[na85]

That lawyers exist is a good thing. It means we have a human, nuanced perspective on the finer points and interpretation of the law, which in Western civilization reigns supreme over all other things.

Lawyers will never become obsolete until we no longer live in a society that obeys the rule of law.

[snowwrestler]

You're going to get downvoted because you're posting this in a forum of largely programmers, many of whom believe that every problem is essentially a programming problem, and that the law could be computer code if only the spec were well-enough defined.

In reality, "defining the spec" is the entire purpose of having a legal system in the first place. A nation is a machine that is evolving its own state. There's no outside "programmer" who can observe and define the entirety of the desired state. (Unless you believe in an active interested conception of God, perhaps.)

The legislators, lawyers, and judges who tell us what the law is, are part of society too--and that's why the law changes over time. It's supposed to change over time. The law constrains human behavior, but it also reflects human behavior, so the state of what's legal right now exists in a weird state of superposition between the two.

But, the fantasy that one is outside of, or separate from, society is a popular one--seen most clearly expressed in the libertarian creed, but popular in Silicon Valley too, at least from a business perspective. What do most tech companies want from the government? To stay the heck out of their business, stay far away, and don't bother me. That includes lawyers.

So you're going to get downvoted here, but I don't think that means you're wrong.

[paulddraper]

I dislike large numbers of lawyers for the same reason I dislike large amounts of code.

It indicates there is a large amount of incidental complexity.

Clearly, exterminating lawyers or deleting random files is not a workable solution. But we should invest in reducing the system to essential complexity. If we are successful, the symptoms will subside.

[BlackFly]

I strongly disagree.

In this day and age, there are far too many laws to both understand and be sure you are law abiding. Ignorance of the law is a given. Ignorance not being an excuse for something like murder makes sense because you should just know better, ignorance not being an excuse in possession of the feathers of a protected animal that you found on the ground should be valid even though this presents an insurmountable burden to prosecution: it shouldn't be possible that picking up feathers you find on the ground is a crime, but it is.

The sentence "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" should be an indictment of the legal system and not a jeer at the self-represented. Justice should be given to those who deserve it, not to those who manufacture it through technicalities. The fact that a lawyer is necessary to achieve justice implies you are not achieving justice but rather merely a bureaucratic victory.

This state just renders law into bureaucracy and divorces it from the concept of justice. The rule of law is only sensible insofar as it can achieve justice, not as its own end divorced of anything humanly meaningful.

[paulddraper]

> That lawyers exist is a good thing.

The more common term is "necessary evil".

[kbutler]

In an ideal world, lawyers would be advocates seeking to provide a nuanced, human perspective.

In the current world, I think it is more common to be seeking loopholes, weaknesses, and exploits instead.

[na85]

I can see how a person that only knows about law what they read in the headlines could come to that conclusion, but painting lawyers with a broad brush as you have is no more of a generalization than me saying that every Facebook employee is devoid of morals and ethics.

[kbutler]

Which lawyers in what context do you see providing that nuanced human perspective?

Corporate law? Their job is keep us from getting sued.

Family law? If you're advocating that human perspective for the opposing party, are you failing your duty to your client?

Prosecutors? Not sure they have that discretion.

General legal services, probate, etc. Doesn't seem that applicable.

Intellectual Property? Human perspective? Unlikely, except maybe the "hard-working inventor" angle.

Defense attorneys? Sure. That could be a good angle - along with any possible opening to exploit.

[TheCoelacanth]

> Family law? If you're advocating that human perspective for the opposing party, are you failing your duty to your client?

They shouldn't be advocating the opposing party's human perspective in court, but they certainly should be doing it privately to the client. Things will usually work out better for them if they can reach an amicable compromise out of court rather than having to engage in protracted legal battles with their own family.

> Prosecutors? Not sure they have that discretion.

Prosecutors absolutely have that discretion. They don't have to take every case to court and they don't have to seek the harshest allowable punishment for every case they do take to court. They are supposed to be serving the public interest, not seeking to imprison as many people as possible.

[na85]

Every single point in this post is a broad-brush generalization perpetuated by media stereotypes.

[kbutler]

And by limited personal interactions in professional capacities.

I'd love for you to provide countering perspectives from your broader exposure.

[nojvek]

Lawyers are essentially social hackers trying to find weaknesses in IP laws and exploiting them for massive profit. It’s essentially court warfare

[kbutler]

> Lawyers will never become obsolete until we no longer live in a society that obeys the rule of law.

I think the core problem is that this misinterpets the phrase "rule of law", which Google defines as "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws."

If your lawyer's arguments, preparation, and skill matter, or if it matters whether you have a lawyer or not, then you are being subject to "arbitrary interpretation" of the legal landscape, rather than to well-defined and established (and understood) law.

Your /lawyer's/ actions affect the judgment, rather than just your actions.