[nordsieck]

> Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity.

While it's true that some lawyers are unethical some of the time, it seems highly unlikely that lawyers are unethical as often as their reputation suggests. A much more likely explanation is:

1. The complexity of the law.

2. The incongruity between the law and many people's ethical codes.

3. The skill gradient that exists among lawyers, as it does in any profession.

4. The limited resources afforded to public defenders.

5. The limited success pro se litigants typically have.

[bobbylarrybobby]

And that a lawyer's job isn't even to ensure that the law is enforced. A defense attorney's job is to get the defendant the least punishment possible, regardless of what the defendant actually did and the legality of such action. The prosecution's job is to seek the the most punishment possible. In a criminal case, a fair outcome hinges on the two lawyers being roughly equally skilled and resourced, but if this isn't the case then the case will be a blowout; but it's still the winning lawyer's job to crush their opponent without mercy, which in any other context (e.g., sports) would be considered scummy. Unfortunately, that's just the job.

[sokoloff]

It’s fairly clear to me that maximizing punishment ought not be the prosecution’s goal and I’m not even sure that it’s currently the goal. It seems like maximizing conviction rate is closer their apparent goal.

[jacquesm]

This view of prosecution and defense is geographically limited.

[srtjstjsj]

> The prosecution's job is to seek the the most punishment possible

This is absolutely false and is also unconstitutional.

[woofie11]

I know a lot of lawyers. Most lawyers in law firms are just as unethical just as often as their reputation suggests. There are high-integrity lawyers out there, and if you find one, cling onto them. They're out there, but they're rare.

A much more likely explanation are misaligned incentive structures, combined with a protective guild-like bar organization which lawyers belong to.

[srtjstjsj]

Any professional in a competitive field fakes immense selective pressure to be unethical. It doesn't matter how honest one is, the system will select for the cheater. This goes for lawyers, bicyclists, tradespeople, anywhere where the client or victims of externalities can't verify the quality of the work and hold them accountable.

[woofie11]

I think the "competitive" piece is more important than the "can't verify" piece. I'd add academics, politicians, and executives to that list.

A lot of professions are structured like pyramid schemes, with partner/tenure/presidency/CEO at the top, and crap at the bottom.

On the flip side, my experience is most tradespeople are quite scrupulous, not because I can verify the work, but due to lack of competition. If my handyman takes 30% longer to work, he perhaps makes 30% less money, but life goes on. If an academic misses tenure, or a politician gets knocked out of office, careers end.

[elliekelly]

And TV. Real life lawyering isn’t nearly interesting enough so writers have to zhush it up by having lawyer characters operate in the grey area or completely cross the line as a matter of course. It’s more exciting that way!

[woofie11]

The way real lawyers are unethical and the way TV lawyers are unethical is completely different.

Real lawyers will mostly do things like inflate hours, inflate conflicts, exaggerate expected outcomes, and generally blow things up so as to maximize billable hours rather than acting in the interests of their client. That doesn't make good TV either.