"I've had no previous accounts."
Does this mean that you are baseball-99 or Bill Clinton?:smile:
"I've had no previous accounts."
Finally, let's put this claim that legal specialists don't need to be worried about generalist concerns. It's 100% specious. No one individual is going to be versant on every aspect of the law, but it is reasonable to expect any lawyer to be able to respond to generalist topics of the law with a little time and research! That's exactly what the MA bar was testing of its aspiring lawyers - the ability to reason through a relatively new legal problem with some degree of reasonable preparation.
Does this mean that you are baseball-99 or Bill Clinton?:smile:
Nice straw man argument. The claim that you suggest is 100% specious was never advanced, yet you act as if it had been. Not all of the areas tested by the bar qualify as purely generalist concerns. For instance, child custody is not a generalist concern in the sense that contracts are.
So, to re-re-re-re-re-reiterate, there are attorneys who are not only competent, but expert, in their fields, who know nothing (as a practical matter) of child custody. You might have to know a bit to pass the bar, but then you can abandon that body of law altogether, depending upon what sort of practice in which you'd prefer to engage. Most of your clients would happy you weren't wasting time maintaining competency in areas you never intend to touch - the only downside would be losing the type of person (of which there are evidently a few here) who would quiz you in irrelevancies and find you wanting. Probably problem clients anyway, so no biggie.
Legal competency is demonstrated in one's ability to reason through the law! It's not about an area of specialization.
Either way, the whole point is again, MOOT. The Bar Association of Massachusetts believes that its newly minted lawyers should be able to demonstrate their ability to reason through a novel case of gay divorce and its legal ramifications. Old lawyers should be able to reason - emphasis on the process of reasoning - through the law as well, if given the appropriate amount of time to prepare.
Please type this same response again, except quote post #1 instead of post number #104 (or whichever one you quoted...), since the original post is the point.All true. But it has nothing to do with an attorney who has selected not to practice certain areas, regardless of the reason. And yes, that would include an attorney who has determined he will not represent gays because he believes them to be morally represensible. He COULD, but he WON'T. That attorney may still be quite competent, which is the point.
Please type this same response again, except quote post #1 instead of post number #104 (or whichever one you quoted...), since the original post is the point.
Does this mean that you are baseball-99 or Bill Clinton?:smile:
Those little news blurbs about the case were, as usual, garbled and generally useless. They appear to be conflating several independent factors. Reading between the lines just a bit, it looks like there might actually be a case there. To the extent that it is attacking rampant PC-ness in the machinery of Justice in Massachusetts, it may get a more sympathetic reception than might be assumed. The system here in MA is horribly PC, and not a few people know it. If the plaintiff can turn the question into a choice - do we want justice for all, or do we really want to sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness - he may have a serious case, and one which may influence events in other jurisdictions even if it fails here in PC country.
Obviously, lacking any decent information at all, I wouldn't care to make a guess as to the real merits of the case. But it may be premature to dismiss them out of hand.
BINGO!!
Did you know baseball99 claimed to have multiple people posting from his one very opinionated account? He's also a 100% straight married man with a penchant for PMing cute gays boys with, "you're so cute, i'm thinking of changing my percentages."
This guy sounds exactly like him and I bet buhballs is PMing the cute gay boys, too.
I don't know who baseball99 is, but perhaps you ought to spend more time with your husband than trying to figure out what I do with my spare time.
This is a viewpoint that relates primarily to American English; I work regularly with a British publisher, and she and I are frequently driven to despair by the reluctance of American contributors to embrace 'they' as a singular pronoun. In British English, it has been embraced by most of the leading authorities for over twenty years, as a neat shorthand for avoiding gender-specificity; in Australian English, meanwhile, the use of 'they' as a singular pronoun has effectively enjoyed official government backing since 1998, when the Australian Guide to Legal Citation was officially enshrined as a uniform system of legal citation.
...Although many scholarly and professional writers and editors have been educated to avoid singular they as substandard...
Meanwhile, the British publisher and I keep on changing every 's/he', 'he/she', 'he or she', etc. within contributions by American writers to 'they'... and nobody's ever batted an eyelid.
Why do you insist on derailing/hijacking the thread? Why do you refuse to debate the original topic?Not the point -I- was talking about.
Why do you insist on derailing/hijacking the thread? Why do you refuse to debate the original topic?
Why do you insist on derailing/hijacking the thread? Why do you refuse to debate the original topic?
Would the fellow still find the question morally reprehensible, simply because it referenced homosexuality (and therefore refuse to answer the question) or would he most likely jump on that one with glee?
No, all that I understood to have been said whas that if he wasn't able to represent them he's incompetent. He can decline if he likes, but he needs to know how to represent them. So-called reprehensible people generally have the same rights as anyone else....some suggested that if an attorney declines to represent someone because he finds their behavior/beliefs morally reprehensible, he is somehow less than competent, or acting in a fashion inconsistent with his oath...
...One would have to struggle mightily to miss this point.
QED again.
LOLIf Stephen Dunne wins his case, I hope he'll do the honorable thing and sue to protect my "right" not to recognize marriages which offend me. Like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, 'cause they're a freakshow. Or Hugh Jackman and Deborra Furness, 'cause it spoils my fantasy...
No, but he does need to know about contracts becasue contracts come up in every facet of law practice. If Mr. Dunne had been able to discuss some issues with the pre-nup in the question, he might have gotten his two points. They do give partial credit, you know.Your point is correct as far as it goes. While family law is clearly on the bar, it isn't on the list of things all attorneys need to have familiarity with in order to practice. That antitrust lawyer need know nothing of pre-nups or custody.
Sorry the guy couldn't pass the test. He needs to do what everyone else does that fails the test the first time. Go home and relearn what he has forgotten and try to pass the test again.
I don't remember the statistics, but it is not unusual for people to fail their first attempt at taking the bar exam.
You're nuts. It is true that there are general practitioners, and it is true that lawyers are expected to demonstrate competency in a number of practice areas, but many areas of the law have been specialized for years, and practitioners in those areas, after being a decade or two away from the bar, may very well be clueless, for all practical purposes, about wide swaths of the law. And only the truly ignorant would consider them incompetent.
Uh... He's an admin. He can probably see your address. I know of at least one moderator here who knows how to find out exactly where you are based on your IP address. Are you sure you want them to publicly provide proof?Yeah. I think it would be a good idea to offer that proof. I've had no previous accounts.
...The claim that you suggest is 100% specious was never advanced, yet you act as if it had been. Not all of the areas tested by the bar qualify as purely generalist concerns. ...
You prove nothing ever. Please stop QED-ing us to death. This isn't mathematics. I agree that one would have to struggle mightily to miss the point. Why does a lawyer who won't practice family law need to understand family to be a comeptent lawyer? Simple. Competent lawyers are licensed. The state bar in MA has decided understanding of family law is neccesarry to receive a license. Several others have pointed out even better reasons.
"Understanding of family law is necessary to receive a license." As a practical matter, not necessary to keep a license. QED.