A debt collection law firm in Columbia,
Missouri hands out the “Shark of the Month” award for employee excellence. While
most lawyers try to evade this label, Faber and Brand, LLC has embraced the
designation.
Early
on in law school they explained to us that because attorneys are associated
with the most negative experiences in people’s lives such as, divorces,
personal injuries, property disputes, wrongful firings, personal and commercial
bankruptcies and criminal accusations, they are destined to own a negative
reputation.
“Most lawyers
have very good intentions,” Alex Edelman a University of Missouri—Kansas City (UMKC)
graduate explained. “The archetype of the $1,000-suit guy at a large firm is a
minority.” Edelman added. Most attorneys are at small practices. According to
the American Bar Association web site, a study from 2005 states that only 1% of
attorneys worked at a firm with over 100 lawyers while 76% worked at a firm of
two to five attorneys.
A
lawyer’s job is, “To protect people’s rights and be an asshole…for whoever
needs someone to be an asshole for them,” Tay Schumacher, a UMKC graduate exclaimed
curtly. With a job description like Schumacher’s, it’s no wonder that lawyers
are viewed so negatively.
A lawyer must be
an advocate, do the dirty work, to perform the duties that someone whose
emotions are involved is unable to do. But before a lawyer can advocate, she
must counsel.
“People just
want to be heard, someone to pay attention, to acknowledge that they have a
legitimate problem,” Stephanie Anderson, who graduated from UMKC in 2011 and
passed the bar the same year explained. The solution, “Depends on the client’s
goals, the client’s priorities,” she added. What may be important to one client
is not important to another. One client may prefer to have a judge or jury tell
them they’re right, and another just wants the problem to go away with as
little disturbance as possible, Anderson clarified. While the first client will
want to go to court, the second may prefer private negotiations.
Early on in law
school they told us that attorneys are gatekeepers of knowledge. Attorneys know
how to spot the issues and where to look for answers. Edelman explained that a
lawyer’s job is to perform the issue spotting that the public just isn’t
trained to do.
After the
important variables have been isolated, an attorney must determine the
appropriate action, the solution.
“People get so
involved in the emotional aspect and don’t know how to proceed,” so a lawyer
must, “get the problem to its basic core and go from there,” Anderson
testified. She added that many people do not understand the system and that
they immediately assume a lawsuit is the best solution, when a personalized
letter may be sufficient. Anderson asserted that part of an attorney’s power
just comes from awareness of certain resources.
“Lawyers help
the world go ‘round,” Chris Hawkins, who intends to work in estate planning
claimed. “People need help with estates, trusts, wills and its difficult stuff
to do,” Hawkins spoke thoughtfully. Hawkins described how he wants to help
people control how their assets are saved and distributed, that he wants to
help ensure that his future client’s desires are met even after that are
deceased. A client will come to Hawkins, explain to whom and when he wants to
pass his land, his money, his stocks, his record collection, his Ty Cobb rookie
card. Hawkins will be charged with finding the most appropriate method, but
there may not only be one answer.
Trusts and wills
can interact with each other with varying results, and there exist countless
options that I have never heard of. Hawkins’ specialized knowledge and research
capabilities will help him determine a proper course of action, to practice
appropriately, although there may be multiple acceptable solutions.
We use the term
practice to describe an attorney’s job, like they use the word practice in
medicine, Angela Dudley stated, adding that there’s no one right way to perform
lawyerly tasks. One attorney might omit an argument when another attorney
chooses to concentrate on it. Even another attorney might vary in how she makes
the same argument.
If nothing else
a lawyer brings an air of seriousness to a situation. Hiring a lawyer shows
that the client is taking action, Anderson added. “[Then,] it’s not just you;
it’s you and an attorney.” The attorney provides backup, the muscle and
sometimes the balance.
Lawyers are
necessary, Carl Scarborough explained discussing the often frowned-upon
criminal defense attorney. “Their role isn’t so much to get the guilty to run
free, but to have fairness in the system, to make sure it works properly.
“Before I looked down on them as trying to keep scum bags on the street, but
now I see the both sides of the argument.”
These attorneys
provide a power check to the prosecutor to prevent a drumhead court room, to
protect defendants from being railroaded. Thus, as Scarborough defended, an
attorney’s presence simply allows the adversarial system to work properly. Each
party needs a proponent or one party will be regularly ravaged.
However, many
people rightfully complain that lawyers overcomplicate the justice system.
“It’s upsetting
to me,” Schumacher stated solemnly, “when people think they know [their rights]
and they don’t. Maybe it’s our fault, the court’s fault for making things so
convoluted.”
Sarah Werner, a
UMKC grad, told an anecdote about several individuals, opposing sides from the
Universities of Missouri and Kansas, arguing over who had the first homecoming.
Each rival held early homecoming-like celebration and the issue is repeatedly
debated.
One party
claimed their school said the word “homecoming” first, while the other insisted
the word itself did not matter because their side held a homecoming-like
gathering that predated the word “homecoming.” Both claims to the invention are reasonable,
but both parties would have made the opposite argument were they on the
opposing side.
With attorneys
the debate keeps going around in a circle, until a judge or jury makes a
decision one way or the other. If both sides have legitimate arguments, then
one does not have to be right and the other wrong. Both could be right. Both could be wrong. The
solution is likely to be in the middle in the mess between facts and law and
not necessarily with one party or the other.
Catalina
Velarde, a UMKC Juris Doctorate stated sadly, “It kills me that sometimes whoever
arranges the words the prettiest wins.”
No comments:
Post a Comment