requiring your attorney to do their absolute best to defend you.

[PartyMy6]

14. yuou're right again

Walt.

[skylarmae]

3. I am LOLOLOL...Maybe the Ohioans who let their state

be run by Blackwell and the Rupukes need to get a grip so they can fix lots that seem to be awray in their back yards. Its 'we the people' who are going to have to fix this mess. Grassroots in every state.

[BR_Parkway]

4. The lawyers are doing their job in advocating for their clients - using

the laws that have been passed. People were warned this was going to happen prior to the election. It points out the problems with passing legislation "knee jerk" reaction style - similar to the Patriot Act.

There's another discussion on a different article about the same issue posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=4549&mesg_id=4549&page=

On of the interesting things that one goes on to say

Some legal scholars argue that if a judge were to agree with the public defender's ruling, a court could declare the amendment in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

[two gun sid]

6. What the fuck is wrong

with an electorate that passes an amendment that denies civil rights to group of people. Take rights away from one group, guess what? Your rights are next.

[liberalhistorian]

9. As an Ohioan, I can

tell you that people here are too goddamned stupid, ignorant and backwards to understand that. I'm this close to finally leaving this fucking state entirely, even though I was born here and have lived here almost all of my life.

[two gun sid]

15. Hey Bud,

I live right next door in Michigan. We passed a Gay Marriage amendment too. My union had just ratified a contract that gave civil partners health care. I tried to explain to other union members what would happen if the amendment was passed. No one listened. All I heard was stupid shit about how gays were ruining the world.
Amendment passed. Our contract is unconstitutional now. Jesus, Who would thought that. Can't feel too bad about the chumps who have kinda unconventional family situations. They thought it wouldn't affect them and their girlfriends. People better learn that Civil Rights are rights for everyone.

[liberalhistorian]

17. Unfortunately, most people

don't think that civil rights are for everyone until they personally are affected by it. That's always been the challenge in getting people to understand the importance of equal rights for ALL groups. And many of the cohabiting couples affected by this will probably just blame gays for it instead of the idiots who put the law on the ballot in the first place, and the idiots who then voted for it.

[Inland]

11. Yeah, Ohioans react with shock that the amendment restricted rights

Who thought THAT would happen, oh yeah, everyone who voted for it. Idiots.

[Inland]

8. Apparently, they follow the laws passed by idiot non-lawyers

We know that what they SHOULD be doing is saving idiot non-lawyers from the idiot consequences of their idiot actions.

Well, I guess the only alternative is to allow non-lawyers to blame lawyers in order to feel better for the shit they dump on themselves and their state.

[merh]

10. Lawyers defend people's civil rights. That is their ethical duty.

It is the state's responsibility to prove guilt.

Don't blame the lawyer for doing his job. You may need one some day to defend you. Blame the stupid law that was passed, it is a violation of the civil rights of individual citizens.

[TalkingDog]

13. On reflection, it was a knee jerk reaction.

I agree that the sooner the flaws with this legislation are laid bare, the sooner it can be done away with.

Sincere apologies to lawyers (a couple of whom are good friends, including a judge) I was just venting over the stupidity of the situation.