JimmySeal Wrote:Getting upset about Phoenix Wright for its inaccurate portrayal of the legal system is like getting upset about Super Mario Brothers for its inaccurate portrayal of the plumbing profession. It's not supposed to be realistic.

I don't get upset at it until some teenage punk tries to tell me how to do my job based on it. Also, if you really want a diatribe about how Crime TV like law and order and CSI are making it harder for lawyers to do the real thing I'd be happy to share some stories.

I don't care that its inaccurate. I care that so many people are stupid enough to think it isn't.

Forensic science at my university has, since the launch of CSI, become the fastest growing course. It's also got by far the highest drop out rate. People really do think the show is largely accurate - that lowly forensic scientists get to stroll around in nice suits, waving guns around in their stylish glass offices and arrest bad guys. Then they find out their future career entails repeatedly dropping 0.1ml samples into tiny tubes 10,000 times a day and they quit the course. I can imagine lawyers' clients have equivalent misconceptions about how their attorneys should bend the rules, or make a renegade investigation of their own with stolen police evidence.

Newsflash, a teenage punk can and will tell anybody how they think something should be done based on any and/or no exposure to the actual task at hand. If this is a sticking point, then the teenage punks world over have won. And they will have won _forever_. I'd suggest not being bothered!

And Blahah, yeah, I've seen that happen several places. But on the flipside it is still introducing people to the field, and even if only 1 out of 50 of those new applicants sticks around it's still one more than there would have been otherwise.

Yeah, I wanted to ask this: how much is a country's law school applicable abroad? I mean is the knowledge tranferable to another country's law system? Like if I was a lawyer (freshgraudate, masters Msc, call it whatever you want it), could I get a job for instance in germany as a lawyer (or lawyer assistant)? Or would I have to start the whole graduate program anew? Or in other words how great is the international mobility in the law industry?
I'm just curious because for instance in engineering, physics, medical sciences the knowledge is pretty much aplicable in any country, since the general subject of the particular field is not really influenced by the georgraphical location of the subject...the same goes more or less for finances and perhaps a little bit for accountancy (the principles should be the same at the very least).
So in this respect, where does the law discipline stand?

Raschaverak Wrote:Yeah, I wanted to ask this: how much is a country's law school applicable abroad? I mean is the knowledge tranferable to another country's law system? Like if I was a lawyer (freshgraudate, masters Msc, call it whatever you want it), could I get a job for instance in germany as a lawyer (or lawyer assistant)? Or would I have to start the whole graduate program anew? Or in other words how great is the international mobility in the law industry?
I'm just curious because for instance in engineering, physics, medical sciences the knowledge is pretty much aplicable in any country, since the general subject of the particular field is not really influenced by the georgraphical location of the subject...the same goes more or less for finances and perhaps a little bit for accountancy (the principles should be the same at the very least).
So in this respect, where does the law discipline stand?

Each country has its on licensure. In many instances each state (as in the US) or province/counties in European countries require you to be specifically licensed there. I could not leave the US and go straight to Japan or England to be a lawyer. The laws are actually vastly different with respect to property, what constitues a crime, what you can and can't sue for. Some places you can go and take an equivalency test, but you can't just move and open up a practice.

Additionally, in many countries you have to be a citizen to practice the law of that country. I could not, for instance, move to China and pass their licensing exam and practice Chinese law. I could work in China as a U.S. attorney practicing U.S. or international law, or serve as a foreign consultant to a firm in China, etc. Japan has a special license for foreign attorneys, but once again it is limited. You cannot practice Japanese law.

But you also have to understand that "practicing law" is a very specific term. A large bit of legal work is not "practicing law." Furthermore, what that means is different in various countries. The role of a Japanese attorney is more narrowly defined than that of a U.S. attorney. It is more like a what a litigation attorney is in the U.S. Tons of attorneys in the U.S. have never litigated an actual case. Japan has other professional licenses for work that attorneys in Japan do not do, but that only an attorney in the U.S. would do.

Frack, I'm getting sucked into the internet again. Must go back to bar prep.

astrangerhere Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Getting upset about Phoenix Wright for its inaccurate portrayal of the legal system is like getting upset about Super Mario Brothers for its inaccurate portrayal of the plumbing profession. It's not supposed to be realistic.

I don't get upset at it until some teenage punk tries to tell me how to do my job based on it. Also, if you really want a diatribe about how Crime TV like law and order and CSI are making it harder for lawyers to do the real thing I'd be happy to share some stories.

I don't care that its inaccurate. I care that so many people are stupid enough to think it isn't.

Again, 逆転裁判 is not the same deal as CSI and all the other shows, like I said it doesn't even try to keep an air of authority and as blahah pointed out, it's almost as far removed from real lawyering as Mario is from real-life plumbers.

I'd doubt any 'teenage punks' would really think that 逆転裁判 represents real life, like, your first client is called Larry Butz for crying out loud! And even if they do, like ninetimes said that's not really the game's fault as teenagers have misconceptions about pretty much all kinds of work. Instead of getting worked up about it, it would be far more reasonable for you to appreciate an opportunity to show these teenagers what your work is really about. Chances are noone's really, really tried to so far, I know I never really got that much insight to it as a teenager. It makes you less annoyed, them more knowledgeable, everyone wins.

Again, try to appreciate the good aspects of the game series; it's social commentary on issues that (as far as I know) don't get as much attention as they should in Japan. If you tried playing the games you'd probably find that it can give some food for thought (in a hilariously ridiculous package) to people not in the know, though I concede that much of it is probably lost in translation.

By the way this episode of the british talkshow QI prompted me to go look up the statistics to be sure and holy shit!

I'd like to see some really good simulation-type games of vocations like these. Especially surgery. I mean bleeding edge, state-of-the-art stuff for consumer use, not DS games or whatever.

Here's an article on the notorious 'CSI effect': http://www.economist.com/science-technol...d=15949089

Surreal Wrote:Instead of getting worked up about it, it would be far more reasonable for you to appreciate an opportunity to show these teenagers what your work is really about. Chances are noone's really, really tried to so far, I know I never really got that much insight to it as a teenager. It makes you less annoyed, them more knowledgeable, everyone wins.

In theory, a nice suggestion. More often than not I find that the average citizen is not logical, rational, or amenable to being confronted with reality. But regarding the game, I think his frustration has less to do with the game itself and more to do with the attitude of clients who "know better" and refuse real legal advice because it doesn't mesh with their pop understanding of the issues.

The law is like a parallel universe, it has its own language, logic, and way of doing things. It's frequently disingenuous. It doesn't mean that the lawyer is always right (lots of bad lawyers out there), but the number of people who are absolutely convinced that they know what's going simply because they read a wikipedia article on it is growing. And it can be frustrating to deal with. Once again, it's not the specific game, it's the overall trend.

On a side note, I learned more from wikipedia than my legal casebooks. But that's a different matter.

hobofat Wrote:In theory, a nice suggestion. More often than not I find that the average citizen is not logical, rational, or amenable to being confronted with reality. But regarding the game, I think his frustration has less to do with the game itself and more to do with the attitude of clients who "know better" and refuse real legal advice because it doesn't mesh with their pop understanding of the issues.

The law is like a parallel universe, it has its own language, logic, and way of doing things. It's frequently disingenuous. It doesn't mean that the lawyer is always right (lots of bad lawyers out there), but the number of people who are absolutely convinced that they know what's going simply because they read a wikipedia article on it is growing. And it can be frustrating to deal with. Once again, it's not the specific game, it's the overall trend.

On a side note, I learned more from wikipedia than my legal casebooks. But that's a different matter.

I understand that and that's exactly what I'm trying to say - this particular game is not likely to be boosting the trend so please don't hate on it.

Oh and teenagers, which is what I was specifically referring to (or meant to, anyway), are often annoying and shielding off themselves at first but I do believe that many of them actually want to learn more about different professions if you only approach them with respect, openness and some tolerance. I know I was a bit hard to deal with as a teenager and I'd think it was the same for both you and stranger.

Pretty much all fact-based expertises are experiencing what you speak of, like teachers being told they should change their methods, patients pleading their doctors for some extra tests or local politicians having to deal with angry citizens who think the city planning needs to be changed. And you can't really say that these "temporary amateurs" are wrong in seeking out information and engaging themselves since well it's often they who will be the most affected in the end and there are always some rotten "experts" out there, and even the best ones can overlook certain things.

I think that, now that all the facts that form the basis of these fields are more or less freely available the role of the experts is changing and I don't think there's much point in striving to go back, instead we should try to figure out how to make these new relationships work well. Like for example, some basic info about the legal processes and corrections of common misconceptions being sent to jurors, and when I say basic I mean something that is fairly easy to read and doesn't drown in law-speak but with references in case the reader wants more info. I think that this phenomena isn't only a cause of the outside but also from the inside; far too long many experts have kept the kept the people they work with in the dark more than they should have because it's easier to make decisions that way and maintain an image of absolute professionalism.

astrangerhere Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:Do armchair-lawyers qualify?

No.

つっこめよ

astrangerhere Wrote:put more than one of us in a room and we cannot help but talk shop.

hmm, most professionals I've encountered (whether musicians, athletes, lawyers, doctors) prefer to avoid talking shop when they're not working. Any chance your perception of what lawyers talk about has been skewed by your tendency to raise the topic?

Quote:I had a professor in law school tell me once that it wasn't that hard to learn how to think like a lawyer, but it was nearly impossible, once done, to re-learn how to think like a human. I think that sort of mindset breeds a special kind of companionship.

Lawyering strikes me as a job. The suggestion that lawyers have some superhuman thinking skills or belong to some special club only fuels the lawyers-are-dickheads jokes.

Quote:it is nice to know that when, for example, half the forum is arguing in threads about GPL and GNU licenses that there is someone else who shares a similar expertise to me that I can drop an line and discuss it on a more indepth legal level with.

I think it's possible to subtly guide such discussions in an useful direction without getting technical (and without mentioning your profession if you think it might kill the discussion.) Or, if you're feeling generous, folks would probably appreciate basic clarifications.

@hobofat - Do you suppose that astranger has many teenage punk corporate clients who refuse his advice based on Law & Order reruns? :-)

@surreal - deep bow. Identity is worth thinking about, isn't it? It can affect so many important aspects of our lives.

I am amused to have started such a discussion and I thank everyone for their well-intentioned thoughts. Though I see now I should have pointed out that I don't hate on people that play and enjoy any of the Ace Attorney games. I was just saying that I didn't.

Partly my comment was a knee jerk reaction to a common situation that happens. I say I'm a lawyer and someone eagerly volunteers how awesome the Ace Attorney games are. I proceed to sit back and shudder at the comparison. But as it stimulated a somewhat interesting discussion, I don't particularly regret not explaining myself properly.

And now to clear up some confusion of everyone who has made reference to me. I'm a woman, not a man.

astrangerhere Wrote:And now to clear up some confusion of everyone who has made reference to me. I'm a woman, not a man.

Pfft, you'll never trip me up, that's why I always use unisex terms.

Thora Wrote:

Quote:I had a professor in law school tell me once that it wasn't that hard to learn how to think like a lawyer, but it was nearly impossible, once done, to re-learn how to think like a human. I think that sort of mindset breeds a special kind of companionship.

Lawyering strikes me as a job. The suggestion that lawyers have some superhuman thinking skills or belong to some special club only fuels the lawyers-are-dickheads jokes.

I think the interpretation of that statement made by the professor is indicative of the lawyer phenomenon of which he speaks. A psychologist is a human being, however, by studying psychology in depth for hours at a time over the course of many years and working with many different individuals a psychologist tends to see people slightly different from someone who is not a psychologist. Much the same way a lawyer will tend to over analyze things, finds faults, or make seemingly wild accusations or assumptions that can't be rebutted without the use highly specialized talents (whose testimony can be nullified simply by attacking their character).

Oops I guess that was a joke...

Edited by: Nest0r

By the way, everyone, astrangerhere is a corporate attorney.

@ropsta - I would've edited out the masculine pronoun(s).

astrangerhere Wrote:And now to clear up some confusion of everyone who has made reference to me. I'm a woman, not a man.

Sigh, I know better than to use pronouns on forum boards. Apologies.

@Thora: My experiences with lawyers is the opposite, shop talk always comes up. But that could just be influenced by the environment, as I tend to meet attorneys through events geared towards attorneys. When around non-lawyerly folks I do my best not to talk law.

ropsta Wrote:

Thora Wrote:

Quote:I had a professor in law school tell me once that it wasn't that hard to learn how to think like a lawyer, but it was nearly impossible, once done, to re-learn how to think like a human. I think that sort of mindset breeds a special kind of companionship.

Lawyering strikes me as a job. The suggestion that lawyers have some superhuman thinking skills or belong to some special club only fuels the lawyers-are-dickheads jokes.

I think the interpretation of that statement made by the professor is indicative of the lawyer phenomenon of which he speaks. A psychologist is a human being, however, by studying psychology in depth for hours at a time over the course of many years and working with many different individuals a psychologist tends to see people slightly different from someone who is not a psychologist. Much the same way a lawyer will tend to over analyze things, finds faults, or make seemingly wild accusations or assumptions that can't be rebutted without the use highly specialized talents (whose testimony can be nullified simply by attacking their character).

Yeah but that's kind of what I was talking about earlier; even though you obviously have developed a mindset, I think part of mastering it is the ability to at least partly explain it to others and make it clear to some point what you are doing and why. This goes especially for psychologists which you mentioned since many, many psychologists think they can understand their clients better than the client themself can and more or less rely on being able to read into the client and then telling the client directly what the client really feels. This is needlessly confusing and dumbs down the client, in the long run especially it doesn't help much since the client hasn't really come to understand themself better.

The point is this: the reason fact-based experts are experts is that they have extensive knowledge about their subject and can solve/offer help in many many different situations. However, the specific process of solving one particular problem is often quite easy to explain if you try to adjust it depending on what kind of person you are explaining to. If you have to explain something that's very complex and big (such as a full case) even the broad strokes can help your client prepare for what's coming and feel less distressed.

Finally, as I said earlier, no matter how much you specialize you don't have to get stuck in one way of seeing things; I mean, I'm an adult now and I like to believe I have an adult brain but that doesn't mean I can't try to imagine what it would be like for a child to experience the same situations I encounter. Nor that I couldn't find it interesting to perceive the world in that way or gain some valuable knowledge from it. And of course, no matter how much of a "parallel universe" the law world is, lawyers are still adults with more or less the same intellectual faculties so that way of thinking is closer and easier to get into. Besides, all of us shift out and into different mindsets daily when we are with different people and dealing with different tasks depending on what's most useful. Seeing the person you're talking to as a collection of organs and thinking about what you should be doing to activate their pleasure centers isn't very helpful; much the same way that thinking about what hobbies the judge is interested in doesn't help you towards getting an acquittal.

astrangerhere: dang I thought it was safe once you mentioned your wife but there go my generalizations, sorry if I offended you
ed: whaddya know I never actually wrote any pronouns hah I retract my apology