dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/22/83)
First let me say that I'm glad this group has been created, and
I hope to be a regular contributor. However, as Curtis Jackson
(burl!rcj) has pointed out, I'm not undertaking to watch the
group and correct errors, and nothing I say should be taken as
a legal opinion rather than a personal comment.
I should also point out that all comments made by me in this
group (and anywhere else on the net, for that matter) are my
own and not the opinion of The Law Society of Upper Canada.
Although I am qualified as a lawyer, I do work for the Law Society
as a CAI consultant and programmer rather than in a strictly legal
capacity.
Now, on to the business at hand...
A number of people on the net, including Michael Turner,
have suggested that because many politicians are lawyers,
they enact complex laws whose only purpose is to keep the
profession in business. I disagree. Let me make a few points.
1. Most politicians and departmental officials/bureaucrats who
are involved in either the drafting or enactment of laws are
not likely to go back into private practice where they will
make a living from interpreting the same laws.
2. When laws are drafted, they should be written in such a way
that people can base their actions on them. In other words,
there must be a reasonable measure of PREDICTABILITY and
CERTAINTY. To get the predictability and certainty, the law
must "cover all the bases", so to speak, or else enterprising
people will find ways around the wording of the law.
3. Most individual statutes and regulations are not overly complex.
Exceptions such as the (Canadian) Income Tax Act and (U.S.) Internal
Revenue Code are complex because (a) they try to cover everything, and
(b) they are used for a lot of economic and political objectives.
4. This may sound self-serving, but the fact is only lawyers are generally
qualified to draft the laws, because those laws have to stand up to
the scrutiny of a court. There's nothing magical about lawyers;
they've simply been trained in a particular area.
5. If you think that contracts require a lot of legal work because of
laws that lawyers have drafted, you don't know what you're talking
about. Very little contract law is regulated by statute. The simple
fact is that today's business transactions are complex animals with
many ramifications. Since you never know when you're going to have a
falling out with the other side, you put in provisions to cover every
foreseeable eventuality. If you don't, you're just being stupid by not
protecting yourself.
As to wills (another item raised by teklabs!keithe), there are
very valid policy reasons for insisting on certain formalities to
will drafting. The laws vary among the different states and provinces,
but in every case an attempt is made to add enough formality that people
realize the seriousness and importance of what they're creating.
Suppose I were to say that experienced C programmers should not be allowed
to write C code, because they use structures and pointers and things that
make it hard for the layman to understand their code. That's the type of
argument that people are making when they say that non-lawyers should
write the laws. If an amateur writes it, you get an amateurish job. If
an amateur writes ambiguous C code, the compiler will reject it. If an
amateur wrote an ambiguous law, there would be a lot of annoyed and
frustrated people who only found out what the law meant AFTER they went
to court and had it interpreted judicially.
Sorry, people, but that's how it is. The statutes are written to be
interpreted and applied by experts, not read by the layman. If the layman
wants to understand what a law *means*, he can read any number of
explanatory booklets and pamphlets. But when you get down to it, if
there's any conflict the answer is in the law itself. It's just like
programming, in a way. I can read the tutorial to learn how to use
a program, to a point. Or I can read the manual to learn how the program
is supposed to work. But if I *really* have a problem and want to know
how a particular case is dealt with, I go and look at the source. And
for that I have to be an expert.
Michael Turner complains that lobby groups enlist lawyers to help them
with their lobbying. Of course they do. If he were part of an interest
group that needed/wanted some change in the law, wouldn't he want the
assistance of an expert in presenting his case to the government?
Well, this was longer than I originally intended, but the point is
important. It's easy to criticize lawyers and the legal system; but
none of the criticism I have heard so far has suggested a sensible
alternative to *expertise*. That's all it comes down to.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada (utcsrgv!lsuc!dave)
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davemel@houxm.UUCP (08/22/83)
Poppy-cock. Lawyers may be NECESSARY to society, but not USEFUL.
Here in New Jersey the lawyers have taken "ambulance chasing" to
new highs (totally controlling all aspects of it) such that our
automobile insurance is plain out-of-sight, and some insurance
companies won't even do business here. If lawyers are rewarded all
out of proportion to their contribution, the bright minds will all
go to law school (as they do now in places like Brazil), and the
useful professions (farming, engineering, medicine, manufacturing,
etc.) get short shrift. It seems to me that "The Law" is the field
of redistribution of wealth to the benefit of lawyers, as opposed to
engineering, science, forestry, etc. that creates new wealth. Society
as a whole benefits most from creation of new wealth; a lot from
fields like medicine that maintains well being; and not at all from
the manipulation of human misery practiced by [some|many|most?] lawyers.
Mel Haas , houxm!meldave@lsuc.UUCP (08/23/83)
I agree with Mel Haas that "ambulance chasing" is wrong. In fact,
in Ontario it is professional misconduct to engage in "champerty",
or the stirring up of lawsuits. I don't know about New Jersey, but
I would hardly say that lawyers here are engaged in the "manipulation
of human misery". They are more engaged in helping out clients who
come to them with a problem.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave