Top Law Schools

To clarify, it's not intended as an insult. According to a survey conducted by psychologist Kevin Dutton (the Great British Psychopath Survey), results showed that lawyers were the second profession most likely to attract psychopaths (the first being CEOs). Would you say from what you've seen from other lawyers or law students that the legal profession tends to attract a certain type of personality? Would you agree or disagree with this survey's results?

For reference, a psychopath is not a "crazy person" and can lead productive lives in society. Psychopaths are characterized by antisocial behavior, diminished empathy, detachment from conventional morality, etc.

Cosmedy wrote:lawyers were the second profession most likely to attract psychopaths.

Ah but recall that a profession refers only to those groups of men pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service -- no less the public service because because it may incidentally be a means to a livelihood; the pursuit of the learned art in the spirit of public service is the primary purpose.

You seem to conflate "profession" with "occupation." Indeed, one's insinuation that learned attorneys tend to be psychopathic to a greater degree than, say, rubbish collectors or employees of houses of ill repute is so absurd an idea as to be dismissed out of hand. Good day.

Have you read ME Thomas' Confessions of a Sociopath? It's an autobiography of a self proclaimed sociopath who attended law school, worked at a firm then switched over to academia. I'm a 0L but would be interested to hear the opinions of others with more experience as well

I think it's more a chicken and egg scenario. I think the profession can make people amoral, and doesn't necessarily attrack those that are amoral. Value systems are partially built on habit; and if your habit is 10 hour days in BigLaw representing a corporation trying to get out of products liability, or etc., then invariably it's going to take it's toll on you and amorality can develop as a coping mechanism, or alcoholism.

I don't think people representing corporations are invariably going to end up amoral. There are lots of reasons to think it's worth defending against product liability that are compatible with moral codes.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think people representing corporations are invariably going to end up amoral. There are lots of reasons to think it's worth defending against product liability that are compatible with moral codes.

That's why I qualified it with "can." There are always moral propositions conflicting each other, and just giving up on reconciling them is a coping mechanism, both consciously and not.

Definitely. I'm not sure how one can try to put rapists back on the street and claim they are acting in the public interest.

Dude, that story is so old from you. And wrong.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Dude, that story is so old from you. And wrong.

I can confirm that public defenders go to applebees and get a bunch of appz after they let a rapist off.

Desert Fox wrote:Definitely. I'm not sure how one can try to put rapists back on the street and claim they are acting in the public interest.

The public definitely has an interest in criminal defendants having a zealous representative. We have an interest in an adversarial system to ensure that people aren't falsely convicted when going up against the awesome power of the state.

Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.

Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)

BeenDidThat wrote:

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.

Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)

Who said anything about withdrawing?

You don't have to lie to represent a guilty client. Make sure the government crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. Make them prove the elements. And, most importantly, make sure you present your client in the best light possible for sentencing.

Just don't lie. Dont knowingly put on false testimony. Don't attack victims who you know are completely innocent. Don't try every misleading trick in the book to get your guilty client off. Show me where you are ethically obligated to do that..?

Everyone deserves representation, not victory at all costs.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

BeenDidThat wrote:

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Only in so far as making sure they aren't innocent. Trying to manfucature reasonable doubt is against the public interest.

But if we say zealous advocacy is needed. So does Goldman Sachs right?

In fact, if they would punt the guilty ones and take a real stand on the ones being treated unfairly, they would do a lot more good. Instead they make every possible argument with every single client, and no one takes them seriously.

Would make figuring out who's guilty pretty easy (5 diff counsel have withdrawn rep within a day of conferring with accused...wonder what that could mean...)

Who said anything about withdrawing?

You don't have to lie to represent a guilty client. Make sure the government crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. Make them prove the elements. And, most importantly, make sure you present your client in the best light possible for sentencing.

Just don't lie. Dont knowingly put on false testimony. Don't attack victims who you know are completely innocent. Don't try every misleading trick in the book to get your guilty client off. Show me where you are ethically obligated to do that..?

Everyone deserves representation, not victory at all costs.

Suborning perjury is obviously a no-no. Testing complaining witness' memories is fine. Poking holes in prosecution theories is fine. Not sure what you have against defense lawyers forcing the government to prove the government's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (you seem to think making arguments with shaky factual foundations is "lying" per se). Sounds like an inquisitorial system would suit you better.

You also said "punt." Not sure what you could mean other than not accepting rep or withdrawing after accepting.