Showing posts with label Lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyers. Show all posts

Monday, October 20, 2014

Scientific Study Concludes No One Trusts Lawyers

Editor's note:  Your ProbateShark would agree...wholeheartedly... Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com


Scientific Study Concludes No One Trusts Lawyers
Many people enter the legal profession with the expectation that the public will see them as members of a noble trade to be revered and admired. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case at all. For every would-be Atticus Finch, there exists an off-color lawyer joke. If you’d call 5,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean “a good start,” then you’re not alone.
According to a new study, although lawyers are viewed by the public as part of an “envied” profession, no one really likes them. Sure, lawyers may gain a scant amount of respect from some, but when you’re viewed generally as heartless bastards, no one will trust you…

These are just some of the conclusions drawn from a Princeton University study conducted by Susan Fiske and Cydney Dupree. You may want to have a stiff drink before taking a look at Fiske and Dupree’s warmth v. competence chart to see how lawyers are rated compared to other professions:

While lawyers are perceived as some of the most capable and competent professionals — behind only doctors, scientists, and engineers — they’re almost on par with prostitutes when it comes to warmth. Let that one sink in as you read what Fiske and Dupree have to say about similarly situated professionals:
The [rightmost] corner lists the ambivalently perceived high-competence, low-warmth, “envied” professions: lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. They earn respect but not trust. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise (competence) but also trustworthiness (warmth). People report envy and jealousy toward groups in this space. These are mixed emotions that include both admiration and resentment.
Lawyers, of course, can’t blame all of their perceived untrustworthiness on jealousy and resentment. Perhaps if they’d like to stop being seen as “cold, ruthlessly efficient machines,” they should try to pay the same amount of attention to their social interactions with clients as they do their billable hours.
What’s the lesson to be learned here? The next time someone asks you what the difference between a lawyer and a hooker is, it’s not just that the hooker will stop trying to screw you when you’re dead.
Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States]
This Chart Will Show How Respected Your Profession Is [Science of Us / New York Magazine]


Sunday, June 29, 2014

American Bar Association time line


Editor's note: Makes a Shark wonder how this august organization remains quiet during the persecution of Attorneys Amu, Denison and Ditkowsky.  No big outcry about Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman or Cefalu  Cook County Probate cases.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com




http://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba/timeline.html

Sunday, August 5, 2012

A Legal View From America

A Legal View From America


Posted: 20/07/2012 00:00 React Amazing


Follow Hollywood , America , British Legal Framework , Law , Lawyers , Legal Culture , Litigation , Wild West , UK Politics News .

share this story

 My home country, the US, is famous for many things, including a mythical 'Wild West' immortalised in numerous Hollywood movies. Less glamorously, it is also famed for a 'Wild West' legal culture that allows an enormous amount of frivolous and abusive litigation, such as lawsuits against restaurants for excessively hot coffee or cases against cruise liners for provoking seasickness.



From a distance, these lawsuits may be entertaining. But for businesses in the US, frivolous litigation brings severe costs, including lost jobs, increased costs and less foreign investment. In addition, consumers face higher prices as businesses are forced to cover these litigation costs.



No-one disputes that an open and fair justice system is absolutely necessary. The problem is the spread of practices that encourage litigation not out of necessity, but out of a desire to make money. In particular, one of these practices could facilitate the spread of US-style abusive litigation in the UK: third party litigation funding (TPLF).



Third party litigation funders are typically investment vehicles backed by hedge funds or other financial institutions. They buy into a lawsuit as an investment and recover that investment by receiving proceeds of any judgement or settlement. The practice, which started in Australia, has become especially prevalent in the UK, where studies estimate that funders have as much as 500 million pounds at their disposal.



The problems with TPLF are numerous. First, this model of funding skews the British legal system away from its core purpose of delivering justice and toward the profit incentive. Litigation funders are solely interested in getting returns on their investments, a goal incompatible with the values of the legal system.



Secondly, if left unregulated, funders will have the ability to direct the strategy and direction of cases - threatening to withdraw funding from clients at any stage they wish, or forcing the client to continue to court when they may wish to settle. This threatens the long-standing client-lawyer relationship, potentially breaking the bonds of trust which lie at the heart of the British legal system.



Furthermore, following a decade of criticism of 'no-win, no-fee' litigation, third party funding is likely to lead to a huge upsurge in litigation. As in the US, this litigation increase will hurt businesses - hindering job creation, discouraging investment and raising prices for consumers.



My organisation, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, is concerned about TPLF because many US businesses have significant operations in the UK and could be dissuaded from further investment and job creation by a TPLF-driven litigation increase. As a result, we are encouraging the Ministry of Justice to move away from the current weak self-regulation model for the litigation funding industry and to adopt a robust system of statutory regulation, including requiring disclosure of funder contracts, ensuring cases are controlled by litigants and not funders, and banning formal business ties between law firms and funders.



The UK Government is taking important steps to promote growth and free businesses from the entangling web of red tape. At the same time, changes to the British legal framework, such as the rise of TPLF, risk undermining those positive developments. Therefore, the Government should act promptly to identify the problems with TPLF and introduce appropriate regulation. Only swift action can ensure that the contagion of "Wild West" abusive litigation does not spread across the Atlantic.





http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lisa-rickard/a-legal-view-from-america_b_1685927.html