Minnerva wrote:they have a lawyer that looks at your case and the bank's case and decides who wins, but if he picks you over the bank then he gets fired.
Minnerva wrote:I can see it now "DORVAN ATTORNEY AT LAW"
one of the room mates that shares the house were I been staying at, its like a dorm but just for anyone that wants to share the rent and you get a room. well he states that prosecutions are more active because there is more people trying to sue than there is people trying to defend from it. even banks and mortgages hire prosecutor for arbitrary cases, FYI most banks are now doing arbitrary which means you don't get a trial by court, they have a lawyer that looks at your case and the bank's case and decides who wins, but if he picks you over the bank then he gets fired.
Fridmarr wrote:Well, I wouldn't agree to use an arbitrator that relies on the corporation/bank for income.
Fridmarr wrote:Arbitration is written to such agreements, but I haven't seen any where it was an arbitrator of the corporation's choosing. At least, I haven't signed any with such wording. That might vary by state though.
Dorvan wrote:I thought this would be an interesting question: particularly for the pundits among us, but really just about anyone. Do you see yourself preferring to work as a prosecutor or defense attorney? Why?
randomjibberish wrote:Dorvan wrote:I thought this would be an interesting question: particularly for the pundits among us, but really just about anyone. Do you see yourself preferring to work as a prosecutor or defense attorney? Why?
Are you talking about civil or criminal?
Dorvan wrote:Fridmarr wrote:Arbitration is written to such agreements, but I haven't seen any where it was an arbitrator of the corporation's choosing. At least, I haven't signed any with such wording. That might vary by state though.
When negotiating on the choice of arbitrator, who do you think is going to have the upper hand in terms of knowledge of the situation? Who do arbitration services have an incentive to serve? Mandatory arbitration clauses are terrible for consumers, and essentially unavoidable in the current legal climate.
Dorvan wrote:randomjibberish wrote:Dorvan wrote:I thought this would be an interesting question: particularly for the pundits among us, but really just about anyone. Do you see yourself preferring to work as a prosecutor or defense attorney? Why?
Are you talking about civil or criminal?
Would it make a difference?
Grehn|Skipjack wrote:Defense. I'd never lose. The Chewbacca Defense is unbeatable.
aranil wrote:Grehn|Skipjack wrote:Defense. I'd never lose. The Chewbacca Defense is unbeatable.
Chewbacca defense?
Dorvan wrote:randomjibberish wrote:Dorvan wrote:I thought this would be an interesting question: particularly for the pundits among us, but really just about anyone. Do you see yourself preferring to work as a prosecutor or defense attorney? Why?
Are you talking about civil or criminal?
Would it make a difference?
Grehn|Skipjack wrote:aranil wrote:Grehn|Skipjack wrote:Defense. I'd never lose. The Chewbacca Defense is unbeatable.
Chewbacca defense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Lumennon wrote:Prosecutor. You have to defend too many scumbags as a defense attorney.
Lumennon wrote:Prosecutor. You have to defend too many scumbags as a defense attorney.
Flipthebird wrote:Lumennon wrote:Prosecutor. You have to defend too many scumbags as a defense attorney.
I'd work at my own firm as Defense, so I could choose who I want to represent. Like those people who get sued by burglars who hurt themselves on the burglaree's property...and stupid suits like that.
Flipthebird wrote:Lumennon wrote:Prosecutor. You have to defend too many scumbags as a defense attorney.
I'd work at my own firm as Defense, so I could choose who I want to represent. Like those people who get sued by burglars who hurt themselves on the burglaree's property...and stupid suits like that.