*
I’m a landlord, soon to be former landlord, who has run into some high-priced sharks representing tenants so as I’ve experienced their miserable lack of principle, character, and dignity first hand. (They check them at the door when they take the bar.) My only regret at leaving the business was never having had a lawyer apply for tenancy. I would have denied him for this alone and told him so, since as you say it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against them for that reason.
Q: What do you get when you lay all the country’s lawyers end to end?
A: A well-used highway.
Q: What do you throw a drowning lawyer?
A: His partner.
Q: What do you give a choking lawyer?
A: Dessert.
Replies
*
what a hoot--this story made my day. the laws of karma take their toll. . .
*
Andrew,
In this crazy lawsuit abusive society, fat people ARE protected. Some file under violation of their rights, some file under violation of ADA rules. Most win their suits, with the judges commenting on the protection afforded fat people by the constitution of the United States of America.
You people may wonder why I love the great state of Texas so much. We may be a little weird sometimes, but we have some great laws that work both sides of the street. One I really love (especially as an employer) is the fact that I can fire you for any reason whatsoever. I don't have to say a word, except "We don't need you anymore". I do not have to have a reason. I have had to fire people for stealing before, but this will open you up to a lawsuit so fast it will make your head spin. By just getting rid of the person for "whatever" reason, I can avoid any lawsuit. Where most employers screw up here is they tell people WHY they fired them. Most reasons end up being discriminatory, and that is illegal in the Federal system. Federal overrides state systems.
Another great law we have is called "Theft of Services". It protects merchants, but leaves the customers out in the cold on some occaisons. It is pretty cut and dry. If I perform a service (labor mostly, like auto repairs, construction work, cleaning your house, cooking for you, etc...) and you pay me with a check, you cannot cancel payment on the check. If you do, I can file charges and have you arrested. You now face criminal charges, and paying me is the least of your worries. Your only recourse for shoddy work is to take me to small claims court.
Because of our weird consumer laws, we (meaning the legitimate, honest business people) cannot express enough the importance of checking someone out before you hire them and let them start working on your house, car, etc... Once the work starts, you are pretty much stuck with it.
James DuHamel
*
Sorry Andrew, I once turned down a lawyer on a project. I don't know alot about the law and certainly know nothing about court case precedent and was afraid that I may not be able to legally turn down a client for thier occupation.
I bid the job at over twice its usual cost and of course never got the work.
I have a very close friend from college that is a lawyer. Her job has put her on the wrong side of what is right a couple of times and she has known it. But I do believe she is honest and has integrity and wishes to do the right thing. I would work for her in a second.
I do believe that without any information other than occupation, you are statistically more likely to get screwed by a lawyer than you are by a school teacher.
-Ryan
*
I'd work for a lawyer, but I'd be extra carefull about getting paid. - jb
*Hi Andrew,I was pretty sure you would weigh in. The difference between being fat and being a lawyer is that the latter is 100% a lifestyle choice. Being fat may or may not be. That's another argument though. The key thing here is that it's strictly an actuarial decision as far as I'm concerned. Just as a landlord must choose tennants wisely or wind up screwing the pooch, so must a builder choose clients wisely. On the whole, lawers would seem to me to be a high-risk group to build for.I too know some fine lawyers, but I disagree even with my family of lawyers about what needs protecting and what doesn't. I for one don't think the pro golfer (I forget his name now) with the bum leg that went to court to be able to use a golf cart in pro tournaments should have been granted that right. Sports is all about physical competition--survival of the fittest, etc. The ruling was ridiculous.Anyway, what goes around comes around.I think the legal system is out of whack because we are a society of cry-babies and whiners and we make more and more laws to try and sheild ourselves from every possible danger in the world, and then when those laws come back to bite us in the ass, we whine some more.Let's all just take a little responsibility for our own lives and see what happens. And don't get me started on the insurance flim-flam.Your
*
Andrew, I think that most if not all of the folks here recognise the difference between you and "the others." I have also met several lawyers who are ethical, generous, and nice. None of them are working AS lawyers. That says something, I think.
As to whether one should refuse a lawyer, I would ask how else can our society (and we as individuals) affect change? What mechanisms does the ordinary person have to express our dislike and distrust of what that (or any) profession has become? At least with politicians we can - theoretically if not practically - vote them out of office.
*
James,
Joseph Fusco
View Image
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*
But lawyers deserve to be discriminated against or, at least, some do. We had a spell of working for lawyers a few years ago and the only difficulty we had was with the criminal practice crowd. (I think they just hang out with the wrong sort of people) A couple of them seemed to assume at the beginning that we couldn't be trusted and our relationships deteriorated from there.
The lawyers we have worked for who were in any other practice were just ordinary folks, albeit with better negotiating skills than I have, but I can't hold that against them, can I?
*
Yep, the clerk of the local court. It would be odd for anyone to be more than a very occasional plaintiff.
*Crim. defense is tough ... if you lose, the client says why should I pay you, you're a lousy lawyer? If you get him off, he says why should i pay you, I was innocent? (From a friend who did it for a while.)"[L]awyers deserve to be discriminated against or, at least, some do." That's it, "some do." You gotta know something more, even your gut feeling talking to the prospective, before saying no. Otherwise you're just throwing away income and a possibly excellent source of references. For better or worse, lawyers tend to have more disposable income than most.Incidentally, I'm not naive -- I never mention I'm an attorney except in a relaxed social context. It can totally change their attitude for the worse. There's a major advantage: I can hide my profession ... the usual victims of discrimination can't hide their gender or race or disability or whatever (all of whom are "protected" classes)....
*Hey Steve,you are 100% right about that golfer.He just proved that golf is not a sport but a mere game.Any body that can't walk 18 holes should give up any pretense of being a professional athlete.( they should have to carry their own clubs also,and no towing them on those pansy little wheeled things)Next thing you know people will be saying bowlers and dart players are athletes.Here's a tip .... If you can drink beer while engaged in an game it probably ain't active enough to be called a sport.good luck,Stephen
*I think most states are basically "employment at will." It's nice for the employer I suppose, but many employees who are fired without any just cause get scr*wed by it, and where the firing violates anti-discrimination law the firing is something even worse. Fortunately for the employees, most employers are not terribly clever keeping their mouths shut!It is not safe to generalize too broadly. The court system does some great things, some terrible things ... It is not clear we have a "crazy lawsuit abusive society" either. The dramatic stories have blown this out of proportion when in fact the number of lawsuits has grown only in proportion to our population and economy. One O.J. is more important psychologically than a thousand ordinary cases. The reality of the system is really quite boring.
*
Joseph FuscoView Image"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*Would they know about any actions outside their local jurisdictions? Seems like some outfit would be tracking that kind of stuff. Could potentially be very important information. I think you're right, it would be odd for anyone to be more than an occasional plaintiff. JonC
*
"...and first we kill all the lawyers."
I can't remember where it's from and I probably mangled the quote but what the hell, you get the idea.
Seriously, from what I can tell, our two societies (I'm from Vancouver, Canada) brew fairly distinctively different lawyers. In the past five years I've worked for six different lawyers on nine seperate projects. I have never not been paid, or even paid late for that matter. They are demanding, yes, and thank god for that. They are educated and understand the difference between craftsmanship and crapsmanshit. They pay me well and expect that I deliver a quality job for that wage. Nothing more, nothing less. They are amoung the very few clients who treat me as a fellow professional. They have been a pleasure to work. Oh, and most understand that a few cases of beer every second Friday does wonders. Plus, my brother-in-law is a lawyer and he's representing me against my insurance company for the two car accidents I've had foisted upon in the last two months just for about 100 sg ft of patio and two bathroom fans, not a bad deal for me. And my wife works in a law firm. I find most of them to be honourable decent human beings that I wouldn't mind at spending an afternoon of golf and an evening of scotch with(which I have). Up here, lawyers seem like decent people.
Respectfully yours, Gregory D Esau
*
Joseph Fusco
View Image
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*Cybergreg
Joseph FuscoView Image"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*Re golf (not my favorite sport either) --I didn't follow the case really closely and currently lack the excellent research databases available to lawyers whose employers can afford them. I doubt you want a complete memorandum anyway! But a few salient points:The golfer is Casey Martin, he has great difficulty walking and will probably lose his leg in the next few years. He sued under the Americans with Diabilities Act to compel the PGA Tour to permit him to use a cart. Many golf competitions use carts, and in the one at issue carts were permitted in 2 of 3 phases of the contest. Now to prove an ADA claim, you basically have to show (1) you are a disabled person within the meaning of the act; (2) the defendant is subject to the Act's jurisdiction; (3) that the disability and requested accomodation do not concern an "essential function" of the job or activity.The PGA Tour conceded Martin was disabled (#1). Its main defense was that it did not operate a "place of public accomodation," that is, that it was a purely private organization (#2). The fallback argument was that walking the course was an essential part of golf (#3).The magistrate agreed Martin showed a probable chance of success in his lawsuit and issued a temporary injunction. After a full trial before a federal district judge (by and large, these judges are pretty decent), the PGA Tour lost on points 2 and 3. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.That's what was at issue, cut and dried: does the PGA Tour fall within the scope of the ADA, and is walking essential to golf? If the PGA couldn't prove that walking is essential with witnesses like Arnold Palmer, too bad. On the jurisdictional point, I'm not familiar enough with the Act to say how it should be interpreted.If it hasn't already, the appeals court should rule in the next year. Here is the PGA's take on the case. It's decently argued, but I think most of the arguments are throwaways. Certainly they are biased against admitting that they made a mistake, if a mistake it was.Finally, be very wary of any legal reporting in the media. Most of it is terrible. They're more likely to tell you what the witness was wearing that analyze what they said. Either reporters get swept up in popular passions or they really don't take the time to understand what they're reporting on. This stuff isn't rocket science.
*
Joseph
I love your quote from Plato...
cyber
*
Cyber, me too.
Joseph Fusco
View Image
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*No lawyer is going to go homeless because of the occasional rejection by a builder. What we need is public discourse -- and that's what I'm hoping to contribute to here.Frankly, I find most lawyers kinda boring. Not sharks at all. Most don't really do any litigation either.
*No. But you check with the bar for any ethical violations. I -think- the clerk might be able to list any liens the lawyer has taken out too -- I've never dealt with a local court.Best of all, just "interview" your client for a bit. Ask about past relationships with builders. If they start off telling you what crooks the other guys were, or implying that you're untrustworthy, or just seem weird, I'd start edging away.
*
Joseph FuscoView Image"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" -- great quote! often misunderstood. From Shakespeare's Henry the VI -- the speaker and his conspirator have just taken over the gov't ... and in order to consolidate control in their lawless coup d'etat they must kill off the very people who can stop them! i.e., lawyers = good, law & ordewr, etc. I'm not agreeing, it's just funny the quote has been inverted from its original meaning.
*
Joseph FuscoView Image"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -- Plato
*Andrew,I wasnt thinking of just lawyers. It just strikes me as kind of odd that in this new information age, I can request a credit report on a potential customer or renter and find out that they've had 2 late payments on their visa cards in the last 3 years, but I cant find out if they've been sued by 5 people or vice-versa in that same time period. Seems like the latter would be more of a matter of public record. That kind of info could have saved me alot of money as it turned out my renters had spent alot of time in court over the years.JonC
*The stuff is coming on line gradually, it's a matter of budgets and sophistication. The gov't is not always cutting-edge, you know. :)
*
Joseph
Ya, sad thing, isn't it. Here we are, some twenty-four hundred years later, and society still haven't learned much...
Andrew
Thanks for the history lesson.
cybergreg
*
Here I go again Andrew:
Does a "private country-club" have the right to accept petitioner members without regard to race, creed, social status or disability?
Given of course their capacity to pay the dues?
Sorry I'm not fluent in the legalize.
God help one of the CountryClub board of directors who has a frigging heart attack/stroke and needs assistance to walk to the stage and give out the purse, eh?
Golf is all about sponsorship and advertising exposure. Strong competitors who exhibit disabilities are not exactly what the marketeers of high profile professional sports deem a "good investment to revenue" when it comes to exacting sponsorship dollars from the major networks.
Tiger Woods was an exception. The race issue was a well calculated risk concerning the networks bottom line. And it was a profitable risk that paid off with the ahem of the American Public.
In my estimation, the PGA is guilty of "discrimination" in the case of Casey Martin much the same as they discriminated against black golfers in the past. The American public as a caring/aware society have matured in respect to race. Those old fokies who rule the PGA have not really learned their lesson. They have shifted their egotistical bullshit sense of superiority over to yet another class that they get jollies out of looking down on.
I'm white. Born in the mid-fifties and very aware of the attitudes of the generation who are now in their sixties and seventies. They still are pissed because of the Civil Rights Act. The majority of them feel as if they are wrong but don't have the balls to admit it and move on!!!
I say: as long as you can swing the club, what difference does it make how or by what means you get to where you "address the ball"?
I have yet to notice a PGA Pro run a Triathelon.
Have any of you?
Jeff
*Whether private groups are regulated is up to Congress, the Constitution controls only the actions of the gov't. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a big step towards private regulation, reaching restaurants, hotels, and other "private" behaviors that really were centers of public accommodation.... Some private clubs can still discriminate on race, however -- for example, certain golf clubs that make exceptions only for the likes of O.J. Simpson! -- and have successfully defended this right on First Amendment grounds (freedom to associate).The PGA authorities did come across as reactionaries. They said, this is just what we want to do. It's nice that the plaintiff happens to be an outstanding golfer -- even won the tournament in the midst of the litigation, with the entire country watching him. I wish Tiger Woods all the best, though even he failed to make me interested in golf...
*
I'm too short, fat, and clumsy to play pro basket ball. I am a pretty good at foul shots. I think I'll sue the NBA and force them to let me just stand at the foul line during the game and take foul shots. Getting the ball (read golf ball) in the hoop (read cup)is the real point of the game. All that passing and running (read walking to the next green) is just filler.
-Ryan
*
Basketball is VERY different. I like basketball! And, like I said, golfers a get to use carts most of the time. I never see TV coverage of them walking the course, doesn't seem anyone's interested in that...
Against the NBA, you'd lose. Golf is a closer Q. And you can't get the job if you're no good. You have to be able to play the game -- but what IS the game?
*
Andrew D.,
Distinguishing a good tenant from a bad one is about as easy as distinguishing an honest lawyer from a dishonest one. That characteristic is only distinguishable after you've suffered through the experience. It's safer to assume they're both rotten and proceed accordingly. This may seem rather callous and pessimistic but you only need to turn on the TV to be quickly disgusted with the whole lot of them.
It seems that people turn to attorneys when the primary characteristics (virtues) of good character, honesty, dignity, common sense, humility, shame, etc. have failed them. The legal profession is able to circumvent the lack of these qualities in their clients with an equivalent lack of their own. If the public holds the profession in contempt it is well deserved.
I'd have about as much pity for them as the I would for the police, who lament on a growing negative public perception of the profession. One only needs to contest a summons in municipal court to experience first-hand the lies which emanate from police testimony. Be fair in testimony and character and the fairness of the public is sure to follow.
Until that time I'll side with Shakespeare.
P.S. I think a good symbol for the Attorneys of America would be a picture of a serpent consuming it's tail.
*
But I'm can't defend "attorneys" -- I don't know what the mass of them are like, if such a thing can be said intelligently -- I'm criticizing bigotry! These are both the aspects of the same philosophy: individualism v. stereotyping.
Judging from the number of TV shows and number of plays with lawyers & trials, the public and the Bard are/were fascinated with the bar -- as individuals, some as villains, others heros.
*
That depends, are you a Lancaster, or a York? The War of the Roses was not a civil war or a rebellion in the modern sense. It was much closer to a hostile coprporate takeover, the "winners" aren't necessarily any better or worse than the "losers".
*
Nothing like a thread about lawyers to bring out the opinions. Leave poor Andrew alone, guys. He's done an admirable job of explaining without being defensive. Calling all lawyers dishonest is like calling all contractors thieves. Some are, some aren't and some are somewhere in between. Kinda like everyone else, except they are more boring.
SHG
*Oh, aren't we erudite! :)
*A good rule of thumb: It pays to read the book before talking about it ;-) (not that I've read it)Steve
*
I just saw a brief on the Today Show about a
lawyer in California who, upon informing his
builder that he was a lawyer, was told "Oh, we
don't sell to lawyers." Shortly thereafter he
received a refund of his deposit. So he sued. He
lost. Lawyers are not a protected class in
California.
Guess he better take a lesson from Andrew D. and
learn a more useful trade ;-)
*It's all part of the up and down of being a lawyer. On the one hand, most lawyers have a propensity to be jerks, too aggressive and threatening. (Andrew excepted) On the other hand, they have the ability to make someone's life miserable who deserves it when other people who get screwed can't afford (whether financially or emotionally) to do so.So is it better to keep the builder honest, or safeguard the builder from aggravation? SHG
*Hi SHG,I just found it amusing. Both of my parents and my older brother are lawyers. I wouldn't hesitate to build a house for them because I have a trust relationship with them, but lawyers as a whole, I would hesitate to get into a complex contract with. Is it wrong to avoid a whole class of clients based on a statistical probablity that they will cost you money? I know the insurance companies don't have any qualms about doing just that
*I'm a landlord, soon to be former landlord, who has run into some high-priced sharks representing tenants so as I've experienced their miserable lack of principle, character, and dignity first hand. (They check them at the door when they take the bar.) My only regret at leaving the business was never having had a lawyer apply for tenancy. I would have denied him for this alone and told him so, since as you say it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against them for that reason.Q: What do you get when you lay all the country's lawyers end to end?A: A well-used highway.Q: What do you throw a drowning lawyer?A: His partner.Q: What do you give a choking lawyer?A: Dessert.
*I got a real education a couple of years ago on Oregon Landlord Tenent law. Had to pay our renters $1500 and give them 4 months free rent just to be able to move into our own farmhouse. What really ticked me off was that they got free legal services (a specialist) while I had to pay for mine. Made the mistake of giving them advance notice informally, an act of kindness I thought. No good deed goes unpunished. This could start a whole new thread. Having been on the other side of the coin, trying to find housing for low income folks, I now understand why people will let servicable old houses rot to the ground before they'll rent them out.JonC
*I've toyed with the idea of buying property in the neighborhood and fixing it up a bit, renting it out to see what the market does, and selling. But I admit that landlord-tenant law gives me the willies and don't know for sure I can outsmart it. The key thing is good tenants, just like good clients.I don't favor bigotry -- singling a stranger out for different treatment based on an arbitrary characteristic. Some people of the greatest integrity I've ever known are lawyers, people who'd sooner slit their wrists that cheat someone. But a lot of lawyers are smart-asses, too, in the same vein as all the get-rich-quick folks who decide their wealth proves their superiority and build the McMansions to draw attention to themselves. I cringe when I read stories about chiseling lawyers, to think someone might associate me with them. Myself, I'm an attorney because i love the subject matter and the intellectual challenge, plus I hope to do some good with it in the long run. As one of those ethical lawyers.True, lawyers are not a protected class, no more than fat people; we can discriminate against them if we choose. But should we?
*Andrew, the answer is an unqualified "Yes!". It is exactly as Steve Zerby mentioned. That group has the propensity for filing suit. It is just not worth it.
*I'm kind of wondering if there isnt a more individual specific way of looking at this. If I can run a credit check and see how many late payments you've had over the last several years, is there someplace I can look and see how many lawsuits you've been embroiled in?JonC