The biggest thing is that people expect lawyers to be deep experts, and for the "justice" system to be just.
I've found that many lawyers have limited knowledge on the deep details or just can't spend the time to explore those defenses or novel defenses. They pretty much operate on a pattern of their past cases. For example, a vaccine injury lawyer doesn't want to look into the statistics of how common a rare injury when preceeded by a vaccine vs not. In a civil court where decisions are supposed to be based on "more likely than not" standard, showing the likelihood can make a huge impact. Or in another case the lawyer I talked to missed a couple of issues with police/prosecutor conduct which violated the rules of procedure, and missed a precedential ruling that would have been applicable to the case.
Client expectations can also be high regarding fairness in court (assuming litigation is potentially involved). Going back to the "more likely than not" standard, protection from abuses and red flag laws are abused. This is trivial to prove out statistically as the number of orders which are later reversed or not extended are grater than 51%, and that the overwhelming majority of the subjects they are served against have no history of abuse, evidence of abuse, nor did they abuse the person during or after the order (it's just a piece of paper afterall). Another example is when our rights were violated the lawyer we talked to said it was a violation but there's not a good case because the judges only care if there was significant financial or physical injury involved.
So doing things to manage client expectations could be good.
I haven't had many experiences with lawyers, thank God. But the ones I had have been mediocre. The whole system and experience has been a major let down from the stuff you're taught in school/society about justice, integrity, etc.
Another example is when our rights were violated the lawyer we talked to said it was a violation but there's not a good case because the judges only care if there was significant financial or physical injury involved.
It’s not that judges don’t care, it’s that courts are there to provide a remedy where one party has injured another. If there is no actual injury (damages in legal parlance), then the court has no power to provide a remedy.
Although just practically speaking oftentimes in these situations the expense of a lawsuit dramatically outweighs any potential compensation. Judges tend to view those cases as a waste of their time because the plaintiff is usually just trying to make a point or to punish the defendant rather than seeking meaningful compensation. It’s basically lighting a big pile of cash on fire to make someone feel better. Most judges believe the courts aren’t there to act as platform for grand standing or moralizing or punishing wrongdoers (at least in civil suits without punitive damages). The court system is already overloaded just dealing with more substantive cases where injured people need to be made whole in a significant way.
"It’s not that judges don’t care, it’s that courts are there to provide a remedy where one party has injured another. If there is no actual injury (damages in legal parlance), then the court has no power to provide a remedy."
The court could enjoin the state police from continuing their policy and practice of allowing troopers to knowingly hold an incorrect charge against someone, especially when that charge has restrictions in one's freedoms that the correct charge would not. And we would absolutely want some punitive damages for such brazen oppression and the extreme inconvenience that was force on us to modify our daily lives.
"The court system is already overloaded just dealing with more substantive cases"
If they don't have time to deal with rights violations, then they shouldn't have time to enforce the original (minor) offense either. Just drop the whole fucking case, that would have been the best thing for everyone, but they're too focused on winning at all costs.
Comments
The biggest thing is that people expect lawyers to be deep experts, and for the "justice" system to be just.
I've found that many lawyers have limited knowledge on the deep details or just can't spend the time to explore those defenses or novel defenses. They pretty much operate on a pattern of their past cases. For example, a vaccine injury lawyer doesn't want to look into the statistics of how common a rare injury when preceeded by a vaccine vs not. In a civil court where decisions are supposed to be based on "more likely than not" standard, showing the likelihood can make a huge impact. Or in another case the lawyer I talked to missed a couple of issues with police/prosecutor conduct which violated the rules of procedure, and missed a precedential ruling that would have been applicable to the case.
Client expectations can also be high regarding fairness in court (assuming litigation is potentially involved). Going back to the "more likely than not" standard, protection from abuses and red flag laws are abused. This is trivial to prove out statistically as the number of orders which are later reversed or not extended are grater than 51%, and that the overwhelming majority of the subjects they are served against have no history of abuse, evidence of abuse, nor did they abuse the person during or after the order (it's just a piece of paper afterall). Another example is when our rights were violated the lawyer we talked to said it was a violation but there's not a good case because the judges only care if there was significant financial or physical injury involved.
So doing things to manage client expectations could be good.
I haven't had many experiences with lawyers, thank God. But the ones I had have been mediocre. The whole system and experience has been a major let down from the stuff you're taught in school/society about justice, integrity, etc.
It’s not that judges don’t care, it’s that courts are there to provide a remedy where one party has injured another. If there is no actual injury (damages in legal parlance), then the court has no power to provide a remedy.
Although just practically speaking oftentimes in these situations the expense of a lawsuit dramatically outweighs any potential compensation. Judges tend to view those cases as a waste of their time because the plaintiff is usually just trying to make a point or to punish the defendant rather than seeking meaningful compensation. It’s basically lighting a big pile of cash on fire to make someone feel better. Most judges believe the courts aren’t there to act as platform for grand standing or moralizing or punishing wrongdoers (at least in civil suits without punitive damages). The court system is already overloaded just dealing with more substantive cases where injured people need to be made whole in a significant way.
"It’s not that judges don’t care, it’s that courts are there to provide a remedy where one party has injured another. If there is no actual injury (damages in legal parlance), then the court has no power to provide a remedy."
The court could enjoin the state police from continuing their policy and practice of allowing troopers to knowingly hold an incorrect charge against someone, especially when that charge has restrictions in one's freedoms that the correct charge would not. And we would absolutely want some punitive damages for such brazen oppression and the extreme inconvenience that was force on us to modify our daily lives.
"The court system is already overloaded just dealing with more substantive cases"
If they don't have time to deal with rights violations, then they shouldn't have time to enforce the original (minor) offense either. Just drop the whole fucking case, that would have been the best thing for everyone, but they're too focused on winning at all costs.
this is really helpful, and sorry to hear about your mediocre experiences.