Maybe this is common knowledge and I’ve just been doing this too long to think normally, but the people I represent or mediate for rarely recognize that they have the inability to think logically or rationally when they are emotional. I’ve always heard that some people are emotional thinkers and some are logical thinkers. Men, especially, believe that they are more logical by nature than women. This is absolutely not true, based on my experience.

Generally speaking, people do not visit lawyers when things are going well for them. Usually, they need a lawyer but they certainly don’t want to need one. So, keep that in mind as you read this response. My job is never warm and fuzzy. You also have to remember that every area of law is different. In family law, every case I have is controlled by the parties’ emotions. ALL of them. Not just women. As their attorney and as a mediator, I see just how ugly human nature can truly be. People that are normally rational and decent human beings are anything but that when they are fighting for everything in their life that matters- kids, financial security, and sometimes their freedom. And their opponent has a painfully familiar face- that person was once their best friend, their partner, someone they trusted enough with their vulnerability. With very few exceptions, the parties are simply unable to see anything but their own pain. They want revenge, and they want their opponent to hurt worse than they do. I know they love their children. They would die for them. But throw those parents in the ring and what they insist “is best for the kids”, usually is not. They are too wrapped up in their own pain to truly put that child first. And try convincing them that the other parent wants the best for the kids. Ain’t gonna happen.

From an objective point of view (from the perspective of the judge, the lawyers, the mediator … the law), the best result is usually pretty clear. I can’t tell you how many times opposing counsel and I agree about what the outcome should be. We see the solution pretty quickly. But our clients do not. Consequently, they spend a ridiculous amount of money fighting, rather than solving the problem to the best of their abilities. I honestly spend WAY more time arguing with my client than I do opposing. I’m constantly trying to get them to see reason. So, people think attorneys are heartless and cold. But that’s simply us applying logic, while our clients are reacting emotionally. Someone has to be rational, reasonable, and solution-oriented. My client can’t be, so I have to. The result is usually that I get blamed for being the asshole. But because I DO care, I’ll take the hit if that means their life and family (especially their kids) don’t have to.

By my estimation, 95% of human beings are emotional thinkers by nature. Their immediate response to stimuli is based in emotion. Not logic. It is literally impossible to apply logic when you’re emotional. And, what is the single most controlling of your five senses? A fetus kicks and reacts when mom is upset or excited, right? The baby cannot see, hear, taste or smell anything. Yet, they can feel something when their mother is emotional. Humans experience emotion before any sense. So, of course we are going to rely on that strong sense way more than any other. It’s normal.

Applying logic is not in our nature when faced with a traumatic event. It’s okay. That makes us human. So, please, please listen to the person or people that are not driven by pain or concern for your feelings. We care about you, but we cannot be emotionally vested in the outcome. If your attorney fights like they would for their own family (I get asked to fight as if this were my son/ life in just about every case), they cannot advocate for you successfully in a court of law. We spent three years in law school learning one thing- to think with logic. It screws us up. Thus, we are the sickest (addiction, depression, anxiety, suicide, divorce) professionals on the planet. So, please do not take anything I’ve said here as criticism. You don’t want to see the world as I do.

Thanks for the request! Man, you made me think on this one. Happy holidays!

The vast majority of human beings are good, kind, hard-working, law-abiding, decent, loving and possessed of common sense. They understand their place in the world and how they fit in. They are mature and responsible adults. They might hire a lawyer for a real estate transaction, business contract, or to have a will drawn up. We lawyers don’t see these humans very often in a professional context, so take what we say with a grain of salt.

In over 30 years, I’ve lost track of the number of people I’ve represented, interviewed, cross-examined, taught or questioned. It’s hard to come up with truisms, but these are characteristics common to the best and worst humans alike.

1. It is vitally important to them to maintain a positive self-image. This must be tied to survival because people will lie, downplay their own culpability, cast blame, engage in self-delusion, and risk everything rather than admit to themselves they screwed up. There’s a great book titled Leadership and Self-Deception on this point;
2. They believe they know more than they do. I tend to view this as a defense mechanism. Helps me navigate social media without developing anger management issues. Also, see #3;
3. They don’t realize thinking and communicating are learned skills that take a lifetime to master. Neither come naturally. Most humans are terrible at both. If critical thinking and conflict resolution were taught in pre-school, people would be happier and the world would be a much safer place;
4. Their decisions have far less to do with individualism and far more to do with herd mentality. Humans are social creatures. They crave belonging and want to fit in with groups of similarly-situated humans. Many long to be told what to do, want to be led and are eager to follow. This myopic course of non-action requires little effort, and has the added benefit of absolution from responsibility when things go wrong. Win-win;
5. Criminals expect to be punished for their crimes. In their world, when someone runs afoul of authority, that’s what’s supposed to happen. It’s not about rebels bucking the system or a lack of rehabilitative opportunities. More often, criminals are humans who were never invited (for whatever reason) or believe they aren’t good enough to inhabit the law and order world they deeply respect;
6. They view their own personal experiences as universal. I mean, if it happened one way for me, it’s bound to happen the same way for everybody, right? Wrong. Facial expressions and opposable thumbs are universal. Experiences are as unique as snowflakes. Advocating for laws meant to apply to everyone across a broad spectrum based on one experience you had one time, is dangerous myopia;
7. They lack personal insight. See #1 & #4. If humans don’t ask themselves why, they never have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and grow. Humans with healthy self-esteem shouldn’t be afraid to take a hard look, but they are. There’s a reason Astronomy was the first formally taught science and Psychology/Sociology the last;
8. Human actions are motivated by self-interest, no matter the stated belief system. See #4. Altruism is not automatic. People who stand on principle and are willing to defy the herd are rare, although these are the characters we revere in myth and legend. Go figure. In the JAG Corps we had a saying, “People want justice for everyone else, but mercy for themselves.” Humans want laws based on fairness and equity for all, unless it’s their case, and then they want an exception;
9. They are way more predictable than they care to acknowledge. I try not to finish my prospective client’s sentences when they are reciting the same “we got drunk/wasted, someone’s apartment, I don’t really remember, then the police showed up” story. Perspective is everything. The inability of humans to view their situations in the context of a citizen of the state or federal government is a major source of pain and frustration for a lot of otherwise nice people. It’s nothing personal. Institutions aren’t about humans, they treat everyone with equal disdain. See #7;
10. They are masters of subtext. It’s never about what it’s about with humans. It may sound like the issue is the money, the children, or the house. Easy enough to solve. Not so much when the issues turn out to be self-esteem, identity, and emotional security. A general once said “Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking, how am I going to be an asshole today?” I told my 68 yo office mate at The Army War College. He said “No, but some people do wake up in the morning thinking, how am I going to use someone to my advantage today?” Sad, but true. Experienced lawyers know they can’t help these humans. No one can.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this question. I like using the term “human beings” instead of “people” because the term places the focus on science and not on emotion. It’s interesting going through these traits which ones are survival enhancing, while others are counter-intuitive. If human beings weren’t so creative, we would have killed each other to extinction long before now. We are lucky to be alive! It’s all downhill from here.

I can’t speak directly as an attorney Neil but I would venture to say as investigators have similar interaction it, depends on the attorney. They are all going to privy to the secrets, the misery etc but what they ultimately learn about people will depend on their perspective. Young criminal lawyers seem to think every client they represent is innocent, for example. More experienced criminal lawyers have spent years of having most of their clients lie to them and tend to be somewhat more jaded. SO in essence I think it is going to be varied, depending on the lawyer. It’s like seeing a car accident you can have 5 people see it from different angles and get a different perspective from each one.

As an analogy, years ago I was on my way to lunch with as it would happen 3 lawyers. We all worked in the same building. A kid about 16 was on a bike. Another kid about 18 was in a camaro, going way too fast and almost hit the kid on the bike. The kid in the camaro jumped out of the car and started yelling at the kid on the bike. The kid on the bike was a lot bigger than the kid in the camaro but the kid in the camaro was a couple of years older, which was probably a little intimidating. Camaro starts screaming, even though it was his fault. The bike kid hesitated at first, then walked up to the camaro kid looked down at him and told him it was his fault and he was driving like an asshole. Camaro backed down. He said he was sorry put his head down and walked back to the car.

One lawyer said the car was clearly at fault. (looking at it from his experience personal injury law), another said the kid wont he bike needed to be more careful and how worried he was about his kids on bikes with all the maniac drivers. The other lawyer didn’t see it and didn’t care he was hungry. The bike was about 10 feet from our car and the big kid walked back to it and he happened to look at me. In my head if the fight had happened and went bad for the kid on the bike, I was going to step in and stop it.

I looked at the kid and said “Good for you, kid” he smiled at me and nodded. All four of us took different things from the experience.

I think the purpose of your question is you are looking for insight into human behavior. There is, I have found a type of person who might bring you closer to the truth. People that have spent time in violent professions and people that have spent time dealing with the worst humanity has to offer. But that is only part of the criteria. the other part is that they learned from the experiences. You could be a cop and go into the profession with a liberal or a conservative bias and spend the entire career in confirmation bias and not actually learning.

I have a friend and colleague Marc MacYoung, you can find him on facebook, kinda looks like Bob Seger. Mac is the Albert Einstein of violence, the way he can articulate things. Here’s an interesting thing I found. I have another friend and colleague, he was SEAL in the gulf for 15 years. The two of them have vastly different backgrounds (except for the commonality of violence) politics, grew u in different geographies. When you ask them questions however, you will very often get the same answer. The reason that is, is they share knowledge of humans at their worst and best.

There are a lot of people like that, I have a good deal of similar experience and I have found that more often than not we all agree. I believe that is because you have the opportunity being your life has taken that path, you get to see the truth.

It is why I believe the crime fiction genre is so important, when written true. Meaning it may be a story but if can, could or did happen. Try picking up a novel by Andrew Vachss and there you have truth through fiction. Remember when you read it everything that he writes t=for the most part is real, he is just giving it to you in a fictional setting.

That was a bit longer than what I started out to write but I hope you find it of value.

Experienced lawyers know that human beings are egocentric and generally are incapable of seeing a situation from the other person's point of view. And are especially incapable of seeing a situation from an objective, third person's point of view.

Without regard to whether the experienced lawyer worked in family law, criminal law, corporate law, litigation, government, non-profits, tax, or estate planning - he/she knows that there is another side to the story, another spin on the facts, another way of approaching the deal, transaction, situation, encounter. And that the final result will likely be neither your perspective nor the other perspective, but some other third - often middle - perspective.

Most people, not all, don't 'know' that there is a completely different way to see things, and this blind spot is usually an important part of why the experienced lawyer is even needed at all.

My practice was almost nothing but suing banks and government agencies, especially the IRS. Everything I did was based on money - borrowed money, money owed, and so on. When I started out and had some successes, I thought at first it was because I was so brilliant. And believe me, I made my contribution. But I learned quickly that the best thing I could do was quiet everything down and let the smart business people do their magic. My job was to get them what they needed and create the rigiht environment. Most of the time, that meant pounding the bank/agency/person who was causing the problems and then get everything else either out of the way or being productive. I never caused anybody to be fired unless they were stealing or some such, but I didn’t tolerate dead weight either. Family relationships didn’t justify letting someone sit on their duff and run up debts.

Sometimes I met the emotional thinker April Flanary-Palmer describes so well. I once had a man who owned a business that had been founded by his grandfather. The business had gotten into financial trouble. I did the one-time review I’d always found useful. I went out to the business and walked around, asking questions of just about everybody I met. I used my eyes, wanting to watch the process of the business doing whatever it did. The first thing I noticed in this man’s situation was that he had a lot of what he called “inventory” that was so outdated that it no longer had any recoverable value. A lot of it was paint, and the paint had solidified with age. Since it was hazardous waste, he was going to have to pay to get rid of it, so he wanted to just leave it, but it made the company look bad since the actual inventory was not only a small fragment of what it looked like was there from a distance, but it also took up space that could be used to do something to make money. Instead, it was just dead rooms taking up money. The owner’s viewpoint on the paint told me pretty much all I needed to know. This man didn’t understand a thing about running the business; he had no idea how to cause it to make money. He just wanted the appearance of success, but didn’t know how to turn that into reality. I declined to get involved because I was going to never be able to convince him to do what was needed. He had a fine plant manager. I wanted to bring in a temporary CFO to get some dependable financial information, and leave the operations up to the manager. I wanted him to have a much smaller office (you could have landed a plane in the one he’d made for himself; I wanted to divide it up and give the space over to people who were going to make money for the company. This guy couldn’t be saved, but what I could, and did, do was find a buyer willing to pay a fair price for the company, but capable of getting it turned around. Which is what happened. The guy showed back up two years later, broke and wanting “his” business back. Hadn’t learned a thing.

Then there was the man who was living in a million-dollar house and wearing a really big diamond ring. He gave up both to convince his lender that he was serious about saving the company. It took a bit, and a bunch of litigation, but eventually he prevailed and his businesses were intact and operating at the end. The difference was that this man was willing to do what was necessary to save his company, but the other one wasn’t. The first one acted like a child wanting his birthday cake. The second one behaved like a grown-up. Once he saw the problem, he began himself coming up with ideas to solve the problems, and he succeeded.

From these two and others, I came to understand that my success as a litigator was far better, and easier to obtain, if the case could be a partnership with the client. IMHO they had the hardest part, but a grownup makes a decision and lives with the results; a child just cries about it and tries to get others to do all the hard work. It was the commitment to the undertaking that made the difference. I was like the gardener who comes in and restores the ability of the soil to nurture growth.

Question: What do experienced lawyers know about human beings that most people don’t?

Answer: In English law, there is a concept (which still applies to most of the commonwealth too, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and also to India) of “The reasonable man.”

The law compares the actions of people, such as the accused, with what it deems to be the actions of “A reasonable man.”

In the eyes of the law, ‘a reasonable man’ reads the small print on contracts, and stuff like that.

What experienced lawyers and judges all know is that pretty much no real human being behaves in the way the law considers that ‘a reasonable man’ would behave.

The law struggles with this. It understands that most (all?) human beings are NOT ‘reasonable men’, but that leaves it with a problem. It knows that almost nobody reads those “software licensing agreements” we are all forced to tick that we’ve read and agreed to. But wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that a ‘reasonable man’ would have read them when he says he has?

Anyway, that’s one thing experienced lawyers know - there are NO ‘reasonable men’ …

… or women,

in the eyes of the law.

Yes- I know that everybody knows there are no reasonable men or women, but did you know that the law understands that, but still requires it?

Hope this helps.

I agree with Ms. Flanary-Palmer’s insightful answer. The following merely confirms and supplements her analysis based on my experience as a personal injury trial lawyer. In particular, jury selection vividly illustrates the interplay of emotion and opinion.

First, after only a few minutes, most trial lawyers can determine which of the potential jurors are favorable or unfavorable. Especially in the short time I have to speak with the jurors, I am not changing anyone’s mind. Having only three peremptory challenges, much of my effort is devoted to persuading certain individuals to leave voluntarily. That is why jury selection is actually a deselection process.

The skill and luck required is because most people are offended by the notion that they are less than perfectly reasonable. Regardless of their background, many individuals will confidently attest that they can put aside any strongly held opinions and render a judgment based solely on the evidence. Imagine, for example, I represent an illegal immigrant who was visiting a friend when he tripped on a broken step in the apartment building where his friend lived.

A potential juror is a retired claim’s adjuster who previously represented liability carriers in personal injury suits. Further, he owns two buildings filled with rent-paying tenants. He candidly states his opinion that most claimants are greedy and seek too much money. Also, he says that he forced to spend extra money to maintain his building because his tenants constantly complain about trivial defects in public areas. Last, he expresses his disgust with the number of legal and illegal immigrants taking the jobs of “real Americans.” I thank him for his honesty and proceed to delicately suggest why this case might be unsuitable for him. (The details are reserved for a later answer.) Despite my best efforts, he insists that his experience and opinions will have no impact on his view of the evidence.

I tell the juror of a tradition I had of watching the Presidential debates with a number of friends. Although my friends included very liberal Democrats and equally conservative Republicans, they all agreed that their opinions would rest solely on the quality of the candidates’ answers. And yet, regardless of the performance, my friends somehow all contended that the candidate from their chosen party prevailed. The juror ignores me.

I tell the juror that in three decades of trying cases I noticed the following: that a juror who, based on experience or opinion, leaned even the tiniest amount in the direction of one party, invariably ruled in that party’s behalf. Since this is my client’s one and only opportunity to receive justice from his peers, might it be best to sit on another jury where your experience and opinions are clearly irrelevant. He ignores me.

I call on another juror and ask if I was clear. Continuing, I will ask that juror or the whole panel: Imagine I represented you. You were badly injured and now, after five years of litigation, we reached this point. At the end of the day, you and your family ask me: Who is on my jury? I answer: One of the six individuals deciding your fate, now and forever, spent thirty-five years as an adjuster representing insurance carriers in this very type of claim; he thinks most claimants are greedy; he owns apartment buildings where he complains he spends too much money on maintenance; and he doesn’t like immigrants. But, I add, don’t worry … he said he could put all that aside and be fair. Would you be satisfied? Despite several people saying absolutely not, the juror refuses to budge.

My only option is to ask the judge to excuse that juror “for cause.” The judge calls the juror into his courtroom. The judge looks down at this individual who is now exhausted and hostile—towards me and my client. The judge repeats the litany of this person’s sins and asks: Did you, in fact, say all that? Concluding: Can you, however, put all that aside and do your duty as a juror, rendering a true and just verdict based solely on the evidence and the law the judge directs you to follow?

So, what does this battered and angry man now do? Change his mind and agree that his strong opinions might influence his view of the evidence? Of course not! He more vehemently urges his ability to do his duty.

Then, after ten days of trial where I genuinely demonstrate that the defendant knew of the dangerously broken step but refused to pay the $75.00 necessary to make the repairs, the juror is the lone vote against the plaintiff … completely sure that he made the single rational decision and the other jurors foolishly failed to apply cold logic.

That seeing yourself, or being habitually treated by others, as a “winner” in life makes you vulnerable if you end up in a courtroom. “Winners” will not accept that a Judge or jury may not view them in the way they view themselves. They cannot conceive the possibility that the law may not be on their side. They will stand on principle rather than accept a negotiated compromise which their ego would interpret as a humiliating defeat. In short they lack the humility to realise that the law is a machine which can crush them underfoot and leave them bankrupt or incarcerated.

They are the ones least likely to take counsel’s advice. If they’re clever (and they often think they are a lot cleverer than their legal team) they may even do their own research into the law and start coming up with novel interpretations which they insist should be argued before the court.

I’ve seen cases where people have sacked their lawyers because they didn’t like the advice being given and have gone on to represent themselves with disastrous results. Please note, not all party litigants are unrealistic and ill prepared. I’m talking about people in the specific category of “winners”.

I’ve sat open mouthed as a man in his twenties tried to explain why he had beaten up a random woman in a taxi queue, using his skills as a kick-boxer, because he, without a shred of credible justification, thought she was about to attack him. I've listened incredulously to a man argue with his victim, whose house he’d broken into while the victim slept, and claim that the victim was exaggerating the seriousness of the multiple stab wounds to the stomach that he had administered. The victim was lucky to have survived. I’ve heard parents try to justify habitually starving and beating a small child because she was a fussy eater. And don’t get me started on the parties to divorce proceedings. Or neighbour disputes. Or… well, you get the idea.

All of these people behaved as if they were in the right and seemed shocked that everyone else saw things somewhat differently.

So what do I know about human nature?

That we are extraordinarily bad at being objective about ourselves and the bigger or more defended our egos the more likely we are to over-estimate how well others view us.

What I’ve learnt about human beings after many years interacting as a lawyer is that most people live terrible lives, extremely unhappy, or utterly fake. Sometimes they hire lawyers only to prove a point for their ego, some of them go to extreme lengths to wipe out a guilty conscience or to psychologically stress the other party, you feel like operating in the cuckoo’s nest.

What bothers me the most is that I’ve noticed that most people don’t care about their children, really, is just a requirement they fulfil to meet the society’s expectations of them. Most parents I’ve met don’t really interact with their children - they have baby sitters, nannys, grandparents - and reduce to the minimum the time spent with their offsprings. The other extreme are single mothers suffocating their children - horrendous. They transform them in full-blown narcissists or worse.

Rarely I have met or seen well-rounded individuals with balanced families and a good approach to life, those are exceptions. The world is populated by unhappy, unloved, undesired children and adults. Also adults lie a lot, particularly to themselves. Of course, all of them know the law better than you and have lots of ideas and control issues, over-seeing everything and pinpointing nothing, just to feel they pay you enough to endure their arrogance.

Humans are petty, most of them.

Many years ago when I was a young engineer with Central Power & Light Company in Corpus Christi, TX I was “volunteered” to testify as an expert witness in a public hearing over the routing of a 138,000 volt power transmission line. The landowner didn't want the power line on his property and was trying to get us to move it. The landowner’s attorney tried to turn into a David versus Goliath type battle with my company in the role as the “bad guys”. He was succeeding until he asked me what the cost of rerouting the line would be. I guess he thought it wouldn’t be much? My answer was a half million dollars. Caught by surprise he then asked me who would pay for the extra cost. My answer was: “Everyone in this room and anyone else who uses our electricity would ultimately pay the cost.” I was the last witness and we won our case.

Afterwards the experienced attorney who represented our company laughed and told me, “Steve, that attorney forgot the first rule for trial litigators.”

“What’s that, H.R.?”, I asked.

And, he told me: “A trial lawyer should never ask a question that he doesn’t already know the answer to.”

That our memories are very fluid and rarely accurate to the standards demanded by justice.

Lawyers are big on documents and physical evidence simply because they are not subject to poorly-understood thought processes. When you involve people and their recollections, you introduce a host of unknown variables.

People don’t always intend to represent something that is not true, but they often do. What is worse is that often people misrepresent true facts persuasively and convincingly so because they have been tricked by their own brains.

And, it isn’t just our visual, auditory, touch, smell or other forms of memory. Our brains themselves tend to overestimate their abilities to understand.

The Dunning-Kruger effect has long been known to lawyers forced to listen to “experts” give opinions that are entirely without a real basis in fact or science.

Especially frustrating are those law-enforcement officers who have had a “training seminar” of usually no more than a day or two on some form of evidence collection who then testify with all the skills of their long experience talking at juries as if they were Ph.D’s in a hard science, i.e. physics or DNA.

Humans overestimate their understanding of just about everything.

Scientists are catching up but the lawyers have known this for years. You just don’t know what you think you know.

Think about your standard optical illusions—the squares on this board marked A and B are the same color despite what your brain tells you:

The science in this area is fascinating, but, again, lawyers have known for centuries that there is no such thing as a totally reliable eyewitness and that most “experts” are highly over-rated.

The Human Brain Recalls Visual Features in Reverse Order Than It Detects Them

Just about everyone lies when they are scared. So much so that a lawyer may safely assume a declarant is not telling the truth.

Almost eveyone has an angle. That is, almost everyone is trying to beat the system by cheating or lying.

Given a choice, some people choose the dishonest way to make money instead of the honest way, even though both ways would bring the same returns. This is because it gets them high to know they deceived and took unfair advantage of their fellow man. These people are usually highly intelligent (think the Directors at Sprint or Verizon).

Most people in prison are there because they confessed, not because the police had sufficient evidence to convict.

Cops and DAs really do not know how to handle non-criminal types. They believe that people who assert their rights are guilty. They have utter disregard and ignorant disdain for the constitution and individual rights.

I had an experienced lawyer tell me that, sure, some lawyers lie, but all their clients lie.

He didn’t seem too keen on his profession anymore, but I’ve always remembered his opinion. I suspect he’s right that many people don’t even tell their own lawyers the full truth. Experienced lawyers probably get used to second-guessing their own clients, not to mention their adversaries, and suspecting lies all around.

I doubt though that this is some fundamental insight into human beings as much as it is an occupational hazard. By the time most people hire a lawyer, they’re in a jam, and jams provide an incentive to lie. These same people probably don’t lie as much in other circumstances. Lawyers just get them when they’re most prone to lying.

I once wrote a book about what a lawyer (who is honest with himself) understands about human nature (that the lay person may know less about)—The Zeezrom Syndrome. The book explains human nature, as seen through the eyes of a lawyer who somewhat understood his own weaknesses and was based on the Book of Mormon, which teaches much about human nature, including the following verse:

“[T]he natural man is an enemy to God … and will be, forever and ever, unless he … putteth off the natural man and becometh … as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things … even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19.)

My book was published by the official publisher of the church formerly known as the LDS/Mormon Church and was withdrawn from circulation, after I left the religion.

Thanks, Neil, for the request to answer this question.

i suspect tax lawyers know more about human greed than do most others. i suspect criminal defence lawyers know more about psychopaths than do most. Bear in mind that lawyers rank high among persons who share traits with psychopaths. “

Participants … completed the Levenson Self-Report psychopathy Scale … [and] also entered their employment details. The results [from most to least]… + Psychopathy

1. CEO, 2. Lawyer, 3. Media (TV/Radio), 4. Salesperson, 5. Surgeon, 6. Journalist, 7. Police Officer, 8. Clergy person, 9. Chef, 10. Civil Servant [and least] 1. Care Aide, 2. Nurse, 3. Therapist, 4. Craftsperson, 5. Beautician, 6. Charity Worker, 7. Teacher, 8. Creative Artist, 9. Doctor, 10. Accountant” from The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Dutton

rand

How to get $50–100 k by bleeding people dry

when they could have done the same job 1/3 of the costs

it’s why if you do an internet search

of the least trusted jobs

they show up in the top 10… 50 years running

it’s why there is a 100 year old joke

what do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

a good start

I heard the joke 55 years ago when I was 5 years old

hanging around a bunch of old men drinking and playing cards

they know they have the highest suicide rate of all jobs .. if not the highest they are in the top 3

they know if people just did the right thing.. about 50 percent of them would not have jobs

and the other 50 percent would be able to settle a case for $5 k .. instead of $50 k

they see the ugly side of us all

and it’s a bad job

Experienced lawyers are very good at reading people.

The problem is their services are often too expensive for people who need them or they are easily swayed by offers of compensation from the opposition. I am not talking about bribery. I am talking about being too quick to make deals that are not in the best interest of their clients.

Experienced lawyers are super smart. They are human, though, just like you and me.

If you get a good attorney, hang onto them for they are like gold. If an attorney accepts you and believes you, you will have hit the attorney lottery.

You read my comment about many lawyers defy the Laws of the Universe and are actually taught that in school. Remember we are talking about attorneys not other professions. Let's not confuse the issue at hand.

Many, many lawyers read people immediately and their conclusions can be askwed just like anyone else. Do not underestimate attorneys. They know things you might not ever know!

You'll never see an attorney being gang stalked by law enforcement. The cops know that!

I'm just going to throw this out here, as I am not a lawyer, or really experienced, but I think experienced lawyers know when a person really needs an attorney, when potential clients want to believe they need representation, and when someone walks through their door demanding representation for what amounts to a broken ego, claiming defamation of character, and haven't the resources to hire a lawyer and file a suit that has no monetary award should their claim of injury be proven. My experience with legal representation has been if a claim has a potential for a large sum award, attorneys are not difficult to hire. If the award requires effort on the part of your attorney, the attorney will consider whether or not it is worth their time, and possibly make them unavailable for a larger case. Do not misunderstand me, lawyering is a for profit business, and I doubt any case is easy enough to win that some amount of work isn't necessary. For the most of us, hope you can do without a litigator, sometimes, even if you win your case, you lose…

• “I don’t even care if I get anything out of this damn settlement - all I want is for that cheating bastard to be miserable and penniless!”;
• “Counsel, as a strategy here I would like to overwhelm the other party with as many legal claims and procedures as we can throw at them. They are a family company, you see - one or two years drowning in court cases and the legal fees alone should be enough to break their business. Problem solved.”;
• “Oh, my… Getting that permit will take all that time? No, no, no, my situation is urgent, we must be operational within two weeks. C’mon, you have been doing this for years, right? Certainly you have some friends in high places who can help… right? There is always a way to speed things up. That’s how business work. Let’s meet in person and discuss this more freely, I’m sure we can work something out.”

Those are just a few examples of the many absurd, offensive and often criminal requests I have received from clients in the past. If I had to guess, I would say about half of those who seek the assistance of an attorney (keep in mind, I work in Brazil but my clients are mostly foreign companies) are not in the slightest interested in justice being served or legal requirements being met.

They want to win the fight, ignoring that conflicts can usually be solved amicably, restoring the balance of the legal relationship and its value to all involved.

As soon as people find themselves in a situation involving two or more parties who are in a conflict regarding pretty much anything, the most common outcome is animosity, side taking, assigning blame and generating a false dichotomy separating “us” from “them”, while any high-school kid in a debate team could reach the same very simple conclusion: when in a conflict, antagonizing the other party merely aggravates the situation, decreasing each party’s will to make concessions and assess the other’s point of view in order to cease the conflict and, therefore, reestablish a peaceful/fruitful relationship.

Being on opposite sides of a conflict does not make two parties enemies. Cooperation, sincere comprehension, analysis of the other party’s conditions (in good faith!) and straightening of relations are all marvelous tools for conflict resolution and prevention.

Unfortunately, standard reaction is usually going full “Lord of the Flies”. That is really sad.

After more than 35 years of practicing law, I gained a few insights into human beings, which I’m sure other individuals, whether lawyers or not, have equally obtained. Here is a meagre sampling of what I’ve learned:

• some people can lie with the same ease with which others breathe;
• practicing family law is more emotionally and physically draining that the practice of criminal law;
• children are often used as pawns by one partner against the other to exact revenge or secure a financial advantage;
• the line of demarcation between criminals and non-criminals is sometimes razor thin;
• some criminals have more honour than some civilians, who’ve never been convicted of anything;
• some people are evil - they’ll kill another person without a second’s remorse or regret; looking into their eyes is unnerving;
• the ability of some humans to consistently engage in self-deception is remarkable;
• when someone tells you that money is of no consequence, you can rest assured that it will be;
• people are more likely to accept your arguments, if there is an emotional “hook” embedded in the argument to which they can relate.

I was shocked by one person just blatantly lying in a court issue affecting me. I had never really seen a human being do that before, much less before a judge where they can file perjury charges.

I told my attorney about how shocked I was. I forget the words he used but he had a name for it and apparently it was just very common.

The judge did a clever risky test to me and to this party and was able to instantly see through the issue based on a sort of gut instinct thing and immediately ruled in my favor, still had to pay for an attorney though.

None of this lie detection involved words on paper or anything you could easily analyze like that or that could be easily written down. It was just something he made each of us do and was able to instantly identify the lying.

It was in county court which is more a Zoo than a structured court. In federal court you would probably need a bunch of forensic psychiatrists to document long, complex neurobiological and neurology things to admit something like this to the standards of the FRE.

Very difficult issue for me to figure out how to document and deal with in “words”.

In hindsight, probably the smartest judge I’ve witnessed so far. Took him less than 15 minutes.

“It is very common,” basically.

That’s a great question, coming from a lawyer.

What do you know about me that most people don’t?

As a former “jail-house lawyer”, and a current cook, I do know that the most heinous of crimes are committed by some of the most nicest and generous of people. I have assisted gang members gain visitation with their children, only to have to meet them in segregation the next day because they stabbed four people. I see this same person in the visiting room a month or two later, bouncing their baby-girl in his lap smiling and laughing as she giggles and drools. You can see the love and affection pouring from this…most incredibly violent person.

I sit in the visiting room, about 100 feet away wondering, “When is the hammer going to drop? When is this person going to snap and turn such a happy moment into a tragedy? Is an officer going to talk to him the wrong way? Is the woman sitting next to him going to say something to set him off?”

But it never happens. While his baby-girl is in his arms, he is human. A father. A man capable of so much love.

Two hours later, back in the housing unit, he slams the door on me so I wouldn’t see him cry.