hardbody:


You obviously married the one that doesn't know his onions. You find them in all professions. Some of us are exceptions and don't fit into the mold. Either be a lawyer or marry one, the benefits are unlimited.

Truth is bitter!


the difference BTW lawyers and a thief is dia Cap.

dokyOloye:
I'm married to a lawyer oo,and mehn,seeing what they do at close range ee,we'd be better settling disputes by council of elders.
Dudes are not even smart talk more of intelligent but always want to appear correct.

Can argue from now till next year even when it's clear they are wrong or simply not well grounded in d topic under discussion.

hahahaha



making dem look like fools.

SweetBoyFriend:

What type of drugs are you on ?? Stupidity pills ??

If you would copy an article from a crappy website written by a drunk dude at least try to edit it

Copy and paste is an unintelligent act, you forgot to remove the dollar in that writeup and replace it with naira ??

Let me school you a little bit, even if the writeup is correct, the dude who wrote it might live in Florida, every state in the USA has a different law, that your crappy lawyer write up doesn't work in Wisconsin or Ohio

A lawyer in the USA would never do that type of insincere business, people in the USA would sue a toothpaste company that says that their toothpaste whitens the teeth while it doesn't, just think about what would happen to a lawyer who exhibit some shady act, he will loose his license

Dunno why you are pained doh... 'Lawyers' is the word used and not Nigerian Lawyers. Dollar used was to elaborate and not to restrict the viewership of the post to Nigerians alone. Post was not written for Nigerians alone but for the the Web. Fortunately, the post is written by a Nigerian lawyer and I can challenge anyone who disagrees with the post because it was written with every knowledge and background of the law in mind.

dokyOloye:
Lol.I'm a bros oo married to a female lawyer.
Wc makes it worse sef,lol.Cos U know una wey be women naa,una no de ever gree.
Talk more of when it's backed up wt a legal degree.

Dont worry, it gets easier with time. Just learn to adapt and try to read around the subject too. That is if you have the time. In the past, my husband had this knack of telling me that my explanations to events lacked simple logical flow and he should know cos the subject Logic was taught in their curriculum. Well, I didn't argue but went online and did a short course on logic.... quite interesting I must say... Now, even I can point out illogical statements and that my dear was how Mr Logic died in my household never to be used again in any counter statement. You too shall make it. Amen

Raphael81:


Many of them are good, u may also need them someday willingly or unwillingly

datz wen d business is cool





lawyers are thieves avoid dem.

Who said SUITES aint one of the best series ever!

legalpanic:
Lawyers are not all that heavenly. Lawyers are usually nice but trust me, they have some skeleton in their cupboard, and they never share them with their client.

We have researched on some of the hidden secrets lawyers won’t tell their client. Our goal is not to paint lawyers as villains but to find out some deep mysteries in the legal profession.

The Big Secret includes:

(1.) Sue for negligence: This is top of the chart because Lawyers all over the world will never tell their clients that they can sue them for negligence as regards their duty to them. I sincerely wish you great luck finding at what point your lawyer was negligent because that is no small discovery.

(2.) He never tells you all his mistakes in your case. No Lawyers want to show his weaknesses to his client. Every day, millions of mistakes are made by Lawyers in their client’s case but trust me only very few are detected by the client.

(3.) I will charge as much as you let me is the slogan for lawyers. It is honestly really difficult to equate a lawyer’s fee because the same job that is done for a few dollars by a Solicitor can be done by another solicitor for a million dollars.

(4.) Some of the jobs they charge you for can be done by you. Your lawyer will always give you the impression that you have no other option than to pay for his expert supervision and drafting of all legal and paralegal processes. Well, there is nothing stopping you as a client to draft a letter in your name, even draft your own will, etc. However, there are some minimum requirements for drafting a will by yourself. James, an insurance broker, still feels it is safer to use a lawyer, because their professionalism and experience enables them the opportunity to avoid little mistakes, that he personally could have avoided in his demand letter for a loan. However, you commit a crime if you draft any legal instrument meant to be drafted by a lawyer by Law.

(5.) Lawyers don’t tell their clients they are not expected to have any extra relationship with them aside being their lawyer. It is a breach of trust for a lawyer to be having any sexual relationship with his or her client. As a lawyer, you are considered to be in a fiduciary relationship with your client, and the law presumes the client to possible vulnerability. Lawyers are not expected to take undue advantage or get personally involved in a client’s divorce case or have a sexual relationship with them. To be free from this burden, a lawyer is expected to either break the bond between himself and the client or wait until the client’s case is over. Mary, a businesswoman, told us how she almost lost her husband due to the pressure she got from a lawyer who was only encouraging her to divorce the husband only because of his self-fish interest in her while she only asked him to commence a case of breach of contract between her and her husband. Mary’s story is one of the little stories we hear every day.

(6.) That he is not as good as he looks or sounds. Once a client briefs his lawyer, the next thing he does once you leave his office is to consult his library. Lawyers will always speak like they were actually ready for the brief before you narrated it, but the truth is they might have probably given you a wrong advice, but they are quick to consult the books and the library on the right thing. Take note, your lawyer will impress you more on the second meeting with perhaps a counter advice and will make it sound convincing. Next time you notice this, just smile because he has gone to dig the real gist from his library.

(7.) Lawyers don’t tell their clients that they are not the best in a particular field of law and not totally an expert in every area of law. Anyways, with the much preaching about specialisation, some Lawyers are now open to discussing this with their client.

(8.) Lawyers will not tell you the simple solutions to your problems that will not involve his expertise. This is due to the fact that he won’t be paid except he can secure payment from such advice then he will let the cat out of the bag.

(9.) Lawyers most times don’t know a lot outside the walls of law. Asking a lawyer some basic question can put him entirely off the guard, but the unique thing about these wonderful creatures is their acute acumen for swift thinking. Lawyers are trained to be smart thinkers, so they find a way to manoeuvre their way. Can’t blame them, they are trained to at least know a little about everything, or perhaps pretend that they know a little about everything.

(10.) Lawyers don’t tell their clients that they consult their fellow Lawyers to get their advice and opinions on how to handle your case. Sometimes they ask for law reports, steps to take, or simple things like how to charge you more, how or where to pay a particular fee.

(11.) Lawyers don’t tell you that they appear all rich and neat just to get more money from you and appear intelligent. You see a lawyer and his big car and clean three-piece suit, you assume he is all rich and all intelligent. Well, looks can be deceptive. He might not be totally intelligent or rich, it is just part of the business. Andy, a promising accountant, told us how his lawyer with all the glamour couldn’t say anything in court but kept on asking for more bountiful remuneration and fees.

(12.) Lawyers don’t tell their clients that they will most likely abandon their matter in court or give their younger lawyers and workers all the dirty work for a more tantalising one. According to them, this will afford the younger ones the opportunity to learn the ropes of the profession.

(13.) Lawyers are egocentric beings, they will never tell you another lawyer is better than them except it is a matter of specialisation. Where they can easily say, Attorney Thomson is a better marine lawyer than myself, but I am ahead in crime advocacy.
CULLED: http://legalpanic.com/

See Casting

/
Every profession in the world has its share of experts and quacks. It gets worse with non-scientific professions in which sales pitch matters more than the profession itself and the results cannot be quantified. There are many intelligent and successful lawyers. Conversely, there are many lawyers still under the mango trees. Quacks dread going to court.

Do they still run those evening, weekend or satelite campus law schools in Nigeria?
/

pesinfada:
Shout ur dirty mouth up

who do u wana intimidate?


it is true u can kill urself.


broke ass tins calling demselves lawyers!

Ur frustration is noted. Unfortunately, no one can help your inferiority complex. Pathetic soul.

Kay17:


I like your example with doctors. Doctors need to be licensed because creates an authority to authenticates the professional and competent doctors which is a form of service to the general public. However for lawyers, of what use of the legal requirements of a will other than giving the true desires and wishes of the dying man. That's the true validity of a will everything else is secondary.

Except lawyers use the law to their ends to make business for themselves at the expense of the general public

from the way you are sounding, I now understand u are not a lawyer nor anything related to being a law student

i will be overspending my time if I continue this legal intercourse with you.

my final advice is, "don't ever think that lawyers spent 6 yrs in Sch and read for the rest of his life for nothing or for something a layman can do".
Go back and read the case I referred u to pls

ekene247:


from the way you are sounding, I now understand u are not a lawyer nor anything related to being a law student

i will be overspending my time if I continue this legal intercourse with you.

my final advice is, "don't ever think that lawyers spent 6 yrs in Sch and read for the rest of his life for nothing or for something a layman can do".
Go back and read the case I referred u to pls

I never claimed to be a lawyer or law student and it would be preposterous for me to claim the wealth of knowledge a trained lawyer toiled to accumulate.

Nonetheless the courts and lawyers play the role of applying the laws made by the legislature who are representatives of the general public. These representatives have the duty to create and fashion laws to suit the needs and ends of the public that elected them. Legal training is neither a prerequisite for law making but common sense and a sense of responsibility.

That is why when I argued with you about wills, the legislature had in mind the effect of satisfying the wishes of a dying man and not create a legal web of forms and hurdles which could truncate the purpose the legislature had having regards to wills.

pesinfada:
datz wen d business is cool





lawyers are thieves avoid dem.

Them chop ur money bfr?

Kay17:


I never claimed to be a lawyer or law student and it would be preposterous for me to claim the wealth of knowledge a trained lawyer toiled to accumulate.

Nonetheless the courts and lawyers play the role of applying the laws made by the legislature who are representatives of the general public. These representatives have the duty to create and fashion laws to suit the needs and ends of the public that elected them. Legal training is neither a prerequisite for law making but common sense and a sense of responsibility.

That is why when I argued with you about wills, the legislature had in mind the effect of satisfying the wishes of a dying man and not create a legal web of forms and hurdles which could truncate the purpose the legislature had having regards to wills.

Lawyers draft the statutes/laws that a passed at national Assembly, in short, it is not ordinary lawyers, lawyers that have done masters and PhD in legal drafting... those law makers just debate it and pass it.

again, most Wills are not that of a "dying man" as u keep on saying. Will is made mostly when one is healthy and given to the lawyer to keep. if one makes a will while dying, it may not be invalid but most likely to be invalid due to state of his health and the likelihood that he is vulnerable to deception and pressure at that point in time.

Bro, don't be Penny wise and pounds foolish.
Give that dime to a lawyer and it will save you a lot.

go and read the case I referred u to bro.

Kay17:


I never claimed to be a lawyer or law student and it would be preposterous for me to claim the wealth of knowledge a trained lawyer toiled to accumulate.

Nonetheless the courts and lawyers play the role of applying the laws made by the legislature who are representatives of the general public. These representatives have the duty to create and fashion laws to suit the needs and ends of the public that elected them. Legal training is neither a prerequisite for law making but common sense and a sense of responsibility.

That is why when I argued with you about wills, the legislature had in mind the effect of satisfying the wishes of a dying man and not create a legal web of forms and hurdles which could truncate the purpose the legislature had having regards to wills.

I am afraid to let you know that Lawyers are trained in the art of legislative drafting in the same bargain. Consequently, the broad hint is that the legislature has next to nothing to do with your making a will. It's a civil law affairs.

pesinfada:

Truth is bitter!


the difference BTW lawyers and a thief is dia Cap.

Were you refused admission to study law? You are sounding very bitter against that profession.

hardbody:


Were you refused admission to study law? You are sounding very bitter against that profession.

Acts right from time is for dummies.



#im in sciences



t

legalpanic:

Dunno why you are pained doh... 'Lawyers' is the word used and not Nigerian Lawyers. Dollar used was to elaborate and not to restrict the viewership of the post to Nigerians alone. Post was not written for Nigerians alone but for the the Web. Fortunately, the post is written by a Nigerian lawyer and I can challenge anyone who disagrees with the post because it was written with every knowledge and background of the law in mind.

I guess it was also written after interacting with ALL lawyers in the country present and future. Let me again use a live example to discredit that spurious claim. If i am briefed, my training already gives me clarity of the nature of action, whether in tort , trusts, crime, family law, etc. I carry out a synopsis of the matter with a review on case law, and i provide an opinion, unsolicited to advise whether to proceed or not. I will never go to court with clear knowledge that i have an incurable bad case, however where a client insists because he needs time to perform or perfect some acts, we can use the technicalities of the law to buy time. Recently we needed to sue a law firm that brought a garnishee Proceedings against a company. We briefed one of the most brilliant and prolific law firm around. Their representatives walked of the meeting with assurance that they will prosecute the action. A few days later they came back to share negative thoughts about the possible success of the action. They cited a case law as their authority. I conceded to their thoughts but reviewed that authority some more and came out still with the belief that i can get justice in that matter.

Not all lawyers will lie to you about you having a good case even though the relevant law allows me to take up your matter without first adjuging you guilty.

It is so tiring trying to to teach a non lawyer and worse, a brain dead inconsequential bent on defending points that only exist in his head.

I can pick on most of the points there to discredit them and disabuse the minds of right thinking men, sadly many people here fall below that test.

pesinfada:
Acts right from time is for dummies.



#im in sciences



t

I laugh. I was one of the best science students in my secondary school. When I write JAMB, it was in the era when any combination of courses could be used and guess what, i combined only sciences in JAMB entrance examinations and scored 360 out of a total of 400. While in year one studying GSS as it's called in my uni, the second semester when we were taken through science courses to enable all students get a full rounded knowledge, i scored top of the first year students. My point, i studied law because I loved it and still do, i knew the potentials and i wasn't wrong. If i had to live my life again, i will still be a lawyer.

We know who the real dummies are.

I can conveniently discuss your field even if at the peripheral level, but you cannot scratch the surface on my field.

Mental midgets and academic lilliputs should actually be restricted to reading without commenting

kolado:
I am afraid to let you know that Lawyers are trained in the art of legislative drafting in the same bargain. Consequently, the broad hint is that the legislature has next to nothing to do with your making a will. It's a civil law affairs.

Even if lawyers are drafting it in reality, theoretically the law makers decide what goes into the law. The substance of the law is actually decided by the lay man lawmaker. And the courts will interpret the law in accordance to the intents of the Law maker. I learnt courts in England go as far as relying on Hansard along with the letters of the law.

In respect to the will, a legislation governs it and consequently the lawmakers with the aid of some unknown lawyers have decided on the substance of a typical will. Right?

hardbody:


I laugh. I was one of the best science students in my secondary school. When I write JAMB, it was in the era when any combination of courses could be used and guess what, i combined only sciences in JAMB entrance examinations and scored 360 out of a total of 400. While in year one studying GSS as it's called in my uni, the second semester when we were taken through science courses to enable all students get a full rounded knowledge, i scored top of the first year students. My point, i studied law because I loved it and still do, i knew the potentials and i wasn't wrong. If i had to live my life again, i will still be a lawyer.

We know who the real dummies are.

I can conveniently discuss your field even if at the peripheral level, but you cannot scratch the surface on my field.
Mental midgets and academic lilliputs should actually be restricted to reading without commenting

Tell dis to an illiterate


law proffesion is only praised by uneducated pharaoh.

Genea:
lolx, how do you even cope with him? I often avoid lawyers as friends cos dey are egocentric bastards and wud never accept that they are wrong

Not all of them are like that.

Someone like to talk above others, have an air of superiority

Others are down to earth and act like normal people, their education notwithstanding.

Maybe you interacted with just the former, but I have interacted with both sets.

The later set can be very pleasant company

MPVGoddess:


Not all of them are like that.

Someone like to talk above others, have an air of superiority

Others are down to earth and act like normal people, their education notwithstanding.

Maybe you interacted with just the former, but I have interacted with both sets.

The later set can be very pleasant company

I hope I meet the latter den...

hardbody:


I guess it was also written after interacting with ALL lawyers in the country present and future. Let me again use a live example to discredit that spurious claim. If i am briefed, my training already gives me clarity of the nature of action, whether in tort , trusts, crime, family law, etc. I carry out a synopsis of the matter with a review on case law, and i provide an opinion, unsolicited to advise whether to proceed or not. I will never go to court with clear knowledge that i have an incurable bad case, however where a client insists because he needs time to perform or perfect some acts, we can use the technicalities of the law to buy time. Recently we needed to sue a law firm that brought a garnishee Proceedings against a company. We briefed one of the most brilliant and prolific law firm around. Their representatives walked of the meeting with assurance that they will prosecute the action. A few days later they came back to share negative thoughts about the possible success of the action. They cited a case law as their authority. I conceded to their thoughts but reviewed that authority some more and came out still with the belief that i can get justice in that matter.

Not all lawyers will lie to you about you having a good case even though the relevant law allows me to take up your matter without first adjuging you guilty.

It is so tiring trying to to teach a non lawyer and worse, a brain dead inconsequential bent on defending points that only exist in his head.

I can pick on most of the points there to discredit them and disabuse the minds of right thinking men, sadly many people here fall below that test.

Go and study law. It will help you appreciate the writeup. I still leave the challenge open for you to counter any point raised in the writeup.

legalpanic:

Go and study law. It will help you appreciate the writeup. I still leave the challenge open for you to counter any point raised in the writeup.

You either did not read my response or you could not comprehend. Either way, i am not able to help you. Accept my sympathy though.

hardbody:


You either did not read my response or you could not comprehend. Either way, i am not able to help you. Accept my sympathy though.

Why do you always sound bitter? I have read your comment over and over again without seeing the direction. Be more specific with your arguement, eg. Point 1 or 2 or 13 is not true, then state your reasons. That way you give everybody a fair chance of learning something from your ALL-KNOWING unguided comments.

legalpanic:

Why do you always sound bitter? I have read your comment over and over again without seeing the direction. Be more specific with your arguement, eg. Point 1 or 2 or 13 is not true, then state your reasons. That way you give everybody a fair chance of learning something from your ALL-KNOWING unguided comments.

I always sound bitter? I am even laughing as i am typing this...You are so confused. Please take your confusion elsewhere. I should pick the entire bollocks out there and start countering them seriatim, I do not know how to spoon feed adults. If you cannot make head or tail out of my post, then just bury it and move on.

legalpanic:

Why do you always sound bitter? I have read your comment over and over again without seeing the direction. Be more specific with your arguement, eg. Point 1 or 2 or 13 is not true, then state your reasons. That way you give everybody a fair chance of learning something from your ALL-KNOWING unguided comments.

I guess it was also written after interacting with ALL lawyers in the country present and future. Let me again use a live example to discredit that spurious claim. If i am briefed, my training already gives me clarity of the nature of action, whether in tort , trusts, crime, family law, etc. I carry out a synopsis of the matter with a review on case law, and i provide an opinion, unsolicited to advise whether to proceed or not. I will never go to court with clear knowledge that i have an incurable bad case, however where a client insists because he needs time to perform or perfect some acts, we can use the technicalities of the law to buy time. Recently we needed to sue a law firm that brought a garnishee Proceedings against a company. We briefed one of the most brilliant and prolific law firm around. Their representatives walked of the meeting with assurance that they will prosecute the action. A few days later they came back to share negative thoughts about the possible success of the action. They cited a case law as their authority. I conceded to their thoughts but reviewed that authority some more and came out still with the belief that i can get justice in that matter.

Not all lawyers will lie to you about you having a good case even though the relevant law allows me to take up your matter without first adjuging you guilty.

It is so tiring trying to to teach a non lawyer and worse, a brain dead inconsequential bent on defending points that only exist in his head.

I can pick on most of the points there to discredit them and disabuse the minds of right thinking men, sadly many people here fall below that test.

I have recopied and pasted this again. I hope you can read and understand. If after having read the above you asked me to go and study law, then you have a warped understanding of the language known as english. Truth is, it is becoming tiring to engage with you. You are dull in understanding, honestly.

This post is baseless... you don't say what you don't know... You cannot sue an advocate for negligent conduct done in the face of the court... Go and read Rondell V Wesley.