this post was submitted on
60 points (88% like it)
69 up votes 9 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 45 comments

[–]Eunomiac 213 points214 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Real lawyer here. In the olden days, or in England (same thing?), there were two types of lawyers. They were called "barristers" and "soliciters." Today, just to make this extra-special complicated (and because England is dangerously close to France), we started calling barristers "litigators." Television pretends that litigators are the ONLY type of lawyer, since they do all that fun courtroom drama: Litigators are the lawyers who stand up in court and argue with the judge (kind of like a soccer referree) and the jury (kind of like classmates who have the power to sentence you to death -- which is why you should be happy there's a soccer referree there to make sure they follow the rules). When most people think of lawyers, they're thinking of litigators. But litigators -- the lawyers who stand up in court -- don't even make up HALF of the lawyers out there.

So what do the OTHER lawyers do, the ones we used to call "solicitors"?

When your Mommy and Daddy die, possibly (but hopefully not!) painfully and tragically, all of their property -- their home and car, your bed and XBox, and all of their money, will have to go somewhere. Your Mommy and Daddy are smart, so they made a "will" with the help of a different kind of lawyer, one you never see on TV: a lawyer who never planned on seeing the inside of a courtroom, but instead became an expert on writing wills VERY carefully, so that your bratty brothers and sisters can't use their OWN lawyers to steal what your parents wanted you to have for yourself.

Whenever big companies meet each other and want to work together, they have a problem. Big companies are COMPLICATED. They have lots of people, lots of rules, and lots of laws they need to follow! So, they hire ARMIES of lawyers -- "corporate" lawyers -- to figure out all the terribly boring details, and write up all the terribly boring pieces of paper that make sure these complicated companies can work together without getting into trouble. These lawyers rarely go to court either, though they are among the most common lawyers in the "BigLaw" firms.

When a company runs out of money -- and that happens a lot now-a-days -- they need a different kind of lawyer: a "bankruptcy" lawyer. Long ago, smart (?) people decided that it was best to give companies a "get out of jail" card when they ran out of money, instead of forcing them to shut down and fire all their workers (many of them Mommies and Daddies themselves!). If a company owes five apples, but only has three, you need bankruptcy lawyers to figure out who gets the three apples, and who gets nothing. (Then, the people who get nothing call in the litigators to fight over that third apple in front of a judge---today, bankruptcy lawyers and litigators very often work hand-in-hand.)

Money is also very complicated, and lawyers are good at two things: making things less complicated, and making things MORE complicated. Both are useful, depending on what side you're on. If you don't have any apples, you'll want some lawyers to help you figure out how to make it less complicated to grow your own. But if you already own all the apples in your town, you'll want to hire lawyers who will make it MORE complicated for others to grow apples for themselves. We call these lawyers "finance" lawyers (they play on both sides).

The government needs money, too, or Afghanistan would invade us with camels and poppy seeds. They get this money from "taxes." Taxes are a very specific price everyone needs to pay, unless you have a very good team of "tax" lawyers, who are experts on how taxes work. Good tax lawyers can help big companies save one dollar for every single person on the entire planet, every year, without ever going to court. This is... not always a good thing.

Money isn't the only complicated thing, of course. The law itself -- believe it or not -- can be VERY complicated. If you want to send a big machine into space on a rocket, or build a railroad or a pipe that travels through many countries, you need to get permission from the people in charge. Lawyers help with that, and we call these lawyers "transportation and space" lawyers, which is pretty much the coolest name for a lawyer ever.

I am a lawyer who does two things: I'm a litigator, so I go to court and get to argue, but I'm also an "intellectual property" lawyer. IP lawyers work with programmers, engineers, inventors, authors, writers, artists and other creators of IDEAS. Ideas are very valuable, perhaps the most valuable resource we have, so we obviously want to encourage people to have ideas, and to share them with others. We also know that MONEY is a very good way to do this, and let's be honest with ourselves and admit that the people who come up with the good ideas should be first in line to get paid for them. IP lawyers do what they can to make sure that these people are rewarded for their inventions and ideas.

There is a problem here, though: Ideas are not like apples. If I take your apple, then you have one less apple. But, if I copy your idea, it's not like I've taken it from you and made you forget it. Unfortunately, many intellectual property lawyers like to pretend that ideas ARE like apples. They play make-believe, pretending that I can "steal" a thought right out of your head, robbing you of it forever! These lawyers are what I like to call, "wrong." Now, it IS important to make sure that real creators ARE rewarded for the things they create, or else we would have less creators. (Would YOU spend hours on a class project if you knew everyone else would copy your work before school in the morning?) If you invent a brand new rocket engine in your backyard, it would be TERRIBLE if your nosy neighbour took some pictures and sold them to someone else's rocket company! But, at the same time, it's wrong to pretend that taking pictures is the same as actually stealing your rocket. So, intellectual property lawyers have to be very careful, and make sure that we're protecting and encouraging inventors and innovators WITHOUT pretending that "taking a picture" is the same thing as "stealing."

Intellectual property lawyers come in three flavors. "Patent" lawyers protect inventions; they're the ones you want if you're a programmer or an engineer, as they'll secure your claim to your invention, and make sure you're compensated for it. "Copyright" lawyers protect the "expression" of your ideas -- you can't copyright an idea itself (this is why a billion movies about vampires are made every summer), but you can protect your personal EXPRESSION of that idea (which is why there is only one "Twilight" vampire movie, only one "Let The Right One In" vampire movie, and only one "30 Days Of Night" vampire movie, which was the best of the three, unless you count the Swedish version of the second... but I digress). The third type of intellectual property lawyer is a "trademark" lawyer, who protects the logos and identities of companies. Trademark lawyers protect McDonald's' golden arches, Microsoft's Windows flag logo, Apple's bitten-apple logo, and so on. Without Trademark lawyers, you'd have a hundred M"A"cDonald's wannabes confusing everybody with golden arches on every street corner.

In short, for every lawyer you hear about or see in court, there are a dozen lawyers behind the scenes doing both good and bad, but (usually) following the rules. And a great deal work very closely with engineers, programmers and other valuable contributors to society, protecting not so much their ideas, but at least one very important reason for them to bring those ideas into the light of day: We make sure they get the money they deserve. We swear an oath to do it as zealously as we can, because we know the lawyers on the other side swore the same oath. This is called the "adversarial system," which forces both sides to fight each other. Why do you want that? Because if both sides are zealously fighting for their clients, then everyone knows what everyone is doing, and why. Everybody's motives are known, which makes it easier for the judge to sift through the spin and (hopefully) figure out the truth! (The alternative is mediation, which requires trust -- and, since we all live in the real world, trust is ... impractical when you're fighting someone with conflicting interests, to say the least.)

[–]sheps 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow, thorough answer! I pitty the five year old who asks about lawyers and gets and answer including Vampires. Still, an upvote for you, Good Sir!

[–]Eunomiac 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks (and I figured I won the 5-year-old crowd over with the Twilight reference) ;)

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]OriginalStomper 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then you want to work with Art Dula.

[–]thegreedyturtle 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

These lawyers are what I like to call, "wrong."

Laughing my ass off.

[–]notahippie76 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Straight out of Monty Python.

[–]briarios 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm one of those lawyers who never goes to court. I guess I would fall into the category you describe as "corporate" lawyers, except that I don't describe myself that way. In my world, corporate lawyers deal with matters of forming, merging, selling and buying business organizations. I don't do much of that kind of work.

I deal almost exclusively with contract negotiations. I usually represent buyers in transactions where my clients (usu. big companies like banks) are purchasing products or services from other companies.

I describe myself as a "transactional" lawyer. Corporate lawyer doesn't really fit quite right, for the reason given above. It's a semantic distinction that doesn't matter to most people, but (as a lawyer) I like precision.

[–]Psychomat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the extra info. I like the term "transactional lawyer".

[–]ropers 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Money is also very complicated, and lawyers are good at two things: making things less complicated, and making things MORE complicated. Both are useful, depending on what side you're on. If you don't have any apples, you'll want some lawyers to help you figure out how to make it less complicated to grow your own. But if you already own all the apples in your town, you'll want to hire lawyers who will make it MORE complicated for others to grow apples for themselves.

And that's how software patents work.

[–]UnConeD 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

IP lawyers do what they can to make sure that these people are rewarded for their inventions and ideas. "Patent" lawyers protect inventions; they're the ones you want if you're a programmer or an engineer, as they'll secure your claim to your invention, and make sure you're compensated for it.

As a programmer and engineer, I give you a hearty fuck you. Your kind does nothing to ensure my kind is compensated fairly. All the money goes to lawyers and executives who couldn't execute an idea themselves if their life depended on it. Patents have fucked over the software industry over and over again and are not desired by the people who actually built it. They're only wanted by the MBA types who see themselves as indispensable and their workforce as interchangeable.

[–]Eunomiac 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with some of the points you've gone and buried under that shitpile of unfair generalizations, insults and hyperbolic rhetoric. It's just a shame I had to sift through the stink to find them.

Trying to explain what IP lawyers do at a five-year-old's reading level is to waltz across the reddit minefield, I know this, and I stand by my explanation. Taking a leap of faith that you are not, in fact, a five-year-old, I'll offer a little more:

First, software patent law is a mess. The law is still relatively young, and software blurs the lines between constitutional free expression and patents like nothing else (best exemplified by those DeCSS/HD DVD hex code t-shirts). To pretend that "my kind"---most of us hailing from tech backgrounds ourselves (engineer here)---is deliberately perpetuating bad law at your expense is a terribly unfair generalization at best (and at worst, it's an ignorant, insulting lie). If you would remove your tinfoil hat for but a moment, I promise you, we neither hold "screw the engineer" summits in rogue nations, nor cackle maniacally in shadowy corners while plotting the downfall of creative innovation.

Second, patents are the ONLY way to protect inventors. Without patents, society couldn't reward inventors, but only the people with the biggest assembly lines and espionage budgets. (Most of them are corporations. Rock, meet hard place.) I agree with you that there are plenty of problems with the current state of IP law. But you would throw the baby out with the bathwater, then fiddle while Rome burns.

Third, for executives to enter the picture at all, you had to agree to give over your creations to a corporation in exchange for a salary. This is the definition of "fair compensation," because you are being compensated in the manner you agreed to. If you believe you are worth more, then I recommend you quit your job and go into business for yourself. You will certainly enjoy the value of patents then (and, as they say, everybody hates lawyers... until they need one). Then, when you really grok the concept of "risk" inherent to entrepreneurship, when you start to miss your stable, risk-free, corporate salary, you might even begin to see the value of executives.

Lastly, some advice: Save any hearty fuck you's till the END of your argument; it's more likely to be read that way. I'm tempted to give you an example, but I think you get my point.

[–]zazengriffen 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that's not really the lawyer's fault though. The do all they can to ensure that the credit goes to the owner of the patent. Unfortunately for you, the inventor, you work for a big company, and that company owns the patent, and possibly you as well.

[–]away8907 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't blame IP lawyers. Blame the corporate lawyers who wrote the contract you signed upon employment. Or blame yourself for not reading it.

Simply -

Microsoft tells you to create Outlook. You do it with their resources, and are compensated for your time. They make money from your software, because they own it.

You create Minecraft in your basement on your own time. Nobody pays you to make it, but when you go to sell it (hopefully after consulting...wait for it... an IP lawyer!), those monies are ALL FOR YOU!

You wrote both programs. But you signed a contract giving ownership of the first to the executives of said company.

I can get into the whole "role of management vs workers" argument, but this is reddit, and alas, I have plans tonight. You get what I'm saying though?

[–]davidave 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i've always wondered where does the idea of a "swedish movie about a young boy who befriends a young girl who is also a vampire" ends and where the copyright for "let the right one" begins.

[–]ThatsSciencetastic 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a great question with no answer. In most cases like this there is no fine line between imitating and infringing... which is why there's so much work for lawyers.

[–]the_wizard 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even if there were a fine line, you would need a lawyer to tell you where it is.

[–]patpend 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Depends upon the lawyer. Depends upon the judge. Depends upon the jury. Depends upon how much money you want to spend. It shouldn't. But it does.

[–]special_j 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

is it bad that i'm a law student and i found this to be more helpful than information from my school's career center?

[–]sodhi 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Small (but somewhat crucial, if you ask me) correction;

Litigators are the lawyers who stand up in court and argue with the judge (kind of like a soccer referree) and the jury

Litigators do not argue WITH the judge and jury. This makes it sound like there are three parties in the case; this is not true. There is a defendant and a plaintiff/pursuer: Imagine you've gotten in a fight with your brother. Let's assume you've hit your brother. You both run to your mom, arguing your case.

Your brother being the one pursuing, as he is asking your mom to "do something" about this action.

You defending your case (i.e. "He hit me first").

Your mom - in this scenario - would be the judge.

The jury, in theory, could be a group of people from the neighborhood weighing in (exactly how much their word matters - to my knowledge - differs from country to country). In most countries, the jury - your neighbors - define the question of guilt: Has it been proven (i.e. has your brother argued his case THAT you hit him & that he did not hit you first).

I'm "merely" a lawstudent, so if any of this is incorrect according to Eunomiac, I'd go by his word.

[–]themysteriousx 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not sure a 5 year old would understand your explanation.

Describing it as arguing works fine given the level of the explanation.

[–]sodhi 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My point was not the wording 'argue' but rather WITH (as highlighted by caps). If anything, you argue in front of... never with.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Law student? I can see that.

[–]sodhi 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hahaha, I do apologize.

[–]mizike 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In general you're right, the parties argue with each other and the judge decides whose right, but in practice you do sometimes need to argue with the judge. You need to be extremely deferential and know how far you can push because if you go too far the judge will take your fucking head off, but it is necessary from time to time.

Just think about it, whenever something is successful on appeal it means that the trial judge fucked up in that they made an error of fact or law; if you're before the judge and realize that they're making an error you essentially have to call them on it because its far better for your client to have the error dealt with then and there as opposed to on appeal.

[–]sodhi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Good point! Even so, the main point is not to argue with the judge, but as you said, it can be part of the trial.

[–]Eunomiac 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Totally agree, and thank you for the (important!) correction. "Argue with" implies a back-and-forth, which is totally wrong, and is in fact a misconception that television often perpetrates (so emphasis again on "important!")

As you suggest in a later reply, "in front of" is the proper way to put it.

[–]themusicgod1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Patent" lawyers protect inventions; they're the ones you want if you're a programmer or an engineer,

Patent lawyers neither protect inventions nor in any way help programmers. They keep inventors from inventing or exploiting 98%+ of the time, and in the case of programmers keep programmers from writing useful programs more than not.

And Copyright isn't property at all, although in the US the line is blurred somewhat.

[–]Pardner 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absolutely fantastic; one of the best reddit posts I have seen in some time.

[–]hintss 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

1455 words, is that a record?

[–]BenHuge 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, but this is.

[–]Shinhan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel your first half was better at explaining the lawyering at the very basic level, than the second half. But still, very good explanation. Thanks.

[–]benraf -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My respect for IP lawyers just went way up.

[–]GenericNate 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lawyer here.

Life has lots of rules. Because life is complicated, the rules have to be complicated too, and there are a lot of them. Lawyers are trained to know what the rules are, and if they don't know their training means they can easily find out.

When people are thinking of doing something important (such as where they might make or lose a lot of money) they talk to a lawyer to make sure that they are not about to break a rule.

Or where you think someone has broken a rule, you can talk to a lawyer to make sure, and the lawyer can help you put things right. This might mean that the lawyer talks to the other person and threatens them so they make things right, or maybe the lawyer will sue the person on your behalf and the Court will decide who is right.

There are two main situations when you use a lawyer:

1) In advance, so that you do everything right and don't get into trouble (such as making sure that when you enter into a contract, the wording of the contract doesn't let the other person do something you don't want them to do), or

2) When you have a dispute, such as where someone is saying that you did something wrong, or where you think that someone has done something wrong to you.

[–]Eunomiac 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absolutely the best answer so far. Upvote with reckless abandon.

[–]Mathmagician 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A long, long time ago, when people didn't agree with each other, they could decide who was right by fighting about it. We don't do this anymore, so no you may not hit your sister.

Sometimes when people would fight things out, they were too afraid or bad at fighting to do it themselves. So, they could hire someone else to fight for them instead. They called them champions and would understand fighting very well.

You can think of a lawyer as a champion when people have to decide things in court. But, instead of knowing fighting, they know how the law works. The law is all the rules that we have to live by. You think we have a lot of rules in this house? Wait until you're Daddy's age.

There are so many laws, in fact, that lawyers usually choose one group of laws to know really well. Some of these lawyers do help other people sue each other (get back money or stuff that they believe others have taken from them).

Some other lawyers, like the ones that work with people in other jobs are trying to help them stay out of fights (going to court). They use their understanding of the laws and rules to help people like engineers avoid accidentally breaking the law. Like when you ask your older brother if it's okay to do something.

Lawyers are also good at writing and understanding papers such as contracts. Contracts are special promises that people have with each other that they want to have in writing so there is proof. Like when we agreed that if you do all your chores each week, you get an allowance. We could write all this down and have Mommy sign it so we both have to keep our end of the deal.

Lawyers do lots of things, but it's usually about people making and keeping promises to each other or following the law.

Also, I'm proud of you for using particularily in a sentence. Did you have any other questions about lawyers?

[–]Parasamgate 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A lawyer is someone whose job it is to protect you from others like him

(not sure if practicing my troll dad or just being honest)

[–]whytofly 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you were really five I would explain it like this:

You know when your sister blames you for knocking over the vase when she really did it?

The Judge would be the parent.

The Lawyer would be the person making the argument to the parent in place of the child. While you or your sister can both say what you think happened, having someone who understands how your parents think (aka: the law) will be able to persuade them to believe their side.

[–]Mathmagician -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why was this down voted?

While very simplified, it's an excellent starting point for what lawyers do.

[–]Eunomiac 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I didn't down-vote it, but I'd hazard a guess that it was because it didn't answer the question: The OP asked what lawyers do ASIDE from lawsuits, not how lawsuits work. (Though I agree that it's a really good analogy for litigation!)

[–]castillar 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The law is complicated, and can be really hard to understand. Plus, we are always changing the way we interpret or understand the laws that we already have, or making new laws that change the way things work. A lawyer's job is to understand the law to the best of his ability on behalf of his clients, and help them navigate through the legal system in all its many facets.

Criminal law is the kind that many people think of first with lawyers. Lawyers in criminal law are responsible for arguing in front of a judge on behalf of their clients, in the hopes that the judge (or jury) will find their arguments most compelling and decide in their favor. Lawyers for the defense have as their clients anyone who is accused of breaking a law; a defense attorney's job is to defend his client's actions under the law and make sure that the law is applied fairly to his client (for example, a defense attorney ensures that his client is not forced to make a confession, and that the police follow the law when looking for evidence of a crime). Lawyers for the prosecution, on the other hand, have a special client: the state and the people in it. The prosecution's job is to ensure the law is applied fairly and justly, and that people who break laws are punished appropriately, because that serves the best interest of their client (all of us).

Civil law is the kind you're likely thinking of with lawsuits. Under the law, you can accuse me of harming you in some way, and try to get me to give you something to make up for it. If what I did to you was illegal, your accusation falls under criminal law (I broke a law). If what I did wasn't illegal but still hurt you (for example, I damaged something that belonged to you and wouldn't pay you for it), it falls under civil law. Here again, the lawyer's job is the same, to try to help his client get what he feels is reasonable.

There are lots of other kinds of law, many of which don't involve dealing with courtrooms at all: real estate law, for example, deals with aspects of the law dealing with land purchases or buildings, tax law deals with interpreting tax codes and legal requirements for paying taxes, and so forth. There is even Constitutional law (something our current president specialized in), which deals with interpreting the laws written in our Constitution. That may seem simple, but a lot of a lawyer's job deals with figuring out how to interpret sentences like, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems obvious on first read, but what exactly does "well regulated Militia" really mean today? What do we mean by the word "infringed"? These are problems lawyers wrestle with all the time, which occasionally leads them to argue silly-sounding things like, "Well, it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is,' is."

You asked about lawyers that work with engineers and programmers: those are typically lawyers in intellectual property (IP) law. IP lawyers are skilled at helping companies identify and defend their right to control ideas and products they come up with, which includes lawyers that file lawsuits against companies or people that are copying or leaking your designs, but also lawyers that are good at filing patents, copyrights, and trademarks on ideas and designs so that you get legal protection for them.

Hope that helps!

[–]drboyd 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lawyers are professional arguers. "I'm tired of arguing with that asshole! Go finish him off for me, will ya'?"

[–]Tootsie258 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

real law student here. a lawyers job is to practice law, know the law, know the ins and outs, and relay, in simpler terms, the law to other people. since common law and/or civil law is so complicated and extensive for the everyday person to fully grasp, a lawyer is the middleman between that everyday person and the law. unfortunately, many MANY people in America do not know their legal rights in a given situation. Therefore, seek legal advice from someone who does know, and makes it their career to know. In other aspects, lawyers can represent you in court if you are suing someone. They speak for you, in terms of the law, and essentially play out your case. Most of the time, lawyers working in smaller firms have clients. These clients are what I previously referred to as "the everyday person". As for big corporations, lawyers that work for large businesses take care of any legal trouble that the business may encounter. For example, if you tried to sue Disney and claimed that you invented Mickey Mouse before Walt Disney, Disney would have about 1000 lawyers to settle out of court, keep stories out of the media for bad publicity, etc. This is obviously a very unrealistic example as probably no lawyer in the world would take your case. As for programmers, engineers, etc., those people have lawyers to protect their assets. i.e. their inventions, their workers, and essentially, their companies.

Hope this helps!

[–]Mathmagician 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Line

Breaks

[–]kudzukosh -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Say for example you are playing on a playground whose rules are so numerous and complex that they aren't very well understood by the typical playground guest. Eventually, two of the guests will come into conflict with one another over one or more of the rules. In this case, a person more familiar with the rules become necessary to each of the guests in conflict to gain a better understanding of the rules as they apply to their case. If necessary, their "rules expert" may represent the guests who are in conflict before an expert who has been elected as the ultimate authority on the rules.

Those who are experts in their knowledge of the playground rules are lawyers. Lawyers who have been elected as the ultimate authority on the playground rules are judges. Those who require the services a lawyer provides are their clients.

It is important to recognize that judges ARE lawyers and in many cases the rules are straight forward to lawyers and easy to understand. Because of this, in many situations that playground guests come into conflict, a lawyer can simply clarify the rules for a client and the matter will not go any further. In others they might work with an opposing client's lawyer to gain an agreement or a compromise about the rule or rules in question without taking the matter to a judge.

So, in any matter of conflict where the playground rules are involved, having an expert on the rules (a lawyer) just to talk to can be very helpful--they aren't just helpful for things that are being decided by a judge. In fact, most times can be even most effective by avoiding the need to argue your playground rules issue before a judge.

[–]Always_Sunny -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A lawyer is a blanket term that covers a large spectrum of jobs. Simply put, a lawyer's main job is to practice law. Some practice it in applications like lawsuits, others focus on things like patent law, copyright law, and the legal processes involved in managing finances and estates (to name a few). Law is fairly complex and rather hard to navigate, and that's why lawyers tend to be payed rather well.