practicing law in hong kong

[sandra]

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:

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jun 11 2003, 11:34 PM

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

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.

[sandra]

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.