Laughing At Lawyers

[Perknose]

Like most of us here, well meaning friends and acquaintances forward tired-ass shite to me all the damn time. Every once in a while, something they send me is actually worth it.

This might just be one of those times:

These are from a book called Disorder in the Court, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.


ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
______________________________ _____________

ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, "isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?"
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
______________________________ ______

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
______________________________ _____________

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
______________________________ ___________

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney.
Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about 20, medium height, and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
______________________________ _______

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
______________________________ ___________

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK?
What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________ ___________

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m..
ATTORNEY: And, Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
______________________________ ______________

ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________ ________

And the best for last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No .
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

:laugh:

 

[oiprocs]

Seen this before, but it's golden. I love it. I can't wait to be a lawyer. Finally an excuse to act normal.

 

[JJChicken]

Pretty good lol. JW how much of it is fake, this one sure seems like it:

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, "isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?"
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

 

[shortylickens]

Meh.
This is the same old jokes I've seen over one hundred times, but with an extra line or two added AFTER THE JOKE.
Thats pointless.

 

[Tiamat]

:laugh:

 

[CZroe]

Seen it long ago too...

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Pretty good lol. JW how much of it is fake, this one sure seems like it:

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, "isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?"
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

Actually, that's one of the most believable ones because "he" could refer to someone else entirely... a caregiver/nurse/CNA at a nursing home for example (would explain [the reference to] "a" person [of many]).

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: CZroe
Seen it long ago too...

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Pretty good lol. JW how much of it is fake, this one sure seems like it:

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, "isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?"
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

Actually, that's one of the most believable ones because "he" could refer to someone else entirely... a caregiver/nurse/CNA at a nursing home for example (would explain "a" person).

ah gotcha, didn't think of it from that perspective.

 

[CZroe]

"ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK?
What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral."

I'm assuming that they nodded their head to that first question right after being told that their response "must be oral." If real, that's where the misunderstanding should have been corrected.

"ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?"
The witness probably misunderstood and the attorney was referring to the relocating/theft/moving of the "picture." Heck, it may not even be a "photo" and the witness is confused about WHICH "picture" he owns that the attorney was referencing.

IOW, "your picture was taken" could either indicate:
"the picture (photograph) you were in was created but not necessarily owned by you"

*OR*

"the picture, photograph, painting, drawing, graphic, or otherwise, that you own was taken away by some one"

 

[TehMac]

Strikes me as fake. People responding to their attorneys like that in court would probably be reprimanded by the judge.

 

[ElFenix]

the one about the twenty year old makes sense when you know that what the lawyer says in court is not evidence, but what the witness says is.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Strikes me as fake. People responding to their attorneys like that in court would probably be reprimanded by the judge.

doubt it. then again you have idiotic judges jailing people for yawns in court.


it may be old. but it is funny

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[l0cke]

:laugh:

One time in a class in school we where talking about why all doctors, etc wear white because it is a color that represents good. I said something like "And that is why lawyers wear black."

At the time I did not know my teacher was a lawyer

 

[Krynj]

Some pretty good lols in there.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: scott
the thing is,

a lawyer will argue for whichever side of a case pays him

he just wants to WIN

could not care less about right or wrong.

In other words, it's just mercenary expediency, w/o honest regard to moral principles, other than how they might be appealed to in order to win.

What a sleazy way to make a living

I think you're overgeneralizing.

 

[DrPizza]

During jury selection

"DrPizza, do you think it's possible the alleged victim misconstrued the defendant's actions?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you're a teacher, have you ever patted a student on the back?"
"Are you asking me if it's possible that she misconstrued a pat on the back for her breasts being fondled? "

I thought I was done there, but the lawyer kept going & I kept making him look like more of a fool with his line of questioning. Had him beet red & 50 potential jurors laughing a minute later.
5 minutes later, "jurors 5 and 12, dismissed."

One of the other prospective jurors was a police officer. "Do you know the defendant" "yes" A foolish question or two later by the lawyer & honest answers from the officer made it obvious to everyone that the defendant was a major slimeball. I'd have loved to have not removed myself from the jury pool - any other week, but that week & I'd have been happy to show up for a few days for the trial. (And would have been happy to see the slimeball convicted.)

 

[Barfo]

:laugh: thank you OP

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: scott
the thing is,

a lawyer will argue for whichever side of a case pays him

he just wants to WIN

could not care less about right or wrong.

In other words, it's just mercenary expediency, w/o honest regard to moral principles, other than how they might be appealed to in order to win.

What a sleazy way to make a living

I think you're overgeneralizing.

Why?

I do have a reaL-world perspective, having been quasi-lawyer myself, in t&c & cost/price negotiations for successful huge [multi-billion$] international business contracts) always involving ceo's & many scum-licking attorneys from very topmost elite firms from many countries

Clearly your "quasi-lawyer" experience must apply to the entire law profession.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: scott
the thing is,

a lawyer will argue for whichever side of a case pays him

he just wants to WIN

could not care less about right or wrong.

In other words, it's just mercenary expediency, w/o honest regard to moral principles, other than how they might be appealed to in order to win.

What a sleazy way to make a living

I think you're overgeneralizing.

Why?

I do have a reaL-world perspective, having been quasi-lawyer myself, in t&c & cost/price negotiations for successful huge [multi-billion$] international business contracts) always involving ceo's & many scum-licking attorneys from very topmost elite firms from many countries

Because I have worked with, and continue to work with attorneys who demonstrate exemplary ethics and principle.

For example, I do a little bit of insurance defense. We can suck most of our plaintiffs dry by dragging out cases. However, we always make a good faith effort to settle the matter, even knowing full well we can go to trial and spend the same or less amount and either win the case or drag it out until the other side settles.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: scott
the thing is,

a lawyer will argue for whichever side of a case pays him

he just wants to WIN

could not care less about right or wrong.

In other words, it's just mercenary expediency, w/o honest regard to moral principles, other than how they might be appealed to in order to win.

What a sleazy way to make a living

In other words, the lawyer is supposed to put the interests of the client first. People hate that, unless they are the client.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[Mike Gayner]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

<cut>

I have worked with, and continue to work with attorneys who demonstrate exemplary ethics and principle.

>cut>

And, silly me, until this moment I wondered if maybe Richard Pryor was funniest of all time!!!

Attorneys mmay be almost average in smarts, just enough to know what will be palatible by the judge or jury, but the FACT is, they ONLY want to WIN. Principles, belief systems, truth, honesty be damned. It's about (1) getting paid, (2) win record.

I think you watch too much TV to be honest. I work with solicitors every day, and what you're describing is so far from real life it's hilarious.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

<cut>

I have worked with, and continue to work with attorneys who demonstrate exemplary ethics and principle.

>cut>

And, silly me, until this moment I wondered if maybe Richard Pryor was funniest of all time!!!

Attorneys mmay be almost average in smarts, just enough to know what will be palatible by the judge or jury, but the FACT is, they ONLY want to WIN. Principles, belief systems, truth, honesty be damned. It's about (1) getting paid, (2) win record, edit: (3) and of course Perfecting interest in any real assets.intellectually they're midlin, morally they're bbelow boot-licking scum. practically they're all about money (for themselves), and personality-wise they're almost all emotionally-deficient utter assholes who'll think nothing of using you to fill their selfish needs.

Professionallay, thank GOD!, I've won in negotiations against most of 'em because I KNOW my stuff while they are usually a mile-wide-inch-deep don't really know nuances of IP law in such & such country or only got mentiojn in law school of GSP/Customs/GAT while I AM T H E E EXPERT so I win for my clients and they reward me big , and well and honestly deserving and truly earned!

ummmm....lets see...

(1) aren't most professionals (if not all people with jobs) concerned about getting paid?
(2) I don't know what kind of attorneys you deal with, but most attorneys have a pretty good idea of whether they will win or lose the case early on. They aren't very concerned with win records. Also, there are many many tasks an attorney does that has nothing to do with winning or losing (like writing a contract, a will, estate planning, etc.).
(3) again, this is a very specialized area - not too many people are concerned with this.

I honestly think you just work/worked with the wrong bunch which has tainted your opinion of them all.

 

[WildHorse]

``