What is your "Spirit" of the Law

[iracafella]

In a general sense of U.S. Law, and your own state's law, what truly motivates you to do what you do? Your time and energy go to upholding the law, court decisions, legislators, and administrative decisions. What motivates you most to do this.
 
For me it is to help the wronged, while disciplining the tortfeasors (I like toooorts).

[justanothersucker]

so will your opponents. After all (assuming you mean civil suit plaintiffs attorney by what you said) your zeal will force them to pay hourly rates to be defended.

As for the "help the wronged" do you have God like powers to know which party is right? Is it not "wrong" to falsely accuse someone? Is it not "wrong" to convict an innocent man (in a crimlaw example)? If an innocent doctor loses his license so you can make a buck, is that "right"? Of course we will all obey the laws of ethics and only take cases we have "good faith" in, but the only way you REALLY help without risk of harm is at the free clinic helping people get their taxes done right, not get evicted without due notice, etc.

If you want to that, great.

If not, I'm glad you love Torts. You and your OPs attorneys will no doubt make a decent wage from eachothers efforts.

In a general sense of U.S. Law, and your own state's law, what truly motivates you to do what you do? Your time and energy go to upholding the law, court decisions, legislators, and administrative decisions. What motivates you most to do this.
 
For me it is to help the wronged, while disciplining the tortfeasors (I like toooorts).

[justanothersucker]

For me, it's because I got tired of getting shot at, and flipping burgers seemed like too much effort.

Next?

[FalconJimmy]

For me, it's because I got tired of getting shot at, and flipping burgers seemed like too much effort.

Getting shot at = bad.  Studying law?  Indoor work.  Seldom get shot at.  I think you made the right choice.  Though, if you go into family law, you might want to go back to getting shot at.

[iracafella]

Well, justanothersucker,
I think you are right to point out the innefficiencies and moral problems with our court's handling of tort cases, but keep in mind that the overall effect of how our justice system works is very good. Good example is: most houses in the U.S. do not have alarm systems protecting the house, and most of those very houses have windows. Windows are nothing but a sheet of glass, which could easily be broken by a small child or a weak elderly person. Just that sheet of glass protects the lives and possessions of all inside the house - yet breaking and entering (and anything following that) do not happen most of the time.

Also, think of how common a conspiracy is, in a tort that is (and anything that is constructive). That right there proves that civil wrongdoers are thinking hard of ways, and working hard,  to avoid the punishments of damages. And they still often end up getting sued.

I totally agree with you that morality and court decisions do not connect - I personally have great issue with all the corruption in the courts, and how overly severe criminal law is - but in times when I think about such things, I then think of how it could be better. It is hard to think of anything that would make it better, because hundreds of thousands of people have thought that same thing for hundreds of years and have stepped out into courts, congress, or even the streets, etc., to make changes occur. Sure witnesses will lie, but can they brave the perils of cross examination? sure  dirty lawyers commit fraud, but can they run from the good lawyers sueing them? Sure judges get bribed, but their legacy will last for centuries, and if they got caught, they will always be known as a rat. Sure lawyers help witnesses perjure testimony of an employer to help their case, but the opposite lawyer may have been smart enough to have his client sneak a recording device into his  pocket when the client went back to the employer for dispute resolution. It's all the little things that make law both a dirty game, and a cool system that people fight for. It reminds me of that section of John Grishams Rainmaker when they spoke on the phone about what jurors they would tamper with, knowing that they secretly would not tamper with any, and it was actually a method of getting the undesirable jurors off the bench.

I agree with your thoughts about morality, but seriously, tell me what you think would make it better, I bet I could have a good counter argument of why it is better the way it is

[justanothersucker]

Heck, in family law you probably will end up getting shot at. Very likely by your own client, if not run over by the extended families rascals while they scream at you for making them spill their big gulp(followed by asking you to help them sue 7/11 for the pain&anguish of the cold lap)......

For me, it's because I got tired of getting shot at, and flipping burgers seemed like too much effort.

Getting shot at = bad.  Studying law?  Indoor work.  Seldom get shot at.  I think you made the right choice.  Though, if you go into family law, you might want to go back to getting shot at.

[justanothersucker]

Seeing as we have to do something to pay rent, it might as well be done trying to do good. Afterall if you don't, someone else will just replace you and do harm on purpose(for a variety of unethical yet very real reasons).

Good to have more of you, then less OP> 

Might as well try.

Well, justanothersucker,
I think you are right to point out the innefficiencies and moral problems with our court's handling of tort cases, but keep in mind that the overall effect of how our justice system works is very good. Good example is: most houses in the U.S. do not have alarm systems protecting the house, and most of those very houses have windows. Windows are nothing but a sheet of glass, which could easily be broken by a small child or a weak elderly person. Just that sheet of glass protects the lives and possessions of all inside the house - yet breaking and entering (and anything following that) do not happen most of the time.

Also, think of how common a conspiracy is, in a tort that is (and anything that is constructive). That right there proves that civil wrongdoers are thinking hard of ways, and working hard,  to avoid the punishments of damages. And they still often end up getting sued.

I totally agree with you that morality and court decisions do not connect - I personally have great issue with all the corruption in the courts, and how overly severe criminal law is - but in times when I think about such things, I then think of how it could be better. It is hard to think of anything that would make it better, because hundreds of thousands of people have thought that same thing for hundreds of years and have stepped out into courts, congress, or even the streets, etc., to make changes occur. Sure witnesses will lie, but can they brave the perils of cross examination? sure  dirty lawyers commit fraud, but can they run from the good lawyers sueing them? Sure judges get bribed, but their legacy will last for centuries, and if they got caught, they will always be known as a rat. Sure lawyers help witnesses perjure testimony of an employer to help their case, but the opposite lawyer may have been smart enough to have his client sneak a recording device into his  pocket when the client went back to the employer for dispute resolution. It's all the little things that make law both a dirty game, and a cool system that people fight for. It reminds me of that section of John Grishams Rainmaker when they spoke on the phone about what jurors they would tamper with, knowing that they secretly would not tamper with any, and it was actually a method of getting the undesirable jurors off the bench.

I agree with your thoughts about morality, but seriously, tell me what you think would make it better, I bet I could have a good counter argument of why it is better the way it is