Wol said,
But the point I was making is that lawyers are
expected to
do what they're paid for, and whether you like the client or not,
you admire
some of Oracle's attorneys for their lawyering skills. Don't judge
an attorney
by his clients :-)
Oracle's attorneys were
probably instructed to make the
best arguments they could ethically make for
their client's position. Oracle,
as a company, probably felt that their
position had merit, but I'm reasonably
sure that Oracle's in-house attorneys,
at least, had reasonable expectations
of what their litigation attorneys could
and couldn't do.
On the other hand, I'm sorry that you are still
unqualifiedly stating that
lawyers are expected to
do what they're paid for,
because I know for a fact that many -- if not most
or all -- lawyers DO judge
their clients.
A client who expects what you say to expect from their
lawyer may be
likely to go off and do whatever they want, regardless of
contrary advice by
their lawyer, expecting their lawyers to cover for them.
Then, when
something goes wrong, instead of taking personal responsibility for
it, they
are likely to blame their lawyers for failing to take care of it for
them.
Clients like this may also put lawyers in ethical positions that are
untenable
and have expectations that are difficult or impossible for an
attorney to
meet.
It is my understanding that professional malpractice
insurance
companies may warn lawyers not to accept cases from this type of
client at
all.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|