The recent events in Paris highlight the fact there is no such thing as international law.  Countries do have treaties with one another and they or may not be honored.  The United Nations passes resolutions but has no power to enforce them.  There is a World Court but it only works if all the parties agree to be bound by the decision in advance, and then actually abide by it.

     The acts committed in Paris are not crimes as such because the ones that committed them do not recognize the law.  They could be prosecuted if caught but that is highly unlikely.  There is no international organization that has the power or authority to hunt down terrorists and arrest them.  With all of the weaknesses in our legal system it is still a shining star when compared to the virtually nonexistent international order.

     I attended a seminar recently where a panel of judges discussed the biggest challenges facing the courts.  They all agreed that their biggest problem is pro se litigants, which are people who represent themselves in court without a lawyer.  This has been common for quite some time in small claims court where the amount of money involved does not justify the expense of attorney fees.  No one wants to pay an attorney $1000.00 to collect $500.00.  However, it is occurring more and more in many areas of the law where there is a significant issue at stake and judges feel uncomfortable because it is not their job to act as an attorney and they can't give litigants legal advice when they are in court.

    Over the years I have told a number of people that they should handle a legal matter on their own because of the costs involved in hiring a lawyer.  However, even then I caution them that there are many pitfalls which they may not anticipate.  This becomes even more likely when the stakes increase, from the amount of money involved to losing custody of a child to being punished through a criminal proceeding.

    The internet has made all of us experts.  We think we can look up anything and understand what needs to be done.  You can buy a will online or organize a business for a few bucks.  We go to health sites and try to diagnose the aching pain in our gut so we can skip the doctor.  However, there are times when a doctor is needed to treat you and there are times when a lawyer is needed to diagnose your problem and tell you how to address it.

    Most attorneys will provide an initial consultation free, and if not they will probably charge you an hourly rate for the amount of time they speak with you.  I would recommend that if you have a legal matter that is important to you that you take at least this first step with an attorney before proceeding.  I have had at least two people call me in the last few months who wanted me to help them with a case they already took to court and lost.  That is too late.  There is little that can be done once a judge has received evidence and made a decision.  I also spoke with a person during that time who had done their own will and had just realized that it did not cover certain assets that had a beneficiary designation.  To be safe you should talk to a lawyer.

 

     When I was in law school I took a class on jurisprudence, which is the philosophy of law.  I majored in philosophy in college so it was a natural for me.  I did a paper in that class with a good friend who writes laws for a living, suggesting different definitions for the law followed by excerpts from numerous classical known and unknown works, from chinese philosophers to Alice in Wonderland.  It is meant to be thoughtful and humorous.  I hope you enjoy.

     If jurisprudence begs a single question it must be "What is Law?"  Competing definitions of the law undeniably assert themselves in the literature of jurisprudence and in daily life but agreement upon a definition is virtually nil.  Take a stroll with me down definition lane.

     Is law a contract? 

     "The justice which arises from nature is a pledge of mutual advantage to restrain men from harassing one another and save them from being harmed.  For all living things which have not been able to make compacts not to harm one another or be harmed, nothing ever is either just or unjust: and likewise too for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make compacts not to harm or be harmed.  Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another in any place whatever and at any time it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed."  Epicurus (300 B.C.)

     "To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relaion within one organisation).  As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the fundamental principle of society, it would immediately disclose what it really is-namely, a Will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay.  Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the very least, putting it mildest, exploitation.  "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society; it belongs tothe nature of the living being as a primary organic function."  Nietzsche, The Transmutation of Values

     Is law morality?

     "Well, a just law is a law that squares with a moral law.  It is a law that squares with that which is right, so that any law that uplifts human personality is a just law.  Whereas, that law which is out of harmony with the moral is a law which does not square with the moral law of the universe.  It does not square with the law of God, so for that reason it is unjust and any law that degrades the human personality is an unjust law."  Martin Luther King,  Love, Law and Civil Disobedience

     Is law convention?

          "After one person or group decided to use this to stand for that, other people decided to do the same thing, and the practice spread; that is, these symbols were adopted by common convention.  A symbol, such as a word, designates a referent by agreement or convention.  Human decisions are thus required in order to establish the meaning of symbols and such decisions are arbitrary ones.  Names arise as a result of human agreements, or stipulations."----"I think these passages are typical of the less guarded remarks on this subject to be found in the literature.  But on reflection, we can see that language, as such, could not have originated by having decisions adopted by "common convention."  As Russell has said, "We can hardly suppose a parliament of hitherto speechless elders meeting together and agreeing to call a cow a cow and a wolf a wolf."  By the nature of the case, making agreements and conventions presupposes that people already have a language in which to carry on these activities.  No one knows how language originated, but at least we can be certain that it was in  no such way as this."  Alston,  The Philosopy of Language

     Is law duty?

     "Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money.  He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him, unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time.  He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself:  Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way?  Suppose, however, that he resolves to do so, then the maxim of his action would be expressed thus:  When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so.  Now this principle of self-love or of one's own advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare: but the question now is, Is it right?  I change then the suggestion of self-love into a universal law, and state the question thus:  How would it be if my maxim were a universal law?  Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would necessarily contradict itself.  For supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such statements as vain pretenses."  Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals

     Is law natural?

     "More than anything else," wrote Roscoe Pound in 1923, "the theory of natural rights and its consequence, the nineteenth century theory of legal rights, served to cover up what the legal order really was and what court and judge and lawmaker were really doing."  But it was a fictitious cover, and as with the Emperor's new clothes, the fiction was transparent to the eye of the realist.  For law could not permanently lag behind the other social sciences, nor could it be allowed indefinitely to short-circuit the powerhouse of governmental operations."  Henry Commager,  The American Mind

     Is law rational?

     "Just as water flows down slopes, settles in hollows and is confined to riverbeds, so vertical thinking flows along the most probable paths and by its very flow increases the probability of those paths for the future.  If vertical thinking is high-probability thinking, then lateral thinking is low-probability thinking.  New channels are deliberately cut to alter the flow of the water.  The old channels are dammed up in the hope that the water will seek out and take to new and better patterns of flow.  Sometimes the water is even sucked upwards in an unnatural fashion.  When the low-probability line of thought leads to an effective new idea there is a 'eureka moment', and at once the low-probability approach acquires the highest probability.  It is the moment when the water sucked upward with difficulty forms a siphon and at once flows freely.  This moment is always the aim of lateral thinking."  De Bono,  New Think

     Is law emotion?

     "So those who have denied that there are "objective moral characteristics" have not wanted to deny that Brown's action was wrong or that keeping promises is right.  They have wanted to point out that rightness and wrongness are a matter of what is felt in the heart, not of what is seen with the eyes or heard with the ears.  They have wanted to emphasize the way in which "Promise-keeping is right" resembles "Going abroad is exciting," "Stories about mothers-in-law are comic," "Bombs are terrifying", and differs from "Roses are red" and Sea-water is salt."  This does not prevent you from talking about the moral order, or the moral world, if you want to: but it warns you not to forget that the only access to to the moral world is through remorse and approval and so on: just as the only access to the world of comedy is through laughter, and the only access to the coward's world is through fear."  P.F. Strawson,  Ethical Intuitionism

     Is law a command?

     "We must now raise the question of whether our explanations really explain facts.  For example, we have said that the falling of a book is explained by the fact that it is heavier than air and the theory that objects heavier than air fall when not supported.  Does this really explain anything?  We could explain this theory in turn by referring to the Law of Gravitation.  But why does the Law of Gravitation hold?  Clearly there is no end to these questions.  This phenomenon is a common one in experience with children.  No matter what answer we give them they will come back with a new "Why.'  For three or four stages the parents will be patient and will answer the children's questions, but soon the children will exhaust a parent's knowledge of theories and the parent will then have to come back with "Children should be seen and not heard."  If the child persists in coming back with an additonal why, the time has come for the parent to demonstrate his superior physical strength."  Kemeny,  A Philosopher Looks at Science

     Is law precedent?

     "There was once a man of Sung who tilled his field.  In the middle of the field stood a stem of a tree, and one day a hare in full course rushed against that stem, broke its neck, and died.  Thereupon the man left his plough and stood waiting at that tree in the hope that he would catch another hare.  But he never caught another hare and was ridiculed by the people of Sung.  If, however, you wish to rule the people of today by the methods of government of the early kings, you do exactly the same thing as the man who waited by the tree.  Therefore affairs go according to their time, and preparations are made in accordance with affairs."  Han Fei Tzu

     Is law ethics?

     "But if our opponent happens to have undergone a different process of moral "conditioning" from ourselves, so that, even when he acknowledges all the facts, he still disagrees with us about the moral value of the actions under duscussion, then we abandon the attempt to convince him by argument.  We say that it is impossible to argue with him because he has a distorted or undeveloped moral sense; which signifies merely that he employs a different set of values from our own.  We feel that our own system of values is superior, and therefore speak in such derogatory terms of his.  But we cannot bring forward any arguments to show that our system is superior.  For our judgment that it is so is itself a judgment of value, and accordingly outside the scope of argument.  It is because argument fails us when we come to deal with pure questions of value, as distinct from questions of fact, that we finally resort to mere abuse."  Ayer,  Ethics as Emotive Expression

     Is law of the people and for the people?

     "Before the Law stands a doorkeeper on guard.  To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country who begs for admittance to the Law.  But the doorkeeper says that he cannot admit the man at the moment.  The man, on reflection, asks if he will be allowed, then, to enter later.  'It is possible,' answers the doorkeeper, 'but not at this moment.'  Since the door leading into the Law stands open as usual and the doorkeeper stands to one side, the man bends down to peer through the entrance.  When the doorkeeper sees that, he laughs and says: 'If you are so strongly tempted, try to get in without my permission.  But note that I am powerful.  And I am only the lowest doorkeeper.  From hall to hall keepers stand at every door, one more powerful than the other.  Even the third of these has an aspect that even I cannot bear to look at.'  These are difficulties which the man from the country has not expected to meet; the Law, he thinks should be accessible to every man and at all times, but when he looks more closely at the doorkeeper in his furred robe, with his huge pointed nose and long, thin, Tartar beard, he decides that he had better wait until he gets permission to enter.  The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at the side of the door.  There he sits waiting for days and years.
     Before he dies, all that he has experienced during the whole time of his sojourn condenses in his mind into one question, which he has never yet put to the doorkeeper.  He beckons the doorkeeper, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body.  The doorkeeper has to bend far down to hear him, for the difference in size between them has increased very much to the man's disadvantage.  'What do you want to know now?' asks the doorkeeper, 'you are insatiable.'  'Everyone strives to attain the Law,' answers the man, 'how does it come about then, that in all these years no one has come seeking admittance but me?'  The doorkeeper perceives that the man is at the end of his strength and that his hearing is failing, so he bellows in his ear: "No one but you could gain admission through this door, since this door was intended only for you.  I am now going to shut it.' "  Kafka, The Three Parables

     Is law simply the work of lawyers? 

    ' Here arises a new question, Theodorus, which threatens to be more serious than the last.
     Theod.  Well, Socrates, we have plenty of leisure.
     Soc. That is true, and your remark recalls to my mind an observation which I have often made, that those who have passed their days in the pursuit of philosophy are ridiculously at fault when they have to appear and speak in court.   How natural is this! 
     Theod.  What do you mean?
     Soc.  I mean to say, that those who have been trained in philosophy and liberal pursuits are as unlike those who from their youth upwards have been knocking about in the courts and such places, as a freeeman is in breeding unlike a slave.
     Theod. In what is the difference seen?
     Soc.  In the leisure spoken of by you, which a freeman can always command:  he has his talk out in peace, and, like ourselves, he wanders at will from one subject to another, and from a second to a third, --if the fancy takes him, he begins again, as we are doing now, caring not whether his words are many or few; his only aim is to attain the truth.  But the lawyer is always in a hurry; there is the water of the clepsydra driving him on, and not allowing him to expatiate at will:  and there is his adversary standing over him, enforcing his rights:  the indictment, which in their phraseology is termed the affidavit, is recited at the time:  and from this he must not deviate.  He is a servant, and is continually disputing about a fellow-servant before his master, who is seated, and has the cause in his hands:  the trial is never about some indifferent matter, but always concerns himself:  and often the race is for his life.  The consequence has been, that he has become keen and shrewd; he has learned how to flatter his master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soul is small and unrighteous.  His condition, which has been that of a slave from his youth upwards, has deprived him of growth and uprightness and independence; dangers and fears, which were too much for his truth and honesty,  came upon him in early years, when the tenderness of youth was unequal to them, and he has been driven into crooked ways; from the first he has practised deception and retaliation, and has become stunted and warped.  And so he has passed out of youth into manhood, having no soundness in him; and is now, as he thinks, a master in wisdom.  Such is the lawyer, Theodorus.'      Plato

     Is law merely a word?

     "That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.  "When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."  Lewis Carroll

    
     




     

     

                    
    

     When I was a kid my folks managed a Firestone store.  In those days Firestone stores were like Sears stores that sold in addition to tires almost everything including large appliances and electronics.  The store financed everything in house.  Credit cards, for all practical purposes, didn't exist.

     All too often, from my parents' perspective, someone owing a significant balance on a refrigerator, for example, would file bankruptcy.  The fridge would stay with the customer and the bad debt would stay with us.  I know now that if mom and dad could have afforded an attorney, which they couldn't, they might have been able to get the merchandise back at least.  As a result of that experience I felt that bankruptcy was wrong.

     After practicing law for a few years in a very competitive legal community I decided to include bankruptcy in my practice because potential clients had to go out of town to find a bankruptcy attorney.  I have now been practicing in the area for 30 years and have learned that at least 95% of my bankruptcy clients were financially responsible people who had bad things happen in their lives such as loss of employment, medical issues, divorce and business failures.  Most often my clients had spent months or years trying to climb out of their financial hole.  Many had experienced physical problems, psychological problems and family problems from the strain of not being able to survive on a month to month basis.  They didn't want to file bankruptcy and felt ashamed that they were in that position.

     History is replete with stories about the persecution of debtors.  In ancient Rome debtors could be enslaved or executed.  If executed their body parts might be distributed among their creditors.  Nice thought.  England had debtors' prisons where you were held until your death unless your friends or relatives would stepped forward and paid off your debts.

     The first reference to something akin to bankruptcy may have been in the Bible in Deuteronomy where it states that creditors should forgive the debts owed to them every 7 years.  In 1705 Queen Anne of England may have passed the first bankruptcy law     providing debtors a release from their debts.  Although debtors could be flogged under American colonial laws, our Constitution provided that the federal government had the authority to pass uniform laws governing bankruptcy.  During the 1800's bankruptcy laws slowly evolved toward what the are today.

     Bankruptcy relief is a recognition that society as a whole suffers when people can't escape debt that they are unable to pay despite their best efforts.  As previously mentioned this sometimes desperate state can lead to health problems, mental problems, disintegration of the family, lethargy and a lack of productivity, all of which can cost all of us more money than releasing people from their debts.

     The law doesn't require people to loan money to others, so bankruptcy puts the onus on creditors to lend money responsibly. If they choose to make a loan they know that they may not get their money back and should run their business accordingly.  When I graduated from law school I wanted to get a credit card because it was necessary to rent a room or obtain some forms of transportation.  I had to meet with a loan officer at a bank and even then had to have a cosigner to be approved.  Contrast that with a few years ago when my teenage children would receive credit card offers in the mail for a $10,000 line of credit if they simply signed an enclosed card and returned it.

     For years major credit card companies continued this practice knowing that a large amount of the debt would not be repaid because the amount of money they earned from interest more than offset the loss.

     I know bankruptcy would feel wrong to you as an individual if you loaned a friend or relative money and they dissed you by filing bankruptcy.  I know the feeling is the same when a small business owner struggling to survive gets hit with a significant bankruptcy loss.  However, the greatest impact from bankruptcy is on companies that have weighed the risk and decided they can still make a profit on their loans.

     Bankruptcy also feels wrong to most of the people that have to endure it.  However, if it is the only way you can continue to survive or support your loved ones it is better than the alternative.  Heart surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments aren't pleasant either but you may need them to survive.  I have seen so many lives changed for the better as a result of bankrutpcy that I know it is not wrong most of the time.  May the fates be with you and your budget always remain in the black.  

     When I was younger I practiced a fair amount of criminal law and did some personal injury work and so faced a number of juries.  Since I now practice primarily in areas of business, real estate, bankruptcy and related litigation juries are not often a factor in my practice.  As you probably know the right to jury trial is guaranteed by our Constitution in criminal cases.  It is also guaranteed in civil cases " when the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars."  However, that right only applies in federal courts.  Why?  Who knows.  The Constitution doesn't say that but someone has since decided that that is what it really means.                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
    
     The vast majority of jury trials are held in criminal cases.  The other most popular use of juries is in accident and other injury cases.  It is my opinion that juries were guaranteed for criminal cases to protect citizens from their government should it attempt to prosecute them for political crimes or prosecute them just because it didn't care for them.  Given our experience with and separation from England our founders drafted our Constitution primarily to protect us from the government.  I doubt that our founders were overly concerned about violent offenders.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
      It is unclear where juries came from or why they are traditionally made up of 12 people.  Our US Supreme Court said many years ago that a 12 person jury is an "historical accident."  Some attribute the number to the disciples and others to King Henry II who selected a group of 12 landowners to resolve boundary disputes among other things.  The bottom line is that over time different cultures decided that a group of people might be better at resolving certain conflicts than an individual.                              

     Juries are very unpredictable, which is why they are used mostly in criminal cases and personal injury cases where plaintiffs are seeking huge amounts of money.  In criminal cases a defendant can "win" when the jury can't reach an agreement because the case will have to be tried again, which could lead to a better plea bargain at least.  A second mistrial could even cause a prosecutor not to try a third time because of the time and expense involved.  Attorneys also hope in criminal cases that the jury will find the defendant not guilty because it likes the defendant or dislikes the law involved or the government's behavior.  Juries are told they can't do this but will do it anyway.  I'm sure you can remember a case where the defendant was clearly guilty but still was found not guilty by the jury.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
      
      In personal injury cases involving serious injuries and death attorneys hope the jury will award amounts that a judge would not even consider.  This is especially true when the defendant is a high profile company with deep pockets.  It is hoped that the jury, out of sadness, concern, or dislike for the defendant, will base its decision on emotion rather than reason and award the plaintiff an astronomical sum.  Admittedly, it is difficult to place a dollar amount on not being able to walk again because of an accident, or losing a loved one, but there is a general belief in the legal community that juries will award more money and that that possibility encourages defendants to offer a larger settlement.

     I had a trial professor in law school that specialized in criminal jury trials.  When discussing juries he told us about a trial where an attractive young female juror in the front row hung on his every word and smiled at everything he said.  In the back row was an older gentleman that scowled at him the entire time.  He lost the trial and learned afterwards that the scowler was his greatest supporter and that the cutie sank him.  Such is the personality of the jury.

     You can't even request a jury in civil suits when you are seeking something other than money, such as in a divorce or mortgage foreclosure.  In most civil actions where you can request a jury it is my opinion that the judge will do a better job.  Also, a judge trial is generally less time consuming and less expensive.  However, if your case is assigned to a judge with a known bias or prejudice that may affect your case then opting for a jury makes sense.

     When I taught trial law I didn't spend much time on jury selection other than to tell my students that if your client was an X you wanted X's on the jury and if your client was an O you wanted O's on the jury.  Trial lawyers have all kinds of ideas about what type of jurors are best such as young people are more tolerant of crime and poor people will award larger verdicts against rich folks.  If we learn anything as we grow older it is that you don't really know people or what they will do based upon the external categories they fall into.  The personality of every jury is different just like the personalities of its members.  You have heard about cases where jury consultants have been paid extraordinary amounts of money to help attorneys select jurors.  You could spend millions of dollars and still not know if the jury you are facing is the Lady or the Tiger.

             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 


    


    

     I hope you never have to face a judge, but if you do don't despair.  They are people too.  There was a time when anyone could be a judge but now judges tend to be attorneys.  I don't know why people choose to be judges but from my experience many attorneys seek the bench because they don't like to practice law or can't earn a decent living doing it.  A regular paycheck is the most attractive lure to potential judges.

     I remember another attorney telling me a number of years ago that he liked sitting in as a temporary judge because he could  control people's lives.  I'm glad he never became a real judge.  Most judges that I have met are not power hungry and just try to do a good job.  There are no special qualifications to be a judge.  You don't have to take special classes or tests or psychological evaluations.  In our state all judges are either elected or appointed.  County judges have to run for office unless they are temporarily appointed to fill the remaining term of a judge who cannot continue to serve.  That means they generally align themselves with political parties.  Once judges are elected most judges do not decide cases based upon party affiliation and they can generally serve as long as they like because experienced judges almost always win reelection regardless of party affiliation.

     Judges at the state and federal level are appointed to the bench.  These appointments are largely political in nature since the appointments are made by the governor or president.  As is true with county judges a sitting judge usually doesn't lose his seat.  As is also true with county judges politics are not a significant factor in judges' decisions.  Many judges have confounded the political parties that appointed them.  We hear a lot about the political battles fought when a U.S. Supreme Court judge is appointed but even at that level the judge is not beholden to a party.  On really hot topics like abortion it may be easier to distinguish liberal from conservative judges because the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortions.  However, most decisions even at that level are not politically influenced.  It is important to remember that judges aren't supposed to make law.  They are supposed to apply existing law to the set of facts before them.

     Having said all of that there are good judges and not so good judges, as is true with most if not all segments of society.  In my humble opinion a good judge is one who listens to people and treats them with dignity and respect.  A good judge moves cases along and requires attorneys to do their jobs.  A good judge reaches decisions quickly once the case has been presented.  We had a judge in our county who always announced his decision as soon as the trial was over.  When you prepared your case you could tell your client this was going to happen and it did like clockwork.  Most judges don't do this but I believe they should.  Perhaps there is some value in sleeping on it, but it certainly isn't a good idea to allow cases to pile up in a to do box because new obligations will cast shadows over the old.  I also think that a lot of judges delay their decisions because they don't want to render their decision with everyone watching.  As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

     Judges should be treated with respect because of their position in the legal system.  Otherwise, however, if you end up in front of a judge treat him or her as you would a friend or family member.  If you have to testify look the judge in the eye and be yourself.  You don't want to dress in a suit or tie if you normally don't wear one but you also don't want to wear sandals and a baseball hat.  You want to be presentable in the way you look and the way you act.  Even attorneys don't like to argue with judges so if you do represent yourself try to avoid argument if at all possible.  On the other hand there is no reason to be intimidated by judges.  You don't have to be a genius,sage or saint to be a judge and they eat, sleep and go to the bathroom just like the rest of us.  At least I think they do.

       

     Whenever  potential clients call me at the office I ask how they are, aside from the fact that they have to call me.  Hiring an attorney is not an item on most people's bucket lists.  As a kid I always hated to go to the dentist and would dread it for days leading up to an appointment that my loving mother made for me, even though she never went to see him.  One of the least fulfilling purchases people make is tires for a car.  It is not the type of thing you spend money on for thrills or to show off for your neighbors.  Seeing and hiring a lawyer combines the experiences of going to the dentist and buying tires for your car.  

     I became a lawyer for a number of reasons.  First, because I didn't think i liked attorneys and wanted to protect people from them.  Second, when I was young my family had a business that needed an attorney on rare occasions but couldn't afford the fees.  This inspired me to try to make legal services available at a reasonable cost.  Third, I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's when it seemed like everyone was fighting for a cause.

     Over the years I have learned that attorneys as a group are like most other segments of society, meaning that there are good ones, bad ones, kind ones, mean ones, giving ones and selfish ones.  As a class I don't think attorneys are any different from teachers, nurses, doctors, mechanics, plumbers and clerks.  Every societal group includes individuals from one end of the spectrum to the other.

     We all like and feel comfortable with different types of people.  We all see and meet people that we may not care for because they remind us of someone else we didn't care for, or because they are too short or too tall or too skinny or too fat or too pretty or too ugly.  We may not like the way a person talks or walks,  or the way a person smiles or frowns.  We all know that other people may not like us even though it has nothing to do with whether we are good or bad people.

     Fortunately, you usually can choose your attorney, unlike someone rushed to the hospital with a heart attack requiring immediate surgery performed by someone unknown until after the operation.  Just because you meet with an attorney doesn't mean you have to hire that person.  To my knowledge most lawyers will provide a free consultation which gives you an opportunity to meet and greet.  Even if you have to pay for a consultation it may be worth it since you don't have to commit yourself to a continuing attorney client relationship.  I have consulted with a number of people over the years who didn't return.  They may have resolved their problem on their own or sought out another attorney.  There is nothing wrong with that.   I have also consulted with people on one problem and had them come back a year or two later to hire me for something else.  I am not offended in the least if someone decides not to hire me.  I just hope I gave him or her helpful information.

     Cost is obviously a factor in hiring an attorney.    Cost first comes into play when deciding if you need an attorney in the first place or should try to handle the problem on your own.  If you have a claim against someone for $2000 you shouldn't pay an attorney $2000 to handle it for you.  I won't represent a clients who say at the first meeting that they are more concerned about the principle of being wronged than they are about the cost because after many months and dollars have been spent that attitude will almost always change.  Hiring a lawyer is a financial investment.  You don't want to throw good money after bad. 

     If you decide you have to hire an attorney you can shop around, but as is true with most products don't hire the cheapest or most expensive one just based upon the cost.  You don't know what you are getting until you have gotten it.  Also, different types of legal services are priced differently.  I charge a flat rate for certain services like wills and an hourly rate for most lawsuits.  Some attorneys will charge a contingency fee for collections and most personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis.  Whatever the fee structure make sure you understand it and if you are charged on an hourly basis make sure you receive itemized bills on a regular basis.

     If you need an attorney ask people you know and trust for suggestions.  Don't hesitate to call an attorney and ask him or her who would be a good person to contact about your particular problem.  In closing, remember when dealing with attorneys that they are people just like you who happen to practice law for a living and that it is your case, not theirs.  

 

     Most people will never have to go to court or deal with a court.  The most common contacts with courts are probably through traffic infractions and relatives' estates going through probate, and neither of those matters generally end up "in court",  meaning that they generally do not end up in a trial or hearing before a judge.

     The primary purpose of our courts is to resolve conflicts.  Many people probably think from television and movies that courts actually create conflict when they watch a ruthless lawyer scale down a ruthless witness or another ruthless lawyer.  However, the reason the case got to court was because someone had a conflict with someone else, and we have determined over hundreds of years that it is better to resolve these conflicts in a peaceful and nonviolent manner.

     Many of you have seen westerns where conflicts were resolved at high noon on main street, where the winner was the fastest draw.  Many of you are also familiar with the Salem witch trials where witch cake could be used as evidence of guilt and where your odds of surviving were greater if you pleaded guilty regardless of your innocence.  We still have violent conflicts on a regular basis, oftentimes referred to as war or riots, but those conflicts are beyond the realm of the courts.  The conflicts most addressed by the courts are those involving individuals or individual businesses and companies.

     Predecessors of today's courts included dragging an adversary to a designated strong man who would kill him or her if he believed your story, having fellow citizens decide the winner based upon what they had heard in the community, hiring the most witnesses to support your story, and hand to hand combat, among many others.

     The role of the courts today, as I previously stated, is to resolve conflicts as humanely and civilly as possible.  The cases that receive the most publicity are criminal in nature, and in those cases the government proceeds against the individual.  Most trials, however, involve individuals or companies suing other individuals or companies.  i used to practice criminal law and there are aspects of those cases that are unique to criminal cases.  My focus here, however, is on civil cases, the ones most likely to invade your life at some point.

     Lets assume you bought a pig from a neighbor.  You bought it because you wanted to breed pigs and sell the piglets.  You had heard during coffee at a local diner that your neighbor had a great sow that produced piglets prolifically.  You approached your neighbor and asked if he was interested in selling the sow.  He said he was since he had decided to raise llamas instead.  You told him that you wanted to breed the sow and he agreed this would be the perfect sow to seed.  You paid him the asking price and lugged the hog home.

     You later hired Bob the Boar through his owner to seed the sow.  They had a great time and everyone awaited the blessed event, which never came.  You, or rather Bob, tried again and still no results.  You contacted the local animal doctor to check your sow and learned that she was sterile.  Befuddled at best you approached your neighbor and asked if you could return the sow since she couldn't seed.  He expressed his regrets but said he didn't want the sow.  You asked if you could have your money back and he said no as well.  At this point you become the Hatfields and McCoys.

     You believe you have been wronged because you hoped for a seeded sow.  Your neighbor believes it is wrong for you to expect your money back since you took the sow in the first place and he moved on with his new venture.  You stew over this predicament.  Should you just write it off as an unfortunate life experience, or take him to court.  You decide on the latter.

     To take your neighbor to court you have to go to the court clerk's office and file a complaint, which essentially says that he sold you a sow that you wanted to seed but couldn't be successfully seeded.  The neighbor, lets call him Ned since it is shorter than neighbor, then has a designated period of time to file an answer to your complaint, which either admits or denies what you said in your complaint.  If he admits the facts as contained in the complaint you can ask the court to find in your favor without a trial because there is no factual dispute.  Trials are only held if there is a factual dispute because the sole purpose of a trial is to determine what the underlying facts are

     Given the facts as state above, with nothing more, there wouldn't be a need for a trial, so you would ask the court to resolve the dispute without one.  The real issue would be whether you should get your money back from Ned since the sow couldn't seed anymore.  The court would then look to the law to resolve the dispute.  The primary source of laws is either written laws, such as statutes, or case law, which comes from decisions reached by other courts facing similar situations.  If the court could not find a law that applies then it would have to make the decision on its own, which decision could then become law for other courts facing the same dispute.  The court would try to make what it considers the fairest decision given its impact on future sow sales and purchases.

     Lets add to the facts above that you said in your complaint that Ned said he guaranteed that the sow would seed prolifically for you.  Unfortunately, Ned said in his answer that he never said any such thing.  Now the case has to go to trial.  The court has to determine if Ned made that guarantee.  You get your day in court.  Both you and Ned testify to what you said in your complaint and answer.  The court must now decide if Ned made that guarantee.  This is where the burden of proof comes in.  Since you filed the lawsuit you have the burden of proving that is more likely than not that Ned made the guarantee.  If the court cannot decide whether to believe you or Ned then you unfortunately go home with no money and a seedless sow.  However, if the court decides to believe you rather than Ned because of your wit and charm, then you win.  The court would probably order that you get some if not all of your money back, but would probably not force Ned to take the sow back.  Everyone will not be happy with the court's decision but the court has resolved the conflict.  Whether you ever get a red cent from Ned is another story for another day.