Quote:
Originally Posted by skeet
Well Fabs..first I do want to say..I know you and I know you are an honest and moral person. This is not a personal attack on you and I hope you know it. We had ol OJ running around the street after Cochran got him off. It may not be for a lawyer to lie...and you know they do as do the clients..their job is to muddy the waters..create an illusion that may or may not be. In your chosen line of law..tax stuff I guess you'd say..LAWYERS have written the law so that only lawyers can understand it. We NEED y'all..and lawyers made that possible.. Personally don't you think that writing laws that pertain to their business is just a little crooked?? Shouldn't they excuse themselves from the vote and political arm twisting on such laws?? Do they not understand Conflict of Interest? Just a few things..But I do understand the statement about professional liars..It ain't just in the courtroom. And yep...I know people who would lie when the truth would do..And they ain't necessarily lawyers. Not dissing you my friend..but don't let things like that statement bother you. In some cases it's true..and in some such as yours it isn't. I hate to resort to using an attorney..it means in some way I have failed in my job of keeping my nose clean.. then I have to resort to trusting some other person with a portion of my personal life..Hate that whan it happens
|
I'm not losing too much sleep over it tonight, or any other night for that matter.
Under your reasoning, ANY lawyer elected to ANY legislative position would have a potential conflict of interest because WHATEVER law gets passed needs to be interpreted, applied, and possibly litigated. You used tax law as an example, but what about criminal laws, construction laws, patent laws, copyright laws, etc. They are all LAWS that lawyers deal with daily.
Then, even assuming that we do away with lawyers in legislatures, what are we going to do with elected law enforcement officers, elected construciton workers, etc. when their field comes up? What about the issue of electing older folks since we have an issue with health care and social security. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest for them too? What happens if we elect a bunch of young people that decide to do away with social security because they will never receive it, isn't that a conflict of interest too.
Ultimately, our politicians should do what we the people want them to do, regardless of the conflict. I don't think Congress wants to make the tax code any more onerous than it is, but it just isn't easy to cut it down right now without going to a straight flat tax and that would only last a year before special exceptions are applied to provide incentive to do things like save for retirement, purchase a home, make homes more energy efficient, etc.
Plus, how would a bunch of construction workers even pass laws? They can hardly read the current laws as it is. Who would draft up the new laws for them. Don't tell me they would need to hire attorneys to draft those new laws and put their ideas into legal statutes.
Now, as far as feeling like you didn't keep your nose clean because you need the services of a lawyer, that just isn't always true. Just recently, I have had a couple of clients pass away without wills, and the assets didn't go quite the way the surviving spouse had thought they would. Yeah, they kept their nose clean during their lifetime until one of them passed away. Then, without having received any advice from an attorney during their lifetime, the surviving spouse is up a creek with a dirty nose that he/she didn't receive from an attorney. Same goes for start up businesses. How smart is it to start a business without getting the advise of an attorney? I'm not saying it should never be done, but before taking out a 2nd mortgage on a home to start this business, don't you think a little legal advise might be in order. Think of it like preventative medicine.