Talk:Lawyer/Archive 5

message: Someone at 195.152.50.3 recently inserted some rather strange edits into this article which I plan to remove soon.  First of all, law firms are usually ranked by profits (Am Law 100) or number of attorneys (National Law Journal 250), not turnover.  In the United States, turnover (the percentage of a workforce which needs to be replaced per year) is usually an indicator of the instability of a company or firm.  Second, the statistics which I copied from Professor Friedman's book clearly referred to total number of lawyers, not equity partners.  Friedman holds an endowed chair at Stanford University and is the top American legal historian alive right now; indeed, the vast majority of public libraries that can afford only one or two general legal history books will usually stock his History of American Law and History of American Law in the 20th Century (I realized this during my ongoing search for good sources for this article).  I think we can safely assume that his numbers are accurate.  --Coolcaesar 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I will be removing recent unsourced edits 

message: When involved in a flamewar, as above, it's often helpful to take a time off and do other useful things on other wiki articles. Now that I'm back with fresh eyes (...ah, it was a pleasant time, researching the Metallic Metals Act and suchlike...) I see that this article, although vigorously researched, is just tries too hard to cover too much ground. Statements such as "Before a lawyer can accept a client's case, he or she must interview the client..." are simply incorrect; while such an action is wise and, in many jurisdictions, necessary to avoid ethical issues, the fact is that in many jurisdictions, a lawyer can (perhaps unintentionally) accept a case without having met the client what-so-ever. Examples: class-action suits; public defenders; "next-friend" cases; and instances in which an attorney-client relationship forms due to unwise conduct of the lawyer. And we haven't even gotten to what may happen outside of the American system. An accurate depiction of  what it takes for a lawyer-client relationship to form would require a lengthy article on its own. This is merely an example of the difficulty of the article; I suggest that the topic of "lawyering" should be handled in outline form, with each major topic a separate article. rewinn 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back from vacation with fresh eyes

message: This talk page had become unhandily large, so I archived it all, without editing or favoring any part. If something has been archived in error, feel free to bring it back. rewinn 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: This is in reply to Rewinn's comment as of December 9, which I just saw because I spent most of last week and this week in depositions.  I disagree with the proposed dramatic revision because (1) that would be the third major version in three years, when the second version is not even complete; (2) the current version has achieved incredible stability compared to the last version, which was heavily modified on a daily basis and was rapidly heading in the direction of entropy when I introduced my dramatic rewrite of it; and (3) I am not sure Wikipedia needs a detailed treatise for laypersons on the various branches of lawyering.  Most Wikipedia visitors are looking for a light overview, not a dissertation!  And I thought providing in-depth detail on law in plain English for laypersons was the job of Nolo Press and its equivalents in other countries (where such equivalents exist).  
Also, Rewinn, if you read more carefully that particular paragraph you were criticizing, you would realize that it already mentions the exception for public defenders.  With regard to the law of the lawyer-client relationship, I don't think this article (which is treating the topic of what lawyers do at a very high level) needs to get into the nitty-gritty details of American professional responsibility law.  I just reviewed my own notes from law school on the subject to refresh my memory.  Yes, there are weird cases we all had to read in Professional Responsibility like DeVaux v. American Home Assurance Company, Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, and Lucas v. Hamm, but those cases are outliers.  Most states are not as extreme as Minnesota was in Togstad!  The vast majority of lawyer-client relationships in the world begin with a conversation between lawyer and client.  
As for the other part of what I think you are getting at, I know there are problems in some parts of the United States with plaintiffs' firms that have so heavily automated the lawyer-client relationship that very often the plaintiff's deposition is the client's first contact with a real lawyer (as opposed to paralegals or secretaries), but you need to realize that the U.S. is the outlier on that issue because we allow contingent fees, class actions, and generous discovery.  In the vast majority of countries, firms are much smaller, contingent fees are banned or heavily regulated, class actions are very difficult to file, and discovery is not as easy.  And many of the remedies achieved by formal litigation in the U.S. are provided by administrative mechanisms elsewhere (for example, New Zealand has a no-fault injury compensation scheme and many Scandinavian countries have ombudspersons).  So it is primarily in the U.S. where huge plaintiffs' firms aggressively utilize paralegals and an avalanche of advertisements to develop an army of plaintiffs who play the "litigation lottery."  This is a difficult point which takes at least a year of law school to fully understand (thus the frequent but unjustified complaint from conservative laypersons that America is "overlawyering" itself to death).  This complex quirk of the U.S. lawyer-client relationship, in my opinion, is simply inappropriate for a high-level general overview of what is a lawyer.--Coolcaesar 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One topics at a time please. The above lengthy comment appears to cover at least 3 topics. If a discussion is desired, it should be put into as many topics.  rewinn 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Topics

message: Well, I finally found a good article which I added a citation to, concerning the restart of the legal profession in the 13th century.  Now I just need a good citation to show how the non-canon lawyers followed the example of the professionalizing canon lawyers to form their own profession.  Then this article will be all done---for a while, until someone complains that it should trace the story of lawyering up to the present (which is going to be really messy since the history of each European country's legal services industry is so complex).  But one problem at a time.  --Coolcaesar 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on history research 

message: Some person who is clearly an English-as-a-Second-Language writer just made an badly drafted edit today to the Education section, but for some reason my corretions to the article are simply not being recognized by the server when I try to submit them.  It just hangs and never responds with the updated article as usual.  There must be something wrong with MediaWiki;  I can edit other articles but not the Lawyer article itself.  I've seen a similar bug before on several occasions when working on this article and other long articles over WiFi connections (one of which I am using right now).  Perhaps it has something to do with the network addressing setup on WiFi routers.  I don't have this problem when editing Wikipedia over a direct POP link or landline Ethernet/DSL to the local telco, which is AT&T (formerly SBC).  
Anyway, can someone copyedit the Education section? Thanks.--Coolcaesar 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. Just tried again and it's still not working.  I can make short edits to other Wikipedia articles and talk pages (including this one), but not the article!  This is really so weird. --Coolcaesar 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird.  I can blank most of it but now I can't bring it back.  Can someone else just revert this to my last edit on January 7? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Found the workaround.  If I go through the secure server at secure.wikimedia.org I can submit the entire article properly. So the problem, as I suspected, must be on my end, not Wikimedia's end.  Anyway I've fixed the article.  --Coolcaesar 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another weird Wikipedia bug, this is very strange 

message: At 21:05, 24 January 2007, 71.236.216.215 deleted the History section. While this would have been a good edit had it been to split the section into its own wikipedia page (given that this article exceed 50k) I didn't see such a page being referenced in the edit, and so reverted. I suggest discussing before doing that again. As above (in archive) this topic is sufficiently broad as to require outline format, especially since there is much information specific as to nation and as to era. rewinn 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the history section will have to be split into a separate article but not until I get around to finishing it (that is, to bringing it up to the early 20th century).  At that time I will split it off.  However, keep in mind that the main reason this article is 50k is because I have loaded it to the gills with citations.  This is not like other articles that have 50k of body text straight through (United States comes to mind).  The citations are necessary because the train wreck that preceded my drastic revision was a largely unsourced, disorganized pigpen of innuendo from disgruntled litigants.  Also, as I have already noted many times, I have taken great pains to make this article sensitive to a worldwide view by citing academic articles about the legal professions in Norway, Japan, Germany, France, Mexico, Brazil, the UK, Venezuela, and many other countries. 
--Coolcaesar 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest splitting the history section immediately would encourage contributions to both articles by more editors. No reason to leave all the work to one dedictated editor.  rewinn 06:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting out history

message: Rewinn made some edits to the terminology section recently.  While I largely agree that Rewinn's edits have clarified what was a confusing section, I still disagree regarding Rewinn's view that the term "lawyer" encompasses "judges" in American English, because as I understand it, American lawyers practice law and an American judge cannot practice law while on the bench.  For example, it is a high misdemeanor for a federal judge to practice law.  28 U.S.C. § 454.  Similarly, Canon 4G of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (which has been adopted in practically all states) states that "a judge shall not practice law."  Since Black's Law Dictionary defines a lawyer as "one who is licensed to practice law," I simply cannot see how Rewinn can reconcile that definition with the rule that a judge cannot practice law.  --Coolcaesar 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version fruitfully avoids the above issue altogether: In the United States of America, the term generally refers to attorneys who may or may not practice law.  While legally "attorney" may be distinguishable from "lawyer", in practical terms these are frequently used interchangably ... especially in lawyer jokes. rewinn 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Now that you point that out (and I am actually between depositions for a while so I have time to think things through for once), I realize you're right.  Your definition does gracefully sidestep the issue.  My mistake.  I'm glad we were able to resolve this. --Coolcaesar 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The terminology issue, revisited

message: Blawger made this edit  on 14 January 2007 which I reverted the next day.  Then Rewinn countermanded my revert.  I just caught this issue.
There are several problems with mentioning the trial lawyer mess.  First: Trial lawyer is a redirect to this page and I certainly don't have the time to research and draft an article on that complex topic when my hands are full with the mess in this article.  Second: The more correct term would be litigator.  It is true that some U.S. attorneys specialize in litigation and will rarely if ever negotiate a complex business transaction in a representative capacity (I suppose I fall into this category) while others specialize in transactional law and haven't seen a judge since they were sworn in as members of the bar.  Third: The term "trial lawyer" in American English carries a hairball of connotations that are inappropriate for an article trying to take a worldwide view.  Depending upon the context, the term "trial lawyer" can refer to any litigator, or to litigators who specialize in fighting cases all the way from the complaint through the end of trial, or who specialize in trying cases which less experienced attorneys have already litigated up to the brink of trial.  Or it can refer to plaintiffs' trial lawyers who specialize in playing the lottery by bringing frivolous cases against big corporations in the hope of finding the dumbest jury in the world that will seize the opportunity to screw the rich.  This last usage is the meaning of "trial lawyer" found among American ultraconservatives and tort reformers. Fourth: A "trial lawyer" does not have a de jure monopoly on trial practice like barristers.  Any properly licensed American attorney can theoretically litigate a case in any federal and state court in their state, although most transactional attorneys would refrain from taking direct responsibility for litigating a case because of the obvious risk that they may commit malpractice due to inexperience.  
So if no one refutes these points, I'm going to change the paragraph back to how it looked before Blawger touched it.  Again, I just don't think the rhetorical battle in the United States over the meaning of the term "trial lawyer" is relevant to an article trying to take a worldwide view. --Coolcaesar 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has refuted these points.  Anyway, I have just thought of a way to restate the sentence that is more accurate but preserves the link to trial lawyer.  --Coolcaesar 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another issue I just caught - we do not need to get the U.S. trial lawyer mess into this article 

message: A very well-written article with plenty of images and inline citations (plus, plus!). There are a few things that need to be fixed before I'll pass it as described below.
#I'd recommend that the lead be expanded, consider looking at WP:Lead for examples and instructions.
#Add wikilinks or further explain (the section is in parenthesis): bar (Terminology), clerks, scriveners, dichotomy (Responsibilities), appellate courts (Oral argument in the courts), dissertation, credentials, apprenticeships, hobby (Education), corporate executive, government administrator, investment banker, entrepreneur, journalist, India, German, France, magistrates (Common law/civil law), citizenship, unconstitutional (Mandatory licensing and membership in professional organizations), Communist (Who regulates lawyers), self-help books & anecdotes (Criticism of lawyers).
#Combine the first two sentences in the Oral argument in the courts section into the same paragraph, as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. This happens several more times in the article, make sure to fix them all. If you don't think that the statements correlate with each other than find more information to expand on the statement to develop a new paragraph.
#Likewise, a lot of the sections only have a few sentences making up a paragraph. Maybe consider merging some of the subsections together into one and then later make it a subsection when you have more information for expansion.
#In the Earning the right to practice law section, I think the italics should be removed from "anyone", as it may be deemed as POV.
#"Who regulates lawyers", see if you can come up with a better title for this section.
#Add a comma after "United States in the 1840s[117][118]" in the Criticism of lawyers section.
#Consider moving the history section up higher in the article.
#Move one of the images at the top down into the article, and see if you can add an image of a present-day lawyer "in action" in a court.
Add inline citations for:
#In some countries it is common or even required for students to earn another bachelor's degree at the same time.
#Depending upon the country, a typical class size could range from five students in a seminar to five hundred in a giant lecture room.
#However in the Scandinavian countries the situation for lawyers is similar to that of the common law countries in that they may easily change roles and arenas. (also remove however)
#In the English-speaking world, the largest mandatory professional association of lawyers is the State Bar of California, with 200,000 members.
#The largest voluntary professional association of lawyers in the English-speaking world is the American Bar Association.
Like I said, a good article, it just need some cleanup before I'll pass it. Please address all of the suggestions and consider crossing them off as you fix them to get a better view of your progress. I will leave this article on hold for seven days and then will fail it if the changes are not made. Let me know when you are done or if you have any questions on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that the person who actually wrote this thing can get to that.--Rmky87 00:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restated and sourced the line about Scandinavia.  As for the four other statements I will look out for sources but that might take a while.  --Coolcaesar 07:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have failed the article for now since it has passed the on hold period. Please address the issues and then renominate once you have completed them, or let me know and I'll look over the article again. Keep improving the article, and with a few dedicated editors, you should be able to bring this up to GA. --Nehrams2020 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a shame, because I like this article. It's very comprehensive, and informative. It tells people about a lot of different countries, and is probably a useful guide to school students who might be looking things up. I think it's all down to Coolcaesar, who's effort ought to be congratulated. It's surely at least an A already, so I'm changing that for a start. As for the GA criticisms above, I think yes, that the lead could be more of an overview - this can be difficult sometimes, but if you can get more main points in, that would look good. How about trimming the longer section headings down too? It'll look neater, and being concise sometimes helps people to read. Perhaps move one of those photos next to the intro down to another section and make the other bigger. I reckon it can get starred without too much trouble. Wikidea 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: Funny, I've read several of his letters and speeches in the original Latin and I don't remember that part.  Nothing came up on Google Books (and that should be an effective resource in this context since Google Books has a lot of old public domain works on classical stuff).  If anyone doesn't produce a citation soon for that assertion, or direct me to the work they're basing their assertion on (so I can draft the citation myself) I'm going to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cicero had a library? 

message: *Woe Unto You, Lawyers! - a classic, caustic look at the legal profession by a Yale University professor of law
Okay, while NOT logged in a minute ago (I just remembered to log in) I deleted the above link.  Here is why.  I looked at the Web site constitution.org and it has major problems.  First of all, it appears to be a one-person personal site masquerading as a "Constitution Society" site (with apparently only one member). Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of random information per official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Second, the document linked to appears to be a reproduction of a 1939 book, which implies it is NOT in the public domain under U.S. law.  And there is nothing on the constitution.org site indicating that the author or publisher has granted the Web site owner a license to reproduce the work.  Obviously, Wikipedia should not be contributing to vicarious copyright infringement (for which the penalties have become quite harsh under the DMCA and certain other recent laws).  --Coolcaesar 08:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this link has to go