I don’t know if it's the same in the states, but over here all lawyers kind of get lumped into the same festering bucket as Politicians. Now I can understand why the latter group are stuffed in there, upside down, in a mixture of Libfraumilch and raw sewage – anyone who goes to college to study politics in order to get a job where they can compromise their principles in order to gain power over the commoners (that’s you and me), should NEVER be allowed to get their slimy paws on any sort of public office – but is it fair to force the lawyers in there too?
Most people who’ve had any dealings with one would probably say yes.
Which is odd, because as David V**** points out (prompted by James's rant on the subject), some are actually there to do useful things: like prosecute criminals. Or defend innocent people against prosecution. BUT (and you knew this was coming) this isn’t really the people we’re thinking of when we talk of LAWYERS (boooooooo, hisssssssssssss). No, we’re thinking of the people that charge you £200 an hour to sign a bit of paper they’ve had a minion photocopy. Who, when asked for advice, give you three completely contradictory statements to choose from and refuse to be tied down to which is actually correct. Who charge you a percentage of the value of your house when it comes time to sell it, and then another percentage of the new one when it’s time to buy that. The ones who’re never off the telly, telling us that if we’ve stubbed our toe on the cat, we can sue someone for it! Who stalk the dark, mist-shrouded streets, looking for babies to eat and virgins to deflower.
So, I hereby announce an amnesty on useful lawyers. You may now clamber out of the bucket of poo. Which will free up some space for estate agents.