Research
That a personal injury lawyer in order to win his client's case must work hard is a true but vague proposition. Meaningless but assuring statements like these comfort the afflicted but disgust the serious-minded. For although it suggests in general lines what must be done, it nevertheless leaves one in the dark because it is silent about how that goal is to be attained. In this case, it is becoming to ask in all vehemence the following question: what do we mean exactly when we command a lawyer to work hard?
Obviously, we mean in part that he do what he was hired to do: process papers, provide pertinent advice, contact witnesses, frame arguments, and speak before a judge. But all of these activities are comprehended in the term €work.€ They are what he is expected to accomplish. To work hard, then, implies a connotation broader than this enumeration. We think this additional depth can be identified in two ways: first, to work hard means just to do these things well. That is a given. But in addition, and this is more important, it means that lawyers have to do other things too. For example, aside from the said list, he must also keep himself updated on the most recent developments in law and doctrine, even if, strictly speaking, such an activity bears no direct relation to his present case. To work hard in this sense is to transcend the ordinary limitations of a lawyer by thinking that he has an obligation to know matters which enhance his skills, no matter how far they may be from his most immediate concerns.
Ethics
A good standard in estimating whether or not a certain personal injury lawyer is performing superbly is to check his ethics. When we say ethics, we mean particularly his conception of right or wrong in relation to his official duties. Thus, the questions we must raise are not €What is his view on this political issue?€ or €Who did he vote for?€ no matter how interested we may be on his stances regarding these queries, but rather €Will he stoop to forgery and false testimonials to win a case?€ or €Will he unduly stretch the version of the facts to win a suit?€ because it is in his responses to such questions that we can see whether he should be trusted or not.
Ignore lawyers who answer these questions in a ready and complaisant affirmative. While it is obvious that they are responding in this way in order to assure you that they will do everything to win your case, such an assurance is worse than the most overt denial. For if a lawyer can admit to acting unjustly to win a case, then what prevents him from acting unjustly to lose it? If he can afford to swindle our judiciary, an institution whose doctrines the national army has sworn to uphold and protect, then what more a helpless client, one who relies on his assistance as his only prop and is too moronic to realize that a mendacious lawyer worships not justice but lucre?
That a personal injury lawyer in order to win his client's case must work hard is a true but vague proposition. Meaningless but assuring statements like these comfort the afflicted but disgust the serious-minded. For although it suggests in general lines what must be done, it nevertheless leaves one in the dark because it is silent about how that goal is to be attained. In this case, it is becoming to ask in all vehemence the following question: what do we mean exactly when we command a lawyer to work hard?
Obviously, we mean in part that he do what he was hired to do: process papers, provide pertinent advice, contact witnesses, frame arguments, and speak before a judge. But all of these activities are comprehended in the term €work.€ They are what he is expected to accomplish. To work hard, then, implies a connotation broader than this enumeration. We think this additional depth can be identified in two ways: first, to work hard means just to do these things well. That is a given. But in addition, and this is more important, it means that lawyers have to do other things too. For example, aside from the said list, he must also keep himself updated on the most recent developments in law and doctrine, even if, strictly speaking, such an activity bears no direct relation to his present case. To work hard in this sense is to transcend the ordinary limitations of a lawyer by thinking that he has an obligation to know matters which enhance his skills, no matter how far they may be from his most immediate concerns.
Ethics
A good standard in estimating whether or not a certain personal injury lawyer is performing superbly is to check his ethics. When we say ethics, we mean particularly his conception of right or wrong in relation to his official duties. Thus, the questions we must raise are not €What is his view on this political issue?€ or €Who did he vote for?€ no matter how interested we may be on his stances regarding these queries, but rather €Will he stoop to forgery and false testimonials to win a case?€ or €Will he unduly stretch the version of the facts to win a suit?€ because it is in his responses to such questions that we can see whether he should be trusted or not.
Ignore lawyers who answer these questions in a ready and complaisant affirmative. While it is obvious that they are responding in this way in order to assure you that they will do everything to win your case, such an assurance is worse than the most overt denial. For if a lawyer can admit to acting unjustly to win a case, then what prevents him from acting unjustly to lose it? If he can afford to swindle our judiciary, an institution whose doctrines the national army has sworn to uphold and protect, then what more a helpless client, one who relies on his assistance as his only prop and is too moronic to realize that a mendacious lawyer worships not justice but lucre?
Source...