|
|
|
|
|
|
by rayiner
5020 days ago
|
|
|
Before your ninja edit, you had a "(in 1994!)." The exclamation point implied that it may be more than 40% today. Also, your argument is the strawman: > My opinion is that lawyers do not add anything to the client's bottom line (but it doesn't matter what I think, only what the client thinks). > But beyond that, it gets very subjective and very speculative. Needless to say, lawyers are very good at arguing the need for their existence and for their value to the client. It was an economist, not a lawyer, who made the case for the value of lawyers to the economy. |
|
|
Well, if it did it wasn't intentional.
I am always editing. It's just how I write. HN faux pas I guess.
I'm not sure I follow the rest of your comment.
I was not suggesting the author of the article was arguing for the value of lawyers, I was saying that as a general statement. (And not that it proves anything but in this very thread we have a lawyer - you - arguing in favor of lawyers.)
It may be I'm just too stupid to undertand whatever else you are trying to show me with your quotes. But it does seem like you are reading things into my words and coming up with your own interpretation which, alas, does not match my intent.