OT: Boneyard Lawyers

[UCPharma11]

What does a pharmacist do that couldn't be replaced by machine learning and artificial intelligence?

Who do you sue when something goes wrong? Don't get me started with AI. That will be the demise our our existence. Terminator.

 

[UCPharma11]

Better, she has to refill the receipt rolls. She’ll never be out of a job because every customer receipt is 6 feet long!

She actually works for the company, not a store, but when I get my employee discount they always ask which store she works at so I just pick a random store.

Haha! I heard a rumor that they are thinking about buying another huge PBM. Crazy imo but with added debt cheap (basically 0% Int Rates) what could go wrong!

 

[OldBosd]

Who do you sue when something goes wrong? Don't get me started with AI. That will be the demise our our existence. Terminator.

That the rub. And back to lawyers.

We could have AI trucks and cut the number of overall fatalities in half and the lawyers will still be suing in the half that remain.

 

[the Q]

That the rub. And back to lawyers.

We could have AI trucks and cut the number of overall fatalities in half and the lawyers will still be suing in the half that remain.

Well then the question of robotic drivers is who is responsible?

The programmer?

The manufacturer?

Or the company using the service?

Insurance is also a nightmare

 

[Hurleyman216]

Yes, certainly they bill more than that an hour in private practice. I'm not that concerned about it except for the generally senselessness of it, and the fact that they will ask me to pay it when I am not working, so making $0 an hour. It is absolutely a first world problem of the highest order.

I don’t know, but if I were a lawyer I’d sue the state of Missouri. Isn’t that what you guys are good at?

 

[Improviser]

Well then the question of robotic drivers is who is responsible?

The programmer?

The manufacturer?

Or the company using the service?

Insurance is also a nightmare

Depends who did what?

The robot is still a robot and GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

If the programmer doesn't maintain the circuits to get the robot working properly, then he gets sued. I had an email dump where I kept getting emails dumping into my account because the program got corrupted. I had the tech fix it. Programs get corrupted through use.

The programmer has to check that the program is getting software updates, and he or she has to fix ongoing bugs. Notice that Microsoft and other programs have patches, but you have to make sure the patches don't have problems. Now, if the program crashes because of poor design, that too is a problem.

Manufacturer if it is a design defect. Like the Boeing 707 where they made the auto shutoff switch inaccessible, and could not be manually altered easily in flight by the pilot. Planes crashed because they made the manual shutoff optional and Boeing did not want to spend the money. It should have been included and not optional.

Company using the service: Maybe like the duckboats that operated in spite of known defects that the company deemed "minor." Like , don't expose the public to it.

I could have oversimplified all this or got the science wrong, so if any engineers on the Yard, please correct me.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Depends who did what?

The robot is still a robot and GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

If the programmer doesn't maintain the circuits to get the robot working properly, then he gets sued. I had an email dump where I kept getting emails dumping into my account because the program got corrupted. I had the tech fix it. Programs get corrupted through use.

The programmer has to check that the program is getting software updates, and he or she has to fix ongoing bugs. Notice that Microsoft and other programs have patches, but you have to make sure the patches don't have problems. Now, if the program crashes because of poor design, that too is a problem.

Manufacturer if it is a design defect. Like the Boeing 707 where they made the auto shutoff switch inaccessible, and could not be manually altered easily in flight by the pilot. Planes crashed because they made the manual shutoff optional and Boeing did not want to spend the money. It should have been included and not optional.

Company using the service: Maybe like the duckboats that operated in spite of known defects that the company deemed "minor." Like , don't expose the public to it.

I could have oversimplified all this or got the science wrong, so if any engineers on the Yard, please correct me.

No, this is pretty reasonable. The idea that with AI lawsuits when things go wrong will disappear is predictably illogical.

 

[BlueDogs]

Wouldn't normally post this during the season, but there isn't much of a season happening. I know there are lots of lawyers here, seemingly a disproportionate number. Plus a law student or two.

As I get older, I'm beginning to be annoyed by bar dues. I can bill my Mass bar dues to the company, but I have three inactive fees to pay as well. California is exorbitant at $183.40 and Missouri just doubled the inactive fee to $100. Kansas is a relative bargain at $65. California will let me "resign" and presumably not pay the fee (although they don't make that clear). They otherwise stop billing at the age of 70. Missouri has no way to resign or relinquish your license and charges you until you are 75! Neither has a "retired" status. Kansas lets me elect "Retired" status at age of 66. They explicitly say there is no fee. So I can look forward to paying most these fees while on Social Security. Wonderful. Massachusetts does have a retired status and doesn't say when it starts or whether you stop paying.

Have any of you tried to "resign" or "retire"? I really don't know what the impact of "resigning" in California would be while still being active in Massachusetts. I am wary of taking that step at this time. On the other hand, I have much better uses for the $283 I currently have due. I'd gladly donate it rather than give it to these extortionists. It certainly could become a couple of very nice bottles of Scotch.

Unless you’re actively practicing there, I would just retire. There is no real benefit and most jurisdictions allow you to reinstate, or waive in if it is an in-house situation as long as you are active and admitted in another state. It’s just about collecting dollars for the bar. It also lightens the CLE load a bit.

 

[August_West]

No, this is pretty reasonable. The idea that with AI lawsuits when things go wrong will disappear is predictably illogical.

Unless we have AI lawyers

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Unless you’re actively practicing there, I would just retire. There is no real benefit and most jurisdictions allow you to reinstate, or waive in if it is an in-house situation as long as you are active and admitted in another state. It’s just about collecting dollars for the bar. It also lightens the CLE load a bit.

You don’t have to do CLE if you’re inactive but not “resigned,” which I think is his dilemma.

 

[8893]

Unless we have AI lawyers

 

[BlueDogs]

You don’t have to do CLE if you’re inactive but not “resigned,” which I think is his dilemma.

You need to stay active in one state. CT CLE is considerably less onerous than many states. That was my main point.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Yeah I assumed he was staying active in MA.

I still can’t believe there are places where you have to do your CLE in person.

 

[BParkDog]

The bar dues are a complete scam. It’s ridiculous to have them in this and age. Same with the bar exam in general.

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

 

[NJHusky]

Well then the question of robotic drivers is who is responsible?

The programmer?

The manufacturer?

Or the company using the service?

Insurance is also a nightmare

All of them. Lawyers dream

 

[NJHusky]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

or just switch to the British System. Loosing party pays legal fees for the winner. But the trial attorney lobby would NEVER let that pass

 

[the Q]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

I was just talking to an attorney friend of mine about these bs nuisance suits about ada complaint websites and how they recycle clients and just go site to site.

It’s a joke that this is allowed, or even something worth a 5 figure settlement without a first offender warning

 

[the Q]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

I don’t disagree with your first concept for sure.

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam. Or maybe like the CPA exam process for accountants

 

[BlueDogs]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

They all suck until you need one. Then, they are your best friend. Funny how that works. Granted, there are some really crappy practitioners out there, but the good ones are worth every penny.

 

[BParkDog]

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam.

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

 

[BParkDog]

They all suck until you need one. Then, they are your best friend.

Nah, most of them still suck, even if they are good - they're pretentious, self-important, condescending, officious, incorrigible in all those, and, worst of all, prolix.

When you "need" a lawyer, that's like "needing" to have a bunch of fly grubs eat the dead flesh from between your radius and ulna so that the Doc can lay in the graft . . . you don't like the maggots any more than you did before the procedure, but you do appreciate them more, for a bit.

 

[Improviser]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

Interesting comments.

A written test is inherently "objective," unless somehow the grader knows you personally and has it in for you. In CT, there is a written test to be certified as a Workers' Compensation Specialist. It does not bar an attorney, not so designated, to practice in the Workers' Comp. field. It does give the successful candidate a leg up in advertising his expertise.

Yes, sometimes there are panels that can approve or disapprove someone as in the case of a doctoral candidate who writes a thesis and needs approval before the granting of a PHD. Maybe that is a good thing or maybe not.

A test properly constructed can show the competency and depth or lack of depth of the test taker for a specialized field.

Would anyone want a pharmacist who did not pass a comprehensive certification test dealing with understanding the chemical and molecular composition of a drug ? They are not going to get snowed by an attractive , ex cheerleader pharma rep. Unless, they got distracted and didn't check PDR or the pharma databases.

Or, an electrician that did not know the complexity of wiring , or of a circuit board, especially in an industrial setting? Improper wiring could lead to a fire or maybe an explosion. Yes, he will get OJT, but he has to know how to handle the circuitry and know how to read the manual. A comprehensive written test would no doubt give a hypothetical asking in a multiple choice question, what he would do.

This below applies to the non-lawyer posters and non-licensed posters:

Lots of do it yourselfers out there, and know it alls. Nothing like reading something on the Internet and thinking you know more than the licensed --------. Maybe, they have it all figured out and maybe without a license and a test, they wired their own houses, went to court pro se and whipped an attorney on the other side, or maybe they pulled out their infected tooth with a plyers and a shot of Scotch or Irish Whiskey.

If you are somebody's Cousin Vinny, good for you.

Good for you.

 

[NJHusky]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

I don't disagree...you make valid points. BUT...I would argue that there should be a practical element in the testing if you don't want an apprentice program...face it...none of us coming out of law school knew anything practical....it was all black letter law. The How To comes from being in a firm

 

[Improviser]

I don't disagree...you make valid points. BUT...I would argue that there should be a practical element in the testing if you don't want an apprentice program...face it...none of us coming out of law school knew anything practical....it was all black letter law. The How To comes from being in a firm

The only thing practical that I remember, was the occasional visiting trial lawyer who addressed the class and bragged about his courtroom triumphs. He said he would cross examine an opposing doctor whether he performed tests on the patient.. Those tests had nothing to do with the patient's condition, but he thought the jury would be look down on the doctor for missing important tests.

It seemed to me even then, that opposing counsel would ask his defense doctor why he did not perform that test. And, the doctor would say, "those tests are for the foot, not for the back(the body part injured in the accident)."

Then, the jury would probably believe nothing else the lecturing lawyer would say.

So yes, I learned practical advice. If you represent the plaintiff for a back injury, don't ask the defense's medical expert why he did not perform a test for a ruptured achilles.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah I assumed he was staying active in MA.

I still can’t believe there are places where you have to do your CLE in person.

MA has...wait for it...no CLE at all.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I don’t disagree with your first concept for sure.

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam. Or maybe like the CPA exam process for accountants

Based on my observations of online learning in the pandemic, this would fail miserably. In person is essential for law school.

 

[the Q]

Based on my observations of online learning in the pandemic, this would fail miserably. In person is essential for law school.

I disagree. Due to the Socratic method it would be the same.

I sat in the back of all my classes. Most of my classmates were on their fb pages or surfing the web anyway. At least at some point.

The lint mostly being, you rely on fading and absorbing the material (plus a horn book or two).

I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as say elementary school

 

[HuskyHawk]

I disagree. Due to the Socratic method it would be the same.

I sat in the back of all my classes. Most of my classmates were on their fb pages or surfing the web anyway. At least at some point.

The lint mostly being, you rely on fading and absorbing the material (plus a horn book or two).

I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as say elementary school

I think Socratic method doesn't work virtually. Obviously things were different when I started law school in 1991, we mostly took notes in notebooks. But there is also the discussions with other law students and even after class with teachers. I learned as much from bouncing things off my classmates as anywhere else.

I used to think that remote/online was likely the future, I think it has failed massively. Value is just barely above zero. If you're going to do it, don't bother hiring a faculty. The teacher adds very little. Just make it electronic book learning because I think that's all it is. My niece is a would be 1L this year who deferred. I absolutely agree that was the right call. I can't imagine being a 1L remotely.

 

[the Q]

I think Socratic method doesn't work virtually. Obviously things were different when I started law school in 1991, we mostly took notes in notebooks. But there is also the discussions with other law students and even after class with teachers. I learned as much from bouncing things off my classmates as anywhere else.

I used to think that remote/online was likely the future, I think it has failed massively. Value is just barely above zero. If you're going to do it, don't bother hiring a faculty. The teacher adds very little. Just make it electronic book learning because I think that's all it is. My niece is a would be 1L this year who deferred. I absolutely agree that was the right call. I can't imagine being a 1L remotely.

Being the jerky lawyer here..., I’ll just say it depends.

My learning style And personality type would’ve been fine.

You can also do study groups virtually.

But for me, something like math online was brutal (although my online math class had no actual “class “ sessions anyway. It was pace as you go).

It takes a little more focus and discipline to make that work, and I’m not sure it’s a bad thing for people who are going to be lawyers to be learning that.

 

[alphasigko]

Better Call Saul for additional advice on this