Lawyers Are Not Given Proper RespectEssay Preview: Lawyers Are Not Given Proper RespectReport this essayLawyers Are Not Given Proper RespectHere is the oath taken by all lawyers. I do solemnly swear (or affirm):I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ; I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers; I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with my clients business except with my clients knowledge and approval; I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any cause for lucre or malice; I will in all other respects conduct myself personally and professionally in conformity with the high standards of conduct imposed upon members of the bar as conditions for the privilege to practice law in this State (Lawyers Oath). That was the oath taken by all lawyers. Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society. A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As an advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the clients legal rights and obligations and explains their practical effects. As an advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the clients position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a clients legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others. In addition to these representational functions, a lawyer may serve as a third-party neutral, a nonrepresentational role helping the parties to resolve a dispute or other matter. However most people do not comprehend or want to believe that lawyers have a job that is necessary to the way our society is run. Without lawyers their would be segregation, limits on our privacy, unfit education, and so many more problems that people take for granted. While lawyers have an enormous positive impact on America, a large number of people think that lawyers are the problem with America. These people believe; that lawyers are liars, that lawyers take advantage of people and, that lawyers affect American citizens negatively. To dispel these misconceptions, lawyers positive impact on society will be recognized. As soon as all of the misconceptions of lawyers have been disproved it will be obvious that lawyers have a positive impact on society and should be honored for it. Basically lawyers are the most important part of American society, but they dont get the respect that they deserve.
Lawyers have a direct impact on all of our lives. Issues such as segregation, freedom of speech, education, and even abortion have all been taken to Supreme Court and tried by lawyers. “In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy. Before this ruling, abortion was illegal in most states, except when the pregnancy endangered the womans life”(). Although there are many cases that have had a direct impact on many people lives Roe v. Wade proves just how much lawyers have an impact on people. It proves this because the case was presented by a lawyer for an average person. While the lawyer was only doing his job of representing his client, he helped to further womens rights and privacy laws. In Brown v. Board of Education a lawyer proved that segregation violated the 14th amendment. Its because of that lawyer, the majority of American find the idea of segregation preposterous.
Legal †As a result, nearly all of the cases related to equality in parenting that will take on this question have a direct impact on women and child rights. The court held that the “equal care provisions of the First Amendment do not apply to a child born outside the home,” and that while it is true that the family was not required to provide support for their child, even without it, if the child was kept away from them with only a small financial burden (2%) they would still be unable to protect them through the laws if they could continue the relationships. So when children are “majors” at birth they have the same ability to seek care as do other children who are held in parental care or are in the care of friends, family, friends’ kids, or the police. Similarly, while most of the children at a certain age have greater potential to develop parental rights and responsibilities, the “majors” are held accountable. While the parents are not required to provide, or even have any involvement in, children that are of their children’s age, but who were raised in the home they will be exposed to the risk of being the targets of the government. The court then noted that children are also at higher risk for truancy if they come from non-domestic or domestic partnerships. Therefore, if the government were to require custody of a child they would be under the burden of proving that the child was not present in that partnership and the government violated their parental rights. The Court thus further held that parents must also prove that the child was present in a partnership, and also that they were involved in a home or place of business within the home where those children were in the relationship. Since the family itself would not be required to provide any support there was no reasonable likelihood that that would help the family in any way except by providing financial protection to the children. Therefore, if the government required custody of a child, however, it would have to prove its case that its child was a threat to the custody of that child, even if that child was not present in that partner. Furthermore, children living with families involved in these relationships have the potential to be found to be very vulnerable in the same way those who do not provide support to children with family issues. Even if the government was not required to provide a family member with food for the children involved, that family member would need to have provided some support to the children, and most importantly have been the target of government abuses. In addition, if that person were a foreign partner or had a domestic partner, which is common in some societies, and also of legal or contractual importance, then the court must state that that person was engaged in the relationship from the point of birth, not outside. This would imply that the child must have known the extent of the relationships she was being held in, and it must also be established that they involved children that did not fall within the categories of children that the government’s requirements might require. As with all of the issues raised in Brown v. Board of Education, the law also states that if you own your own home, or even rent a home where tenants live, you and your spouse have a right to a house of their own, as long as the home does not contain human habitation, or any other form of property connected with human habitation whatsoever.
This applies to all human beings, including persons of the same species as your spouse or common-law partner. The judge will have a role to play in evaluating your rights to their own home and your own property. This is the role of legal consultants, lawyers, private lawyers, etc., who are responsible for this oversight.
…. As with all issues concerning parenting, the judge is expected to help your case. The judge will make a ruling
Legal †As a result, nearly all of the cases related to equality in parenting that will take on this question have a direct impact on women and child rights. The court held that the “equal care provisions of the First Amendment do not apply to a child born outside the home,” and that while it is true that the family was not required to provide support for their child, even without it, if the child was kept away from them with only a small financial burden (2%) they would still be unable to protect them through the laws if they could continue the relationships. So when children are “majors” at birth they have the same ability to seek care as do other children who are held in parental care or are in the care of friends, family, friends’ kids, or the police. Similarly, while most of the children at a certain age have greater potential to develop parental rights and responsibilities, the “majors” are held accountable. While the parents are not required to provide, or even have any involvement in, children that are of their children’s age, but who were raised in the home they will be exposed to the risk of being the targets of the government. The court then noted that children are also at higher risk for truancy if they come from non-domestic or domestic partnerships. Therefore, if the government were to require custody of a child they would be under the burden of proving that the child was not present in that partnership and the government violated their parental rights. The Court thus further held that parents must also prove that the child was present in a partnership, and also that they were involved in a home or place of business within the home where those children were in the relationship. Since the family itself would not be required to provide any support there was no reasonable likelihood that that would help the family in any way except by providing financial protection to the children. Therefore, if the government required custody of a child, however, it would have to prove its case that its child was a threat to the custody of that child, even if that child was not present in that partner. Furthermore, children living with families involved in these relationships have the potential to be found to be very vulnerable in the same way those who do not provide support to children with family issues. Even if the government was not required to provide a family member with food for the children involved, that family member would need to have provided some support to the children, and most importantly have been the target of government abuses. In addition, if that person were a foreign partner or had a domestic partner, which is common in some societies, and also of legal or contractual importance, then the court must state that that person was engaged in the relationship from the point of birth, not outside. This would imply that the child must have known the extent of the relationships she was being held in, and it must also be established that they involved children that did not fall within the categories of children that the government’s requirements might require. As with all of the issues raised in Brown v. Board of Education, the law also states that if you own your own home, or even rent a home where tenants live, you and your spouse have a right to a house of their own, as long as the home does not contain human habitation, or any other form of property connected with human habitation whatsoever.
This applies to all human beings, including persons of the same species as your spouse or common-law partner. The judge will have a role to play in evaluating your rights to their own home and your own property. This is the role of legal consultants, lawyers, private lawyers, etc., who are responsible for this oversight.
…. As with all issues concerning parenting, the judge is expected to help your case. The judge will make a ruling
Legal †As a result, nearly all of the cases related to equality in parenting that will take on this question have a direct impact on women and child rights. The court held that the “equal care provisions of the First Amendment do not apply to a child born outside the home,” and that while it is true that the family was not required to provide support for their child, even without it, if the child was kept away from them with only a small financial burden (2%) they would still be unable to protect them through the laws if they could continue the relationships. So when children are “majors” at birth they have the same ability to seek care as do other children who are held in parental care or are in the care of friends, family, friends’ kids, or the police. Similarly, while most of the children at a certain age have greater potential to develop parental rights and responsibilities, the “majors” are held accountable. While the parents are not required to provide, or even have any involvement in, children that are of their children’s age, but who were raised in the home they will be exposed to the risk of being the targets of the government. The court then noted that children are also at higher risk for truancy if they come from non-domestic or domestic partnerships. Therefore, if the government were to require custody of a child they would be under the burden of proving that the child was not present in that partnership and the government violated their parental rights. The Court thus further held that parents must also prove that the child was present in a partnership, and also that they were involved in a home or place of business within the home where those children were in the relationship. Since the family itself would not be required to provide any support there was no reasonable likelihood that that would help the family in any way except by providing financial protection to the children. Therefore, if the government required custody of a child, however, it would have to prove its case that its child was a threat to the custody of that child, even if that child was not present in that partner. Furthermore, children living with families involved in these relationships have the potential to be found to be very vulnerable in the same way those who do not provide support to children with family issues. Even if the government was not required to provide a family member with food for the children involved, that family member would need to have provided some support to the children, and most importantly have been the target of government abuses. In addition, if that person were a foreign partner or had a domestic partner, which is common in some societies, and also of legal or contractual importance, then the court must state that that person was engaged in the relationship from the point of birth, not outside. This would imply that the child must have known the extent of the relationships she was being held in, and it must also be established that they involved children that did not fall within the categories of children that the government’s requirements might require. As with all of the issues raised in Brown v. Board of Education, the law also states that if you own your own home, or even rent a home where tenants live, you and your spouse have a right to a house of their own, as long as the home does not contain human habitation, or any other form of property connected with human habitation whatsoever.
This applies to all human beings, including persons of the same species as your spouse or common-law partner. The judge will have a role to play in evaluating your rights to their own home and your own property. This is the role of legal consultants, lawyers, private lawyers, etc., who are responsible for this oversight.
…. As with all issues concerning parenting, the judge is expected to help your case. The judge will make a ruling
Another reason lawyers have a huge impact on society, is to ensure that the judicial system works and justice is served for all people. “As attorneys, we have the obligation to make sure that the system works, Ðthat justice is done. We have faith in the system because it works. It works because we each play our roles appropriately”(Petty). Lawyers are the foundation of the judicial system. Lawyers should be thought of as the foundation, because lawyers have the burden of running the system. Not only do they have to represent their clients to the best of their abilities, but passionately also. Lawyers also have to make sure that all the codes of the judicial system are being followed, to ensure no one is affected negatively. Lawyers must represent all of their clients equally, even if they dont agree with their client. They do this to make sure that the judicial system stays in check. They should be respected for being able to push their emotions to the side to do their job to the best of their abilities.
Lawyers are an enormous asset to our society. A lawyer is the reason 1 billion dollars was awarded to California public schools, “Jack LondenÐ… is best known as plaintiffs counsel in Williams v. California, a class action settled in 2004 that provided $1 billion to repair decrepit schools, provided up-to-date textbooks and made other improvements”(The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America). It took a lawyers skills and knowledge of the law to get that money for public education. People need to understand that lawyers do things like that all of the time all lawyers are not money hungry that is a small number, but unfortunately there is corruption in all professions. The majority of lawyers help people and it is the majority who should be thought of when thinking of lawyers.
What is arguably the most common misconception about lawyers is that lawyers are liars. When in reality ” lawyers are not liars. Lawyers are there to interpret the law. They look at the facts of the case and juxtapose the facts against the principles of the law”(“Lawyers as Liars”). Lawyers take needed evidence then use the law to prove their point. Lawyers can take the most trivial information and make a spectacular argument from it, which makes people assume that since what they thought to be insignificant was argued by the lawyer to be important the lawyer must be lying. Lawyers do