The devil visited a prominent lawyer's office and made him an offer. "Want to make a deal? I'll increase your annual income ten-fold, your partners will all admire you, your clients will all love you, you'll get four months of vacation each year, you'll live to be a hundred and be virile, vigorous and potent until the day you die. All I require in return is that your wife and childrens souls all belong to me, to rot in hell for all eternity."
The lawyer looks at the devil for a minute and says "Okay, but what's the catch?"

Rich

What's the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The prostitute quits phucking you when you're dead!

The Definition of a "crying shame"= A bus load of lawyers going over a cliff with two empty seats!!

Two lawyers are walking down the street. They meet a beautiful blond with a fabulous body.
As they pass, one lawyer asks the other "Would you like to screw her ?"
The other lawyer says"Out of what?"

You're stranded on a desert island with Hitler, Atilla The Hun, and a lawyer. You have 2 rounds of ammuntion and your .357. What should you do.
!
!
!
!
!
...Shoot the lawyer twice.

What's the difference between a LIAR and a Lawyer?

!

!


!

!

The spelling!

people tend to laugh at and make jokes about lawyers until they really need one.

Ah yes... But if there were no lawyers, there would be no need for lawyers....

determining right and wrong have never been so irrelevant to found guilty VS innocent.

Rich

The problem with lawyer jokes is that lawyers don't think they're funny.



And no one else thinks they're jokes!

It's because 99.99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
It's because 99.99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Colin

now that is funny!

I heard one of the big research labs was replacing their white rats with lawyers in the test labs- three reasons- 1. they are a lower life form 2. the staff does not get emotionally attached to them 3. There is some shit even a rat won't do.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
It's because 99.99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Colin

Just like the gunsmiths!

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
It's because 99.99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Colin

Just like the gunsmiths!

You have no idea how much I've had to fix because of guys who thought they knew something about gunsmithing.

Of course you don't hear to many jokes about bad gunsmiths their reputation is what it is, and isn't based on the whole profession, but even the good lawyers have to take the bad rep. from their chosen profession.

Truth is I like my lawyer a lot, he's a good friend of mine, a Gun collector and avid hunter. He's been our family Lawyer for about 20 years now, and the best part is I've never paid him a penny, we always work in trade. I get what I need in legal representation and he gets custom gun work.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
It's because 99.99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Colin

Just like the gunsmiths!

You have no idea how much I've had to fix because of guys who thought they knew something about gunsmithing.

Of course you don't hear to many jokes about bad gunsmiths their reputation is what it is, and isn't based on the whole profession, but even the good lawyers have to take the bad rep. from their chosen profession.

Truth is I like my lawyer a lot, he's a good friend of mine, a Gun collector and avid hunter. He's been our family Lawyer for about 20 years now, and the best part is I've never paid him a penny, we always work in trade. I get what I need in legal representation and he gets custom gun work.

Colin

Don't let the tax lawyers hear about your bartering!

muck

Nothing illegal about bartering for services.

Colin

True and it continues to frustrate the hell out of the government trying to figure out a way to tax it.

The IRS already has determined that bartering is taxable. There are forms to be competed when a barter occurs. The value of the barter is considered taxable income at FMV.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. ...

John Adams

quote:

Originally posted by The Shottist:
The IRS already has determined that bartering is taxable. There are forms to be competed when a barter occurs. The value of the barter is considered taxable income at FMV.

Always make and even swap.
If necessary, bring along an envelope with a nice hallmark card inside.

quote:

You have no idea how much I've had to fix because of guys who thought they knew something about gunsmithing.

You have no idea how many guy's divorce decrees I have had to get fixed because they didn't use a lawyer. And I think a few of them were gunsmiths!!!

I got a divorce from my first wife. No lawyer. We went to this office and paid $43 for a simple no-fault divorce papers. Went to the courthouse, the judge said "Is this what both of you want? We said yes, and he banged the gavel down and said "Done!"
It took me almost two months to get her to move out though. She didn't want her folks to find out. Go figure...

Lawyers exist because they have complicated the legal system beyond the average persons ability to understand.

Rich

yup. Also just like the flood of incomprehensible laws and tax codes that spew out of congress without even a cursory reading.
"course most senators are lawyers. Don't know about the house.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

You have no idea how much I've had to fix because of guys who thought they knew something about gunsmithing.

You have no idea how many guys divorce decrees I have had to get fixed because they didn't use a lawyer. And I think a few of them were gunsmiths!!!

What guy in his right mind would go to a lawyer to get a divorce? He would be better off to kill her and feed her to the hogs. Just for reference, hogs can digest everything but the teeth and fingernails(that's important information).

Worst case scenario in non-death penalty states if you are caught is life in prison, so basically you loose all your stuff, only get to see your family on limited visitation, and every thing you make belongs to someone else....hmm not much different than divorce.

Do you know what the most stark difference between gunsmiths and lawyers is? ? ? ?

People go to see gunsmiths(even bad ones) because they like what gunsmiths do. People go see lawyers out of necessity.

Colin

CS,


that is just mean! Really funny, but what one would expect of someone who thinks they have a better idea of what to do with their hard earned money than than the monkey.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by jbderunz:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. ...

John Adams

Just remember that one lawyer in a small town will go broke.



Two lawyers can make a pretty good living.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:

quote:

Originally posted by jbderunz:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. ...

John Adams

Just remember that one lawyer in a small town will go broke.



Two lawyers can make a pretty good living.

I would tend to disagree with that. No all law work is litigation. Even in a small town there are small businesses that use lawyers, banks use lawyers, and people use lawyers, all for transactional type work, as well as consulting work.

As for the previous post about killing one's spouse instead of hiring a lawyer to handle a divorce, I don't find that even remotely funny.

How can lawyers be so abrasive when dealing with someone and so thin-skinned when a little humor is directed at them.

if it weren't for lawyers, all that "transactional" work would not require one.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
As for the previous post about killing one's spouse instead of hiring a lawyer to handle a divorce, I don't find that even remotely funny.

Of course you don't find it funny, you're a lawyer, there's more money to be made in divorce proceedings.

It's the same with victims in an accident, the live maimed ones are way better for civil suits than the dead ones. I'm sure nearly every ambulance chaser would agree.

quote:

if it weren't for lawyers, all that "transactional" work would not require one.

Rich

Rich,

There used to be a time when a mans word and his handshake meant something, but Lawyers have taken care of that problem for us.

Colin

Attorneys are the only prfession that I can think of who will take a job free (pro bono), with the full expectation of having the court to award fees paid by the opposition, or taken out of the spoils of the fiasco, and of course since judges are attorrneys too, they are in cahoots with the arrangment.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Attorneys are the only prfession that I can think of who will take a job free (pro bono), with the full expectation of having the court to award fees paid by the opposition, or taken out of the spoils of the fiasco, and of course since judges are attorrneys too, they are in cahoots with the arrangment.

KB

So are the politicians (most of which are lawyers) that write the laws.

I believe the fellow that didn't know the definition of "is" is a lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Attorneys are the only prfession that I can think of who will take a job free (pro bono), with the full expectation of having the court to award fees paid by the opposition, or taken out of the spoils of the fiasco, and of course since judges are attorrneys too, they are in cahoots with the arrangment.

KB

They don't take the job with the full expectation of working pro bono. Rather, most take the job because the law provides that in certain types of cases and for certain reasons a party may apply to the court for an award of attorney fees.

For example, Minnesota Statute 518.14 provides:

IN a proceeding under this chapter, the court shall award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on or contest the proceeding, provided it finds that:

1. the fees are necessary for the good faith assertion of the party's rights in the proceeding

2. the party from whom fees are sought has the money to pay them

3. the party to whom fees are awarded does not have the money to pay them

Nothing in this section prevents the court from awarding fees against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding . . . .


These laws were desinged for husbands who withdraw all of the couples money from the joint bank accounts, hire an attorney, and then file for divorce!!

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
if it weren't for lawyers, all that "transactional" work would not require one.

Rich

And the minute you get screwed becasue there was no transactional work you are going to be running to your lawyer, or, if you don't run to your lawyer first, and instead take matters into your own hands, you will then be running to your lawyer if you get caught and charged with one felony or another depending on what you did with the body.

I believe the next husband to do that will be the first one.

Pro Bono just means that a pro-fessional is going to stick his Bono up your exit pipe.

Laywers could not exist without dishonest people who keep them well paid.

Rich

Anyone heard this quote: "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers...".

Makes you wonder why they didn't say all the:

Milkmaids
Doctors
Indian Chiefs
Ice Cream Truck drivers
Ministers

This could get good. It has potential.

But first I want to say something nice on behalf of 22WRF, or at least on his profession. I once actually needed a lawyer, and spent good money to get a good one. He did his job, and IMO justice was served. Actually he was a very personable guy, and had a lot of practical and common sense. He was known to be one of the best, and not inexpensive, but worth every stinking nickle.

There have been times when I probably needed an attorney, but being hard headed, I didn't go that route. It's difficult to measure, but most likely it cost me in many ways that I don't even know.

So, when I make a joke or say something disparingly about attorneys, it's really with very mixed feelings, and mostly tongue-in-cheek.

It's best to live and behave in a manner so that you don't need one, but if you do, be grateful if you find one that can help.

I've interviewed several, in trying to deal with a divorce, and as I told the judge, in explaining why I was pro se, "well your honor everything was going well, but then he (or she) spoke."

The judge didn't crack a smile or laugh. Apparantly no sense of humor at all. The opposing attorney (pro bono) must have understood the humor, because he had a big smile.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Attorneys are the only prfession that I can think of who will take a job free (pro bono), with the full expectation of having the court to award fees paid by the opposition, or taken out of the spoils of the fiasco, and of course since judges are attorrneys too, they are in cahoots with the arrangment.

KB

They don't take the job with the full expectation of working pro bono. Rather, most take the job because the law provides that in certain types of cases and for certain reasons a party may apply to the court for an award of attorney fees.

For example, Minnesota Statute 518.14 provides:

IN a proceeding under this chapter, the court shall award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on or contest the proceeding, provided it finds that:

1. the fees are necessary for the good faith assertion of the party's rights in the proceeding

2. the party from whom fees are sought has the money to pay them

3. the party to whom fees are awarded does not have the money to pay them

Nothing in this section prevents the court from awarding fees against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding . . . .


These laws were desinged for husbands who withdraw all of the couples money from the joint bank accounts, hire an attorney, and then file for divorce!!

Here's what Alaska Statute says on the subject:
Sec. 25.24.140. Orders during action.
(a) During the pendency of the action, a spouse may, upon application and in appropriate circumstances, be awarded expenses, including
(1) attorney fees and costs that reasonably approximate the actual fees and costs required to prosecute or defend the action; in applying this paragraph, the court shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the award of attorney fees does not contribute to an unnecessary escalation in the litigation;


The law goes on with other "Orders during action" including occupancy of the home, maintenance money, child support, custody, etc.

One would think the intent was straight-forward, but actually this is a very in-depth issue. Alaska supreme court has actually ruled that the fees awarded to a pro bono attorney can be "approximated" and have no relation to actual. In fact the spouse (wife) can have a contract with her attorney which says that she will incurr no fees whatsoever. And the fees for her attorney, paid by the husband, can be awarded directly to the attorney, and they can be awarded after the final decree, which is definately not during the pendency of the action.

Quoting 22WRF: "They don't take the job with the full expectation of working pro bono."

Exactly - and the Supreme court in Alaska calls such an arrangment "Quasi-pro-bono". Now, ain't that phucking convenient? I suppose pro-bono in its actual definition ain't good enough, because it is strictly defined from the point of view of the recipient of the service, where quasi-pro-bono apparantly means from the point of view of the pfuckee. Somebody's gonna pay the pfuckor.

Talk about escallation of litigation? What affect does it have on a guy, if the Alaska court actually follows the statute, and awards fees "during the pendency of the action"? I'll tell you the affect it would have on me, which is settle the damn thing, regardless of the right or wrong of it, or the law, just run Forest RUN.

Just think about it. A guy could very likely be paying his own attorney big time, but also paying for his wife's attorney. Now that's justice, and a major motivator for settlement.

And guess what folks - the court could award more fees yet, (punative or coercive) if the guy didn't cave and run, due to the part about unnecessary prolonging the proceedings or litigation. It's real, I'm serious.

If the judge deems that you could afford an attorney, representing yourself pro se, could be considered, yet unspoken, as contributing to unneccessary litigation, with consequenses. It's very strange.

It's not a good idea to piss off a judge with a bad attorney joke.

I could go on, and might yet, but I've probably said enough for now.

KB

So; a Pro-Bono Lawyer is an oxymoron like conservative democrat?

Friggin' Lawyers...

Rich

Friggin people who think they shouldn't have to pay for their own legal services. . . . . . .

Kevin

"Just think about it. A guy could very likely be paying his own attorney big time, but also paying for his wife's attorney. Now that's justice, and a major motivator for settlement."

So, a gal marries a guy and stays home with the kids and gives up her career to do so, and has no money of her own, and all of a sudden the guy gets caught chasing skirts, and she shouldn't be able to get some money to protect her rights? Who do you want to pay for that? The lawyers? The taxpayers? Who? Or maybe the little wife shouldn't be entitled to any legal representation at all. And what if the tide is turned and the wife is making all of the dough and the husband was in tough financial shape? Maybe he shouldn't be entitled to ask the court to award him attorney fees. Or in that case should the taxpayers or the attorney's pay for that?

I will go back to my original assertion. A lot of guys talk smart and think they are cute when they make jokes about attorneys. But when they get arrested, or get filed on for divorce, or when they get injured in an accident, or when they need a will, or when their business needs some transactional work, all of a sudden, when its their rights they are talking about, the tune changes real fast.

Well it was fun exchanging light jabs with you 22WRF, but now the thread has taken a more serious turn, so you fellas enjoy. It's no longer fun for me, I'm outta here.

Colin

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
Well it was fun exchanging light jabs with you 22WRF, but --- It's no longer fun for me, I'm outta here. Colin

What? You think "Everything was going well, then he spoke" isn't funny either?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Friggin people who think they shouldn't have to pay for their own legal services. . . . . . .

Kevin

"Just think about it. A guy could very likely be paying his own attorney big time, but also paying for his wife's attorney. Now that's justice, and a major motivator for settlement."

So, a gal marries a guy and stays home with the kids ----

Of course your scenerio is difficult to argue with. We can dream up circumstances that fit our point all day.

So, a guy decides he needs a divorce. It's simple, right? Just file papers with the court, and work out the details with the wife. Then he discovers, the hard way, that there are women's advocacy groups aplenty, mostly grant and taxpayer funded, populated with zealots, who coach his wife about many things, including abuse and DV. In some cases she can participate in the taxpayer funded (partially) pro bono program, where attorneys sign up, as I understand it as part of maintaining their license in some states.

So, she gets a free attorney. Even though he readily signs a contract to serve free to her, he has full intent of getting paid by the husband, and he knows in advance that the court will provide.

Now this "simple" divorce has changed to where the husband actually needs an attorney, and the shit starts, and he realizes that he was never in charge of this situation all along. He was delusional about it, and now it's completely out of his hands, and up to people he absolutely wants nothing to do with, most of whom would literally castrate or incarcerate him with no remorse, entirely based on attitude, predisposition and hearsay. Certainly his home, credit record, retirement plans, children, and clean record, right to own guns, even his health, etc. are in jeaprody. They can take it all away, and if they can, they will.

Suddenly, a guy can find himself in a situation that has to be thwarted by all legal means.

It's a mean situation, which I'm glad I don't have to deal with regularly.


Quote:
"So, a gal marries a guy and stays home with the kids and gives up her career to do so, and has no money of her own,"

Most guys have no idea of what's out there - lurking. The women's advocacy group that I encountered would classify such a marriage, as described above, as inherently abusive, and coach the women that she should abandon the mariage. They refer to it as an imbalance of power.

Aparantly, they believe a woman is better off as a single parent, than in a marriage like that, even though she willingly consented to it, and thought it ok before the coaching. I have read their literature, and listened to their talk. Smoothe talk it is. I still don't understand just how they view the means to "balance power", or even how to determine when it is actually "balanced", in a marriage, or how to maintain "balance of power". One thing is clear - to these zealots it's all about power and control, and has practically nothing to do with marital harmony or healthy marital relations. It's about abandonment of marriage, and take everything the court will provide in the departure.

Need I say more? If you are really interested in the topic, google it. there's lots of info, mostly designed to coach women. Read the words carefully, because they are skillfully crafted, and seem reasonable, and benevolent. But drill down, and think about what is really happening in the real world of domestic relations and divorce, etc.

KB

1. don't do things that get you arrested

2. accident, let your insurance company deal with that

3. marry a good woman, and stay with her.

If every person in America knew, understood, and followed the Ten Commandments lawyers would be an endangered species in a generation.

Colin,

Don't wimp out on me man!

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
1. don't do things that get you arrested
2. accident, let your insurance company deal with that
3. marry a good woman, and stay with her.
If every person in America knew, understood, and followed the Ten Commandments lawyers would be an endangered species in a generation.
Rich

That's why I try to avoid getting into a rip about this. Words are so easy - to dismiss what I say - based on an idealistic view of things.

"If" is such an enormous word, so easily thrown around, and used to diffuse reality, maintain denial, etc.

I think your advice may be appropriate for a young and naive person, or perhaps a person who lives a sheltered life, but IMO, just as an example without getting too complicated, regarding the issue of "arrested" for the sake of full knowledge, should include a study of the legal concept of Probable Cause. It's a foundation constitutional protection, well defined - or at least one would think by now it should be well defined. All I'm willing to say is that in the context of my previous post - it's been redefined, maybe (depending on one's view) to serve a predisposed and malevolent zealot agenda.

It's a pendulum swinging thing, with momentum given by cases like that of O.J., for example.

So, in a very simplistic, utopian and generic way, what you said is true, but in real world it's deficient.

At least four professions have been with us since the beginnings of civilization, and will continue until there's nothing left but coyotes and wild hogs, alligators and pythons, armidillos and fire ants.

Prostitution, Shamanism (preachers), Politicians and Lawyers.

KB

That's not fair. You get to fuck only one whilst the other three are fucking you.

One of my dad's sayings was- One lawyer in a town will starve to death but when the second one moves in they both get rich.

Do you know what happens when a lawyer takes Viagra?

.....He gets taller.

I might have simplified things a bit for some here, but I turned sixty-one in September and I have never been arrested.

Rich

taller, eh? That's funny