Excuse me sir, don‘t wanna lowball but...

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I agree that you're either the type person who takes advantage of every little loophole or technicality to rationalize to yourself that what you are doing is ethical, or you don't, and for better or worse, whichever type person you are usually comes back around to you at some point.

But lawyers are sort of a special case because the way the courts are set up they are obligated to do their best to look for every little loophole in the law that will allow their client to walk free, regardless of whether their client actually did the crime they are accused of. I understand that it has to be that way for the justice system as a whole to work, but even though it's perfectly legal, and lawyers are required to do their best to accomplish it, I'll never accept that it's ethical to get a murderer or rapist off due to a technicality. That doesn't justify anyone cheating lawyers out of their due any more than cheating anyone else is OK, but it does sort of explain why many people believe that lawyers are among the least ethical amongst us so if you're going to cheat anyone, it's less bad to cheat another unethical person. That said, my best friend is an extremely conscientious lawyer and in all his personal dealings is as honest and dependable as anyone I've ever met, but he has taken cases and got defendants off when everyone in town, including him, knew his client was guilty. He doesn't like it but that's his job and he's sworn to give every client (some assigned to him by the court) the best defense possible and he takes that obligation seriously. Lawyers have to be concerned with dealing very precisely with what is legal and without any regard as to whether they personally believe it is also ethical and can only hope that the way the laws are written and how the jurors decide, what is determined to be legal also happens to be ethical in the majority of their cases. I'd have a tough time living with that obligation knowing that a pretty high percentage of my clients actually did the crime they were accused of and if left unpunished will soon victimize another innocent person. I guess that's a really long way of saying that I'm glad I'm not a lawyer....

I agree with everything you say especially the last line. Everyone who is self employed like me has been stiffed at one time or another. I have always found it curious that every one who stiffed me over the last 30 years was a lawyer but for one and he was a Member of Parliament. Draw your own conclusions

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I agree that you're either the type person who takes advantage of every little loophole or technicality to rationalize to yourself that what you are doing is ethical, or you don't, and for better or worse, whichever type person you are usually comes back around to you at some point.

But lawyers are sort of a special case because the way the courts are set up they are obligated to do their best to look for every little loophole in the law that will allow their client to walk free, regardless of whether their client actually did the crime they are accused of. I understand that it has to be that way for the justice system as a whole to work, but even though it's perfectly legal, and lawyers are required to do their best to accomplish it, I'll never accept that it's ethical to get a murderer or rapist off due to a technicality. That doesn't justify anyone cheating lawyers out of their due any more than cheating anyone else is OK, but it does sort of explain why many people believe that lawyers are among the least ethical amongst us so if you're going to cheat anyone, it's less bad to cheat another unethical person. That said, my best friend is an extremely conscientious lawyer and in all his personal dealings is as honest and dependable as anyone I've ever met, but he has taken cases and got defendants off when everyone in town, including him, knew his client was guilty. He doesn't like it but that's his job and he's sworn to give every client (some assigned to him by the court) the best defense possible and he takes that obligation seriously. Lawyers have to be concerned with dealing very precisely with what is legal and without any regard as to whether they personally believe it is also ethical and can only hope that the way the laws are written and how the jurors decide, what is determined to be legal also happens to be ethical in the majority of their cases. I'd have a tough time living with that obligation knowing that a pretty high percentage of my clients actually did the crime they were accused of and if left unpunished will soon victimize another innocent person. I guess that's a really long way of saying that I'm glad I'm not a lawyer....

Well, the case is different with a lawyer -- he is not representing the interests of the opposing side, but rather, of his client. It is when he acts in his own interests and contrary to the interests of his client that ethics break down. As to defending criminals -- even criminals have the right to a vigorous defense -- that's how our system works. But I would never do such work myself (I are a lawyer) -- too disgusting, but like cleaning sewers, it IS a job which needs to be done in a just society.

But even according to those rules, a lawyer is not supposed to lie or participate in lying or otherwise subvert the process. Believe it or not, most lawyers are pretty good about this, taking ethics seriously. A few bad apples give the whole profession a bad name.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, the case is different with a lawyer -- he is not representing the interests of the opposing side, but rather, of his client. It is when he acts in his own interests and contrary to the interests of his client that ethics break down. As to defending criminals -- even criminals have the right to a vigorous defense -- that's how our system works. But I would never do such work myself (I are a lawyer) -- too disgusting, but like cleaning sewers, it IS a job which needs to be done in a just society.

But even according to those rules, a lawyer is not supposed to lie or participate in lying or otherwise subvert the process. Believe it or not, most lawyers are pretty good about this, taking ethics seriously. A few bad apples give the whole profession a bad name.

I are one too. Too few of us have any sense of humor, particularly about ourselves, but the last line above causes me to test the humor/self depreciating side of all of us: It is the 99% who give the remaining 1% a bad name.

[kmacdonald]

Doctors are just as bad as lawyers. I have first hand knowledge of surgeons who had victims that would still be with us today if the surgeon wasn't negotiating with insurance companies for bigger reimbursements. The lawyers say there is nothing wrong with that. The DOJ didn't want to hear about it but a prominent newspaper is investigating and may do a story on it. If they do, then something will happen about it. If not, there will be many more victims.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I agree that you're either the type person who takes advantage of every little loophole or technicality to rationalize to yourself that what you are doing is ethical, or you don't, and for better or worse, whichever type person you are usually comes back around to you at some point.
.

Except a certain poster was not suggesting using a technicality or loophole. They were suggesting flat out fraudulent activity with the "assumption" that if you can get away with it, it's "legal, ethical and right".

Write it in the contract terms up front and I will support his actions. That's the whole point of writing down the contract, so you both know what the rules of the game are. But no sane broker is going to agree to his terms because it gives him license to skip out on a legitimately owed commission.

But as mentioned, it has a way of coming back around to bite them in the end. Of course unlike in movies, all the successful people I know treat people fairly, often to the point of giving up legitimate advantage if they feel it's the right thing to do. It may be a "social construct" but it's one that developed for a reason.