The law profession has been a target for unfavorable criticism for many centuries.

This criticism has at times been extremely slanderous, malicious and vitriolic but has taken the form of mere ridicule. Ray Simon/ Murray Schwartz said the following about lawyers in their text: Lawyers and the Legal Profession, lawyers are not popular, they are not trusted, and lawyers are not respected. You are embarking on a career that will lead you to ridicule, criticism and suspicion, your work will seldom be understood or appreciated by your friends, by the public or even by your own clients It is said that no teacher of the law had been rebuked by any judge but Jesus Christ did so. In Luke 11:46, Christ reprimands lawyers and says Woe unto you lawyers for you put loads on peoples backs which are hard to carry but you yourselves, will not stretch out a finger to help them carry those loads. Verse 52 continues Woe unto you, lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge, you yourselves will not go in, and you stop those who are trying to go in.No lawyer of modern times should take the slightest rebuff in reference to verses quoted in that gospel, since the functions of the scribes in biblical times are not in the least comparable to the functions of the present day lawyer. . One of the earliest reported hostilities towards advocates related to the English Peasant Revolt of 1831. It is reported that more judges and lawyers were killed in that revolt than in any other single class of persons. One disappointed reporter described the escape of lawyers on the following terms it is marvelous to see how even the most aged and infirmed of these scrambled off with the agility of rats or evil spirits. Benjamin Israel is reported saying that the legal mind consists of illustrating the obvious and explaining the self evident. The image of lawyers has been tainted and this has to do either with the nature of the lawyers profession or the working of the legal profession or impropriety on the part of advocates or both. Lawyers are liars, this is a statement maybe even in the context of a lawyer joke we laughed or snickered at the dubious reputation of attorneys. This assertion is often declared in a personal& frustrating brush with the legal industry. But how true is it? Such assertions are rather provocative and dangerous to lawyers & may seem reckless to a portion of these practicing in the legal community. There is need to address this inflammatory accusation. Most lawyers would agree that they wouldnt want to be referred to as a liar. There are four schools of thought that have believe this assertion is true.

GROUP 1: It consists of people who just dont trust lawyers as theyve had a terrible experience with an unethical or deceptive attorney that truly left a negative impression on them. Regrettably some lawyers are liars. They ruin many peoples lives and at the least give lawyers a bad name & image. Just as some journalists are biased, some doctors quacks & some evangelists money grabbers, we should put in mind these are exceptions and not the rule.

GROUP 2: This group loves calling lawyers liars. There are a number of promoters genres who sell their selfserving strategies and products that line their pockets with lucre and leave us lawyers holding an empty bag. Thus, they call us liars to justify their supposed integrity and goal of providing truth which lawyers for some reason wont deliver. It should be noted that these promoters are not lawyers. They use statements such as; Lawyers charge too much, but heres how I can help much cheaply. Lawyers simply dont understand land trust, but I do, so listen to this Lawyers dont want to show you the truth, so check out this strategy Those statements often victimize innocent lawyers. Most would agree that the most complex theories and concepts in a variety of intellectual topics may be Mathematics, Philosophy and Medicine but legal analysis is a close 2nd. .Land trusts may be too complex for us to grasp but it doesnt mean we surrender and leave it to the college drop outs.

GROUP 3:
This is the largest group consisting of unfortunate people who are so frustrated with the legal industry as a whole .This is understandable but rather regrettable .Some lawyers may have become extremely cynical, distrusting and afraid to the point of becoming polarized and thereby not pursuing any legal training. Dont let this happen to any of you and if its already taking place, please use this forum to shatter your preconceived notion of lawyers being liars. Lawyers Are Liars: The Truth about Protecting Our Assets Mark J. Kohler. The famous quotation from Shakespeare that, First thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers. The appropriate response we lawyers would give is to ignore them. Another option would be making a professional non-defensive response e.g. Its just one line from a 400years old play. It would be wrong to assert that a particular character is echoing an authors beliefs. Shakespeare was an entertainer and many of the rabbles in the audience certainly enjoyed such popular sentiments. The truth about that statement is that they arent from a disgruntled litigant but were uttered by the conspirators in Cades Rebellion who planned to overthrow the English government, destroy the ancient rights English men and women. Shakespeare reminds the groundings that lawyers are protectors of that system of ordered liberty are as much an obstacle to a rebellion that would curtail liberty. Lawyers insist that this famous quote was not a criticism but actually the greatest possible compliment. The scene from Henry VI (part11) concerns the planning of an evil revolution- a takeover of power by Cades & his companion, Dick the Butcher for their own greedy purposes. Dick recognizing the one group of people that might save the citizens property and rights says, First thing we do, lets kill all lawyers. His goal was to destroy the law so that the citizens would have no legal protection. The lawyers were potential enemies of the despots. Anybody who uses this quote is ignorant and not updated.

Lawyers provide vital services and make the world to little better. The problem is that our society isnt with the lawyers, but the media who continue to report the minutiae of negativity in the profession while skipping the positive things. There no need to show resentment, fury or discomfort over the publics dissatisfaction with the legal profession. Historically, lawyers have been respected, although their public approval ratings never matched those of Physicians or the Clergy. After all, the lawyers most publicized role is criminal defense. Many people will never approve a profession that they believe puts dangerous animals back on the street. Clients resentment of fees & perceived over-billing has result in lawyers being portrayed as greedy and unscrupulous. Changing the public view isnt the crucial point what we want to change our own attitudes& perceptions. There is no doubt that many people believe they are being robbed if they are charged a fee which to their minds seems large and unreasonable. The public is generally unaware that a lawyer follows a system of charges for services which is not usually computed on a daily basis but is mainly based upon the nature of the case, the work in preparation for trial, the time consumed in the preparation and trial and the amount involved in litigation Ethics of the lawyers work 2nd Edn by James E. Moliterno For practical purposes, lawyers are the law. An intellectually powerful picture dominates academic as well as professional discussions of legal ethics. This consists of 3 elements: The theory of role morality (the ethical system that F.H Bradley styled my station and its duties), the adversary system excuse and the standard conception of the lawyers role. This theory takes off from a distinction between universal moral duties that bind us all because we are all moral agents and special duties that go with various social roles or stations in life. The moment we draw this distinction ,we observe that conflicts sometimes arise between common morality and role morality e.g. when a lawyers role morality demands that she bends her talents &ingenuity toward getting a guilty, violent criminal back out on the street .When such arise, the theory asserts that role morality take precedence. On this view, morality consists in performing the duties of my station; it explains how people in certain social roles may be morally required to do things that seem immoral. The adversary system of justice lays the responsibility on each party to advocate its own case and to assault the case of the other party. Since this battle of argument is conducted by lawyers, they have a heightened duty of partnership toward their own clients & a diminished duty to respect the interest of their adversaries. Thus, this system excuses lawyers from common moral obligations to non-clients. The three elements form a highly coherent picture that resonates with so much of our familiar experiences and contains so many points of plain truth that it is hard to argue with. We lawyers are familiar with special social roles carrying unique duties that may offend common morality. According to a recent survey, 38% of those polled said that the single most positive aspect of lawyers is that their first priority is to their clients. The debates concerning the proper balance between a lawyers advocacy duties to his client and competing duties to 3rd parties or society in intense. The lawyer is required to be zealous on the clients behalf within the bounds of the law. The undivided devotion to the clients case is the core of lawyering in adversary system.

The classic statement is by Lord Brougham in the Queen Carolines case saying, An advocate in the discharge of his duty knows but one person in the entire world and that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedience and at all hazards and costs to other persons and amongst them to himself is his 1st and only duty and in performing this he must not regard the alarm, the torments, and the destruction which may bring upon others. Justification for this level of zeal is found in the concept of role morality.Indeed; lawyers are specifically told that their representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement of the clients political, economic, social or moral views or activities. The role morality concept relies on the morality of the system within which lawyers act. The justice system depends on lawyers to advocate zealously for their clients causes. A lawyer who does this performs a role within a moral system which is necessary to make that system function. Thus, we lawyers have a role in society but what we do cannot be seen by the naked eye. In the words of an ex-president of the American Bar Association we build no bridges, we raise no towers, we paint no pictures and there is little of all that do which the eyes of men can see. But we soothe difficulties, we relieve stress, we correct mistakes and we take other peoples burdens and by our efforts, we make possible the peaceful life of a man in a peaceful state. Lawyers thus have a duty and responsibility to society. The principles governing the legal profession require advocates to provide services to clients of whatever class. It was evident that lawyers were very vocal and active in pushing for the enactment of a new constitution,. Here is an interesting quote for you to think aboutYet we need once again to focus on what we do and why we do it. Justice is not and has never been a result. It is a process. Whatever the result may be, its propriety, its efficacy is determined by the fairness, honesty and decency of the process, the path we travel to the outcome, not the outcome itself .Those accused may well not be thieves, rapist, murderers and child molesters but for the opportunity to establish so with the assistance of competent counsel