Sort of OT - I think I figured out why people don't like lawyers.

[varkam]

Or, at least, one of the reasons - and I think it might tie into evolutionary theory.

As part of my school work, I have to write an appellate brief and then argue it orally in front of a panel of professors and senior students. My legal writing professor assigned us an issue that's actually being looked at right now by the real Supreme Court (you can read about it here).

I have been assigned to represent the Respondent who, in this case, is the United States. The central issue is whether or not someone who is charged under this particular statute actually knows that the false SSN or other identification document actually belongs to another person. In the case before SCOTUS, the defendant didn't actually know that the resident alien card he purchased from a dealer belonged to another person. For all he knew, the numbers were just grabbed out of thin air and weren't actually assigned to anyone.

Here's the rub: I don't want to win (well, I want to win, but I don't want the real SCOTUS to rule in the government's favor). I think the law is poorly written and that prosecutors have basically been using it to coerce a largely uneducated and non-English speaking population to waive their rights by threatening them with significant criminal penalties. In my oh-so-humble opinion, it is reprehensible.

And yet I have to argue for it - and do so convincingly and with zeal. After all, my grade depends on it.

I was thinking about that, and I came up with a half-cocked theory for part of the reasons why lawyers get a bad rap. It's because many times, attorneys have to argue things that they don't actually believe in. I think there's probably some sort of evolutionary mechanism that automatically leads you to dislike and distrust people who are able to convincingly argue the veracity of something that they don'y personally believe in (e.g. something akin to hypocrisy). Now it isn't that people say that they dislike them because of that (because I think most people realize that, as a lawyer, sometimes you have to argue for things that you don't feel is legit because it's your job to do so) - but sometimes I wonder if a lot of the other stuff (e.g. greedy, pompous assholery) is an ad hoc rationalization.

What are your thoughts?

[TZ]

1. I was actually had this same conversation with a paralegal friend

I don't so much know if its an evolutionary trait so much as it just smacks of hypocrisy and people tend not to like that. Plus lawyers have to defend really sleazy people alot. Its hard to like people who have to defend accused rapists, murderers and child molestors. Its as simple as that IMHO.
I think you are over analyzing here. Occam's Razor..The simplest explanation often works.

[varkam]

2. But it's my *job* to overanalyze things!

:rofl:

[lizerdbits]

3. Well the reason they're arguing for something they don't believe is because they get paid

I guess that falls in the 'other stuff' category for greed. For non lawyers I think it comes across as a type of hypocrisy if you don't think about the fact that it's part of your job. What part of evolution involved arguing like is done in a court room? I didn't focus on evolutionary biology so I'm trying to figure out how this ties into evolution. Plus, you will probably make shitloads more money than the rest of us will so we will have to start hating you and need to rationalize our jealousy. :P

Semi OT question: How often in a private practice would you have to argue for something you don't agree with? Do they have some round table discussion to see if someone agrees with the client or do they just, say, stick the new guy with the crazy stuff. Maybe you'll find out in several years.

[varkam]

4. Well my thought was...

that I think there's probably an evolutionary reason why we dislike hypocrisy - given that we tend to rely on the statements that people make to us, it seems that liars and the like would decrease the survival value of the species....or something.

And I doubt I'm going to make shitloads of money. I'm going into public interest law (specifically the public defender's office) - and the state doesn't exactly pay the big bucks.

In re your question: I think that it would largely depend where you're working. I could imagine that in the corporate sector (e.g. working for certain pharmaceutical companies) you would have to argue positions you really don't believe in because it's a part of the oath that you took to become a lawyer (being a zealous advocate for your client and all). I would guess that if you're already fabulously wealthy, you could afford to be so discriminating in clients that you can take the ones you like and leave the rest...but I'm not sure that's going to be me. Of course, take all that with a shaker of salt - I'm a first-year student and don't know nothing about nothing.

[TZ]

5. Here's what slightly irritates me about your post

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to separate out human behavior from human culture. I think its wrong to even try to ascribe any modern behavior to evolutionary causes at this point..We are now to the point where we control our environment and not the other way around..And its environmental factors thart really create evolution.
The biggest arguments I got into in college were about scientists who tried to ascribe human social behavior to evolutionary factors. Just not a good point or argument scientifically.
To even begin to compare dislike of a particular profession to an evolutionary behavior, makes me bristle as someone who studied evolutionary biology...

[varkam]

6. Point well taken.

I'm a fan of evolutionary psychology, and I think there is a lot of that going on in EP. It really is just an attempt to explain behavior through the lens of evolution - and it may or may not be legit. I know that evolutionary processes are mitigated by the fact that our environment no longer really forces us to adapt - because we can just change our environment. Of course, such evolutionary changes take quite a while whereas modern civilization is a relative new-comer...so I don't think my theory is totally asinine.

And it isn't so much disliking a particular profession, per se, but the dislike of a human behavior (of which members of the profession tend to engage in). But that's my .000002.

[uriel1972]

11. I think evolutionary pressures are still in full force

even though we can change our environment, the environment still changes us. It's just hard to see in shallow time. On the EP side I think it has a place, as long as it is watched closely and ruthlessly. It has a nasty habit of morphing into "Men are from Mars & Women are from Venus" drivel. The phrase "It goes back to our cavemen days" really gets my blood boiling, as if all our pre-history was spent in caves in Europe and not just about everywhere except Antarctica. /sigh /endrant.

[Deep13]

8. No, it is because it is our job.

First, I don't get shitloads more money than most people. The issue is rarely so clear cut that one side can be sure his or her side is right. And even when I don't agree with a point of view, the litigant is still entitled to representation. When I did divorce work, I usually thought both sides were wrong. Frankly, I think most of us are crazy to do this job considering the personal liability, the fact that our clients and sometimes our own selves are at the whim of an egotistical judge and the low esteem we are held in.

[Warpy]

7. Arguing in favor of something you find reprehensible

is sort of the ultimate devil's advocate situation. You're poking as many holes into the argument you favor as you can in order that the argument on the right side of the issue becomes as solid as possible with the easy to disprove fluff eliminated.

That's the way I'd look at it, anyway, but I did debating back in the dark ages instead of lawyering.

[Dr. Strange]

9. I made a comment earlier that perhaps relates to this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5213473#5215452

[Odin2005]

10. I agree completely.

Among most people there seems to be a sense that it is "bad" to defend a bad person and thus such lawyers are "evil" because they "put their jobs ahead of the truth".

[Silent3]

12. Making that kind of argument can be tough, but it can be fun too.

When I was taking a political science class in college we did a number of in-class debates on various political issues. We were assigned our topics and our sides to take, which sounds like the situation you're in. I was assigned to argue against Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, quite the opposite of my real view on the subject.

We were in two teams of two people, and none of the other three people, my partner or the two on the other team, had any previous debate experience. While the rest were mumbling into their index cards and going through the motions, I was leaning back in my seat going off the top of my head with only the occasional glance at my notes for particular references and citations. I trounced the opposing team, and had everyone thoroughly convinced I was pro-life. At the formal end of the debate I had to beg the professor to let me rebut myself. :) I knew the flaws in my arguments, but no one else was prepared to forcefully point them out to me except me.

Consider it an exercise in sharpening your own opinions and the arguments behind them. By understanding an opposing view well enough to convincingly argue for that view will either help you strengthen your the case you can make for your own opinions, or, once in a while, it might teach you that maybe their are some things you need to rethink about your opinions.

Of course, it's different when it's not an academic exercise, but something done in the real world with real-world consequences. Taking money to push a bad cause through the courts, to get a decision that causes more harm than any good it does, is, as you say, reprehensible.

[moggie]

13. This won't be a very helpful comment

I recently read of some research which might be relevant to this, but my lousy memory is failing to turn up enough details to enable me to find it again. So all I can give is the barest overview. Some people were assigned at random to write essays presenting the case either for or against a particular proposition, such as global warming. Experimental subjects then read these essays, and had to decide what the writers' real positions were. Despite the fact that they had been told in advance that all the writers had been assigned what positions to take, the test subjects tended to think that the essays represented the writers' real beliefs.

So, although we all know intellectually that a lawyer frequently has to advocate stuff s/he doesn't believe in, it seems we're wired to take this advocacy as sincere.

[bluedawg12]

14. I don't have a problem with lawyers advocating for matters they don't believe in

as a matter of fact, I think I prefer it that way.

Every person is entitled to either their day in Court, or to find redress for a wrong or from harm or loss, and in criminal matters, everyone has the right of presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

If I understand the basis of law correctly, then, the lawyers are meant to be neutral in their opinion of the client and be an advocate for their interest, because there is a third element, the triers of fact. Laywers aren't the trier of fact, I prefer that to be done by the Court.

I want my opposing lawyers neutral about the case, from a moral point of view and I want them to put on the best case possible because I don't want the lawyer trying the case and acting like the judge and jury.

Ultimately, that's how I understand that the legal system works, two opposing lawyers using the facts, to convince the Court of the merit of their case. To do that, they need to be neutral.

Whether there is an evolutionary basis for disapproving of this system, that, I can't answer. I suspect it's more cultural and it's also the fear of a system that can bite you in the haunches and in front of which many of us feel mystified and powerless.