practicing law in hong kong

[kasia]

i may have an opportunity to practice law - criminal law! - in hong kong for a few years. i've learned - through talking with some people there - that most criminal lawyers just do research and writing and only the *barristers* are allowed to conduct trials in court. from what they've told me, a barrister is just a more-experienced attorney. does anyone have more information on this? i like being in trial. :unsure:

and i know that daniel wu has sued for copyright infringement before...i wonder if he needs an in-house attorney...literally...j/k! k, i should stop thinking aloud.

back to bar studying... :)

are lawyers in hong kong pretentious? pretentious is yuck.

[SunWuKong]

the boyfriend of an old colleague of mine is a copyright lawyer in HK. do you want me to ask him for some information? or would that be totally unrelated to what you need to know?

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

I'm sure lawyers in HK are just as pretentious as the lawyers in the US. If you don't like pretention, you shouldn't have gone into law. Pretentiousness is intimately tied into the core of a profession which refers to all nonattorneys as laymen and often calls itself "the last of the learned professions."

Shakespeare is right. We should kill all the lawyers.

[SunWuKong]

by the way, would you be doing the prosecuting or the defending? if you defend and you do criminal law in HK, maybe you'd be defending triad members. there's definitely money there! :dance:

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jun 11 2003, 06:44 AM
by the way, would you be doing the prosecuting or the defending? if you defend and you do criminal law in HK, maybe you'd be defending triad members. there's definitely money there! :dance:
yeh, my mom told me the same thing today. will they really kill me if i lose their cases?

re: vbkao's - i don't think pretention is a necessarily tied to the practice of law. i think i meet more law students than lawyers that are pretentious.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Jun 12 2003, 02:42 AM
yeh, my mom told me the same thing today. will they really kill me if i lose their cases?

re: vbkao's - i don't think pretention is a necessarily tied to the practice of law. i think i meet more law students than lawyers that are pretentious.
no, they don't kill women they don't like. they kidnap the women and force them to become prostitutes.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jun 11 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Jun 12 2003, 02:42 AM
yeh, my mom told me the same thing today.  will they really kill me if i lose their cases?

re: vbkao's - i don't think pretention is a necessarily tied to the practice of law.  i think i meet more law students than lawyers that are pretentious.
no, they don't kill women they don't like. they kidnap the women and force them to become prostitutes.
not if i'm the goddaughter of the head boss.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Jun 12 2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jun 11 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Jun 12 2003, 02:42 AM
yeh, my mom told me the same thing today. will they really kill me if i lose their cases?

re: vbkao's - i don't think pretention is a necessarily tied to the practice of law. i think i meet more law students than lawyers that are pretentious.
no, they don't kill women they don't like. they kidnap the women and force them to become prostitutes.
not if i'm the goddaughter of the head boss.
oh even worse. you'll be a big red target for rival triad groups.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Jun 12 2003, 01:42 AM
re: vbkao's - i don't think pretention is a necessarily tied to the practice of law. i think i meet more law students than lawyers that are pretentious.
Well, I'm going to agree to disagree on this point. I've heard enough windbag attorneys in my short involvement in this field to say they're all pretentious. I think it has to do with knowing deep down inside that the real leaders in society are businessmen and that lawyers are just parasites on their activities.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Jun 12 2003, 07:38 AM
Well, I'm going to agree to disagree on this point. I've heard enough windbag attorneys in my short involvement in this field to say they're all pretentious. I think it has to do with knowing deep down inside that the real leaders in society are businessmen and that lawyers are just parasites on their activities.
interesting. the Constitution, Supreme Court caselaw...all of these made by men who are not real leaders but are merely parasitic on activities of businessmen? i know more attorneys than i do law students, and the only pretentious ones are those who are insecure.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Whose concerns do you think those judges, framers and politicians listen to, Kasie? Just look at all the Lochner-era cases. Business said "jump." The courts asked "how high?" How many times have the courts refrained from exercising their power because they fear the market implications of their otherwise legal actions? Why do we have the business judgment rule? Why are fiduciary duties so incredibly weak and vague? I never said that lawyers don't wield any power. It's just that they're definitely beholden to a greater force in society: business.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Jun 12 2003, 12:36 PM
Whose concerns do you think those judges, framers and politicians listen to, Kasie? Just look at all the Lochner-era cases. Business said "jump." The courts asked "how high?" How many times have the courts refrained from exercising their power because they fear the market implications of their otherwise legal actions? Why do we have the business judgment rule? Why are fiduciary duties so incredibly weak and vague? I never said that lawyers don't wield any power. It's just that they're definitely beholden to a greater force in society: business.
decisions made during the lochner era are highly criticized.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Stop being obtuse Kasie. I was using Lochner as an example, not as singular proof to back up my claim.

Just look at who most lawyers work for. Look at the predominant legal doctrines regarding commerce. Look at the pork-barrel loopholes and limitations on rights-enforcement that plagues our state and federal systems. Look at the business judgment rule or the fiduciary duty doctrines and what a complete joke they are in limiting corporate abuse. The idea that the law isn't beholden to greater commerce concerns is ridiculous. Lawyers have actively put themselves in a role where they don't question the bulk of their clients' motives or goals. Judges actively maintain the Brandeis passive virtues that keep them from making the major social and economic changes that most legal disputes call for.

Judges and attorneys are charged with perpetuating a system, not rehauling its focus. We're a capitalist nation and in capitalist countries, business leads and drives society. Lawyers are only there to make sure the economic engine that keeps a nation alive doesn't burn up its fuel so fast that it wears itself out.

I wish law was all civil rights and preservation of freedom, but it's not.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

And by the way, where do you think the court is rotating back to? I saw Justice Thomas talk about the obsolesence of present commerce clause authority. We're getting an increasingly more laissez-faire court everyday.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Jun 12 2003, 01:21 PM
Stop being obtuse Kasie. I was using Lochner as an example, not as singular proof to back up my claim.

Just look at who most lawyers work for. Look at the predominant legal doctrines regarding commerce. Look at the pork-barrel loopholes and limitations on rights-enforcement that plagues our state and federal systems. Look at the business judgment rule or the fiduciary duty doctrines and what a complete joke they are in limiting corporate abuse. The idea that the law isn't beholden to greater commerce concerns is ridiculous. Lawyers have actively put themselves in a role where they don't question the bulk of their clients' motives or goals. Judges actively maintain the Brandeis passive virtues that keep them from making the major social and economic changes that most legal disputes call for.

Judges and attorneys are charged with perpetuating a system, not rehauling its focus. We're a capitalist nation and in capitalist countries, business leads and drives society. Lawyers are only there to make sure the economic engine that keeps a nation alive doesn't burn up its fuel so fast that it wears itself out.

I wish law was all civil rights and preservation of freedom, but it's not.
well, the lochner-era cases were an extremely bad example of how our courts rule. what "pork-barrel loopholes and limitations on right-enforcement"? that's a bit abstract. what "business judgment rule"? i've never heard of it. "fiduciary duty doctrines"? are they there to limit corporate abuse or to maintain the integrity of our profession? it's arguable. the idea that law isn't beholden to greater commerce concerns is not ridiculous. neither is the notion of the separation of powers. it all depends on the type of attorney you want to be. and i don't mean the field that you wish to practice in, but the level of integrity you hope to maintain.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Kasie, what does separation of powers have to do with integrity? If anything hearkening back to the separation of powers is a way to avoid holding the other branches of government accountable for their actions and leaving it up to our corrupt-ass political process. "We can't rule on that. That's legislating from the bench. We'll just let the apolitical American people decide on this matter even though they don't care about it because it concerns people they don't like and don't want to consort with. We'll also just let the states do as much as they want and be immune to most legal actions because of the otherwise extinct 11th Amendment."

And our standards for professional responsibility? Come on. Think of all the loopholes for representing people despite conflicts of interest or all the rules we have to excuse not disclosing illegal behavior. Yet doing so is still okay because we're obeying the rules. PR codes allow lawyers to have as many clients as they want, tap as many sources of funding as possible without dragging things into chaos, and protect client interests at the expense of society as a whole. Since most lawyers end up working for businesses, guess who benefits?

The intergrity of "our" profession? We're whores, Kasie. Most lawyers are whores and work for the people who have money. Our code of integrity is so fucked up that the more zealous we are in representing them, the more we live up to it because everybody's entitled to the best, most effective legal representation possible. It's not about truth. It's not about justice. It's about argument, and in arguments, the person who's right doesn't always win, especially when you can keep twisting issues, limit scope and play on political and social biases.

And personal integrity doesn't mean that the system doesn't serve business' interests. One to several people acting correctly in a sea of villainy doesn't make the sea any less noxious.

Before we slide into a Clausewitzian total war with our posts, I'll say that our arguments are based on different experiences and different takes on what we've learned in school. All my experience in the legal field has given me cause to grow more pessimistic about the ability of law to change anything beyond a certain point or even our desire to change it. Maybe living in a district dominated by Republicans that tried to overturn Miranda isn't the best place to learn to love the system. You, being able to practice in sunny Ca. where the left has more power than in any other region of the nation, have had better luck enforcing rights and holding people and government more accountable for their discriminating actions because of the more liberal mindset of the judges and lawyers there. You probably also get better clients, but I'm not going to get into that...

If you want to continue this argument or want more explanations, give me a call. I'm not in the mood to keep posting. I'm going back to bed.

[SunWuKong]

i want to be a parasite to the business world.
it's good money, baby!


http://www.slantedeyes.com/picserve/dancing_banana.gifhttp://www.slantedeyes.com/picserve/dancing_banana.gifhttp://www.slantedeyes.com/picserve/dancing_banana.gif

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Jun 13 2003, 01:35 AM
Kasie, what does separation of powers have to do with integrity? If anything hearkening back to the separation of powers is a way to avoid holding the other branches of government accountable for their actions and leaving it up to our corrupt-ass political process. "We can't rule on that. That's legislating from the bench. We'll just let the apolitical American people decide on this matter even though they don't care about it because it concerns people they don't like and don't want to consort with. We'll also just let the states do as much as they want and be immune to most legal actions because of the otherwise extinct 11th Amendment."

And our standards for professional responsibility? Come on. Think of all the loopholes for representing people despite conflicts of interest or all the rules we have to excuse not disclosing illegal behavior. Yet doing so is still okay because we're obeying the rules. PR codes allow lawyers to have as many clients as they want, tap as many sources of funding as possible without dragging things into chaos, and protect client interests at the expense of society as a whole. Since most lawyers end up working for businesses, guess who benefits?

The intergrity of "our" profession? We're whores, Kasie. Most lawyers are whores and work for the people who have money. Our code of integrity is so fucked up that the more zealous we are in representing them, the more we live up to it because everybody's entitled to the best, most effective legal representation possible. It's not about truth. It's not about justice. It's about argument, and in arguments, the person who's right doesn't always win, especially when you can keep twisting issues, limit scope and play on political and social biases.

And personal integrity doesn't mean that the system doesn't serve business' interests. One to several people acting correctly in a sea of villainy doesn't make the sea any less noxious.

Before we slide into a Clausewitzian total war with our posts, I'll say that our arguments are based on different experiences and different takes on what we've learned in school. All my experience in the legal field has given me cause to grow more pessimistic about the ability of law to change anything beyond a certain point or even our desire to change it. Maybe living in a district dominated by Republicans that tried to overturn Miranda isn't the best place to learn to love the system. You, being able to practice in sunny Ca. where the left has more power than in any other region of the nation, have had better luck enforcing rights and holding people and government more accountable for their discriminating actions because of the more liberal mindset of the judges and lawyers there. You probably also get better clients, but I'm not going to get into that...

If you want to continue this argument or want more explanations, give me a call. I'm not in the mood to keep posting. I'm going back to bed.
it's a forum. if i am to respond, i would do so in the forum...why would i call you? a discussion is a discussion, vic. it need not be personal, but you seem to making it such.

the sole function of the separation of powers is to maintain the integrity of the system. while Congress is there to enact laws in accordance with the needs of the people - in this case, businessmen - the courts are there to ensure that the laws are consistent with our Constitution.

re: standards of professional responsibility. i really don't see the problem with owing a larger duty to our client than a duty of candor to the court. imagine our system if we owed a lesser duty to our client. trials would be less adversarial and, consequently, the interests of both parties will not truly be protected. name one section from the model rules or model codes which you view as a loophole that is unnecessary to protect the interests of both parties.

it is about justice and it is about the truth. check out the federal rules of evidence when you have a chance.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

it's a forum.  if i am to respond, i would do so in the forum...why would i call you?  a discussion is a discussion, vic.  it need not be personal, but you seem to making it such.

I'm not making this personally. I'd think it'd be easier for all 2 of the people who care about this conversation to carry it on over the phone instead of checking up every hour on the forums.

I just want to type out my point and go, but the questions you ask me demand more complex, structured answers. I feel like someone who has to go to a meeting but the person they're talking with won't let him go. I like discussing these matters with you, but I'd rather have one conversation than put up 30 more posts arguing over semantics, foci and viewpoints because we can't answer each other's questions immediately.

the sole function of the separation of powers is to maintain the integrity of the system.  while Congress is there to enact laws in accordance with the needs of the people - in this case, businessmen - the courts are there to ensure that the laws are consistent with our Constitution.

This doesn't really refute my point about business controlling most of the law. If businessmen control the politicians who make the laws, the authorities who physically enforce it, and the judges hold a self-imposed passive role in enforcing constitutional values, then the law is controlled by the interests of the people who write and fuel it.

The courts are a threadbare protection for the real values of this nation and the litigation process that the people must use to make their complaints heard to the system is so money-dependent that verdicts almost always fall in favor to those with the most funds. It only fights egregious violations of our Constitution that manage to come before it. It's not as effective a check on the disproportionate power that the elites who rule the executive and legislative branches as you like to think.

re: standards of professional responsibility.  i really don't see the problem with owing a larger duty to our client than a duty of candor to the court.  imagine our system if we owed a lesser duty to our client.  trials would be less adversarial and, consequently, the interests of both parties will not truly be protected.  name one section from the model rules or model codes which you view as a loophole that is unnecessary to protect the interests of both parties.

Kasie, why should I feel like the PR code protects society when I have to wait for the prospect of imminent death or severe bodily harm to occur before I get to rat out on a client engaging in fraud or crime? If a client breaks the laws that society has created to protect itself, the client should pay. If the client doesn't want to get punished for something, he or she or it should just shut up, act more discreetly or behave correctly. If a lawyer's true duty is to uphold the integrity of the law, why is he allowed to mainpulate all of his information into attorney-client confidence or work-product and keep it from the court just so someone feels more comfortable going to a lawyer in the first place?

You can protect the interest of both parties in a dispute by mandating that all essential, relevant information be given out. If the process is really about the truth and justice, then all of the truth should be volunteered or extracted from the parties. Loyalty to the parties only means loyalty to individual entitites, not values like truth or justice and not to our society as a whole.

The adversarial system is about resolution, not necessarily truth. It's a way of quelling disputes within society in a relatively satisfactory, nonviolent manner. If it was about justice, we wouldn't have statute of limitations for example. We wouldn't put so much trust on the parties themselves in the discovery process to reveal information that's damaging to them.

it is about justice and it is about the truth.  check out the federal rules of evidence when you have a chance.
The rules of evidence are about creating a reliable factfinding system that limits many sources of truth due to common-law and traditional doubts about their reliability. It aims to find truth and implement justice, but it's also so extremely flexible to the point where you can get almost anything admitted if your argument's compelling. If you can limit the scope you're supposedly admitting a piece of evidence for, it doesn't matter how prejudicial or potentially unreliable it is.

If the law was only about justice and truth, we'd either let all relevant information in no matter what potential prejudice it might have or we'd bar everything except the most objective, straightforward exhibits possible. As we have the evidence rules right now, it's just chaos. It's what you use to justify putting something before the jury in your fight against the other party.

It's real world friction Kasie. The law is what we use to keep our society from falling apart. Beyond a nominal basis, it's not about truth or justice. Those concepts are so uncontrollable, malleable and potentially dangerous that we deliberately hold off on them. Otherwise litigation would spiral out of control and there'd never be finality or certainty to anything.

[kasia]

vic, if you've come this far in law school, i'm sure you know the responses to all of the points you've brought up. whether or not you buy into them is a different question. i just don't feel like answering your points because it would be like spewing basics that we've learned during first year.

but to get back on the topic - to be pretentious - defined as "making or marked by an extravagant outward show"...a definite flaw.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Jun 15 2003, 02:50 AM
vic, if you've come this far in law school, i'm sure you know the responses to all of the points you've brought up. whether or not you buy into them is a different question. i just don't feel like answering your points because it would be like spewing basics that we've learned during first year.
(Does victory dance.) Kasie's beat! I mashed you up like an Idaho potato! Sit down and bow to your master! (Continues victory dance.)

Seriously though, I don't really see how this overlong conversation of ours is only like a first year discussion. We basically ask the same questions about society and law in every class, no matter what year it is. In the end, all of my teachers have shrugged and told us that lawyers are just vessels for argument. There's some power in that, sure, but it's not like being a politician, a general, or a businessman with a lot of money to spend.

On that note, I think I'm going to become "that guy" next year who begins all his responses with, "Assuming that some guerilla hasn't shot you and your kind in the back of the head like you deserve..."

[kasia]

well, it was either end the discussion or call you. i went with the former.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Right. Just like I suggested earlier.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

So, what are the big firms in HK?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VBKao@Jun 16 2003, 12:03 AM
So, what are the big firms in HK?
many of the major american firms have overseas offices in HK.
i don't know any of the big local firms though.