Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (34450)	4/11/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Well, lawyers have to be ethical, we don't have a choice. The Bar Association is perfectly willing to pull my ticket if I screw up, so I do my best to adhere to the straight and narrow. What we call ethics is more stringent than you realize, the Code of Ethics is quite specific and rather lengthy. A retainer agreement must be in writing. One cannot share fees with a non-lawyer. One cannot solicit business from a non-client. False and misleading advertising are prohibited. One may not accept a case one thinks is unwarranted, nor take actions merely to vex and harass the other side, nor threaten the other side or its counsel with criminal action in order to obtain an advantage. One cannot represent two parties whose interests are adverse, even with disclosure. On the other hand, lawyers do have a lot of leeway, there is no requirement to be civil, or to only take cases that one believes are worthy. Lawyers have a lot of power, and power corrupts. Same with police, politicians, etc. I would never dream of allowing police to police themselves. We all have to watch each other all the time. There are elements, though, of a consensual nature, in this "self-policing," we have agreed that the other guy, at least, should adhere to the straight and narrow, so we have agreed what the straight and narrow is, at least.