Not quite; no non-litigant can put their name on a court paper without being duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction; I am aware of the services that will prepare an array of papers offshore .. how successful that will be remains to be seen. Frankly, much of that depends on whether lawyers elect to defend their turf or abandon it as so many other workers have. Personally, I would not farm out anything but the most routine work (which doesn't really need to be farmed out anyway) and I don't think any intelligent client should allow any part of their case to be offshored.
What I have "demonstrated" is very little. What I have stated is that lawyers are advocates for clients; that's the job. Personally, I spend most of my time chasing away meritless lawsuits, counseling clients who do not understand the law as it relates to their business and helping clients to build productive business relationships by negotiating contracts, licenses, etc. What I have found over the years is that engineers, MBAs, "C-level executives" and the various others who comprise the world of business stand on no better moral grounds than the lawyers they retain to do their bidding. But I will also tell you that, distasteful as I sometimes personally find it, there is absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with vigorous enforcement or prosecution of whatever rights one may have or be prospectively enbreastlted to. Many engineers and-or the firms that employ them are tirelessly engaged in the business of trying to obtain patent and trade secret protection for anything under the sun, regardless of how lacking in novelty or utility the thing may be. While I won't do it, I do not, per se, fault my colleagues who accept such engagements. After all, except in the instance of the clear case, it's not for the attorney to say what is or is not patentable or what consitutes an infringement. These are highly nuanced issues and in our system we have committed such matters to the discretion and judgment of the patent office and the courts. If you know anything at all about this kind of prosecution-litigation then you know that outcomes are not very predictable even in the hands of the most send and experienced pracbreastioners. The implication of that fact is that it is arguably a "wrong" for an attorney to decline to handle a matter which has any colorable merit .. and not the other way around.
If you don't like the system, take it up with the legislatures and administrative agencies. They make the rules.
I don't know what "misbehavior" you refer to. Again, personally I do not accept bad cases unless the client agrees to seek a fair settlement. But, also once again, if there is a colorable case for a given position, I see nothing morally wrong with advocating for it within the proper bounds of substantive and procedural law.
Engineering as a career. 3961Elizabeth In your legal practice, you may prefer not to employ legal aides at all. But those among your compebreastors who do, and who then outsource as much of that...
If your gripe is more generally that the world is unfair, I can only tell you that you are correct and that in due course you will more likely than not grow up and learn to make your peace with it.
I will not accept your premise that lawyers, in general, bear more of the blame for the "bad cases." It is simply an untutored view of the world. Clients come to lawyers, not the other way around. I trust I have already indicated that we DO bear the responsibility of declining engagements which would require us to advocate positions clearly contrary to law. You should also be aware that lawyers who fail to heed this responsibility are not uncommonly slapped silly by judges.
Liz
