Wol said,

But the point I was making is that lawyers are expected to do what they're paid for, and whether you like the client or not, you admire some of Oracle's attorneys for their lawyering skills. Don't judge an attorney by his clients :-)

Oracle's attorneys were probably instructed to make the best arguments they could ethically make for their client's position. Oracle, as a company, probably felt that their position had merit, but I'm reasonably sure that Oracle's in-house attorneys, at least, had reasonable expectations of what their litigation attorneys could and couldn't do.

On the other hand, I'm sorry that you are still unqualifiedly stating that lawyers are expected to do what they're paid for, because I know for a fact that many -- if not most or all -- lawyers DO judge their clients.

A client who expects what you say to expect from their lawyer may be likely to go off and do whatever they want, regardless of contrary advice by their lawyer, expecting their lawyers to cover for them. Then, when something goes wrong, instead of taking personal responsibility for it, they are likely to blame their lawyers for failing to take care of it for them. Clients like this may also put lawyers in ethical positions that are untenable and have expectations that are difficult or impossible for an attorney to meet.

It is my understanding that professional malpractice insurance companies may warn lawyers not to accept cases from this type of client at all.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]