Talk:Lawyer/Archive 3

message: Dear fellow editors: I have moved some material regarding public perception of lawyers down a bit in the article, and recategorized it under its own heading. Also, in my opinion, some of this stuff really needs some sourcing or backup. Without citations it looks a bit "POV-ish." As a lawyer myself I have to say that unfortunately the polls that are taken of the public probably do back up the statements in the article about the negative public perception of lawyers as a group. However, to improve the article we probably should actually add citations to some of those polls. Perhaps some of my fellow editors can locate some source material before I do. Also, see the discussions above regarding critics of lawyers, etc. Yours, Famspear 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still working on my massive rewrite (see discussion above), which at this pace will probably be done in August!  Unfortunately, I'm really busy with other priorities right now.  Yes, I am looking for sources on the issue of the negative public perception of lawyers.  And yes, I am also looking for other sources that were not edited by Richard Abel. Plus there is the problem of how I just discovered that there is a new way of doing references inline which is much easier to maintain (but now I have to rewrite all my references to that format).  --Coolcaesar 06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public perception of lawyers

message: I understand why someone recently added an image request tag, but that might raise a lot of difficulties.  Do we show photos of famous lawyers? Non-famous lawyers?  Quite a hairball of an issue if you ask me.  --Coolcaesar 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images could be an issue 

message: More changes coming to the article---after thinking a lot about the criticism in the featured article nomination process, I found some history sources at the local public library last night.  They're rather specific, but I think I can weave together a crude outline of the history of lawyers over the weekend.   Also, I discovered that the UK was as screwed up as the civil law countries until the late 19th century, and there were at four to six different types of lawyers at certain points in UK history.  The only reason the U.S. didn't follow the UK was because the colonial market wasn't big enough to support five or six different types of legal professionals, so John Adams complained in his writings about having to work in all those roles (which were ultimately absorbed into the role of the modern American attorney).  Only at the end of the 19th century there was a collapse down to the solicitor/barrister distinction.  So I'll have to revise the intro dramatically to reflect that.--Coolcaesar 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to discuss with me by email (fjmd1@yahoo.co.uk) I'd be more than happy to. I know a great deal about English legal history and have some references for the history of the legal profession here. Incidentally: (1) it might be a little POV to say it is "screwed up", there are *good* things about having split professions, at least I think so 8-); (2) in a sense we have a number of legal professions here (barrister, legal executive, licensed conveyancer, notary, scrivener, solicitor) some old, some new. Francis Davey 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the offer, but I would prefer to keep the discussion on the development of the history section on this talk page rather than moving it to a private email conversation.  This is so that anyone else who knows about legal history can monitor the discussion and jump in if they have any good information to add.  --Coolcaesar 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK Francis Davey 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found some history sources 

message: Of course, I'm still looking for books on Roman lawyers (analyzing them together as a profession, not the lives of individuals like Cicero).  I already have sources on the history of English, American, and Castilian lawyers which I will add later when I have the time (today I'm too busy).  Once I have the Roman stuff then everything else will be a piece of cake.  --Coolcaesar 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have some info on Roman lawyers in the article, the next step is to find information on lawyers in the Dark Ages and early medieval period.  I think filling that gap will be the hardest, since it's an obscure subject.  I'm also still thinking of ways to restructure the whole intro part to explain how most countries including England have traditionally had a very confusing division of the legal profession and the fused or united profession is relatively recent.  The biggest problem is all the citations already embedded in that section; any rewrite of the section will require adjustments to all downstream citations so they will still make sense.  --Coolcaesar 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points. First, its important that the history section doesn't, by being in temporal order (which makes sense) give the impression that there is any historical continuity from old to new legal professions. Certainly, there is no evidence in England that the legal profession grew out of anything older (well most of it). Second, please be careful about being too POV, a "very confusing division of the legal profession" may be true for you, but its a POV statement. I am sure you wouldn't let it leak into the article 8-). Seriously the attorney v pleader distinction is logical and has its advantages. I accept that where several systems of law operate, having different professionals in each forum seems confusing. Francis Davey 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got the history section started