Посколько LinkedIn заблокировали, я не успел выложить написанный пост. Выкладываю тут.
By many a lawyer seems like a fireman: a litigator who remove troubles arose unexpectedly. So is redundant. Anyway, the essential laws are intuitive, so everyone knows what belong to him.
But let's look at world without lawyers:
A World without Lawyers
There was such world, which has been studied properly. First, at Ancient Greece. Second, in Medieval Europe.
Both have laws, indeed. But they prescribed punishments and procedure, rather than *modus operandi*, and other rules prescribing under what conditions the action or inaction is deemed an infringement.
Was it good? Actually, yes, from this time's point of view. It was better than not having laws.
But there was questions to answer, primarily: What portion of punishment should apply, if not a whole? Can a perfectly reasonable action be deemed inlawful, and inverse? Who is to prove?
In late realms this is was an issue to debate, but what can you do debating Pericles? An once again: on what grounds should the process reside?
The usual example is conflicting intentions: if a pedestrian walks across the road, stumbles and stand up, and there's line of carriages approaching, should first carriage stop and risk collision with the next? The answer differs in Modern times, and is decided on a whim in the world without lawyers.
A Big Change
During Ancient Rome and Renaissance England one simple thing was recognised:
It is better to have obscure, but predictable rules, than straight, but unpredictable ones.
Same times it collided with delegation issue, and the new profession, lawyer, was born.
Lawyer is not just delegation issue, neither a lawyer a litigator. Rather, the need of rules programming, on their turn required the special profession, who can discern and influence the rules.
It's not the same as SMM profession, with all due respect: law cannot be practiced by an non-professional, even at low speed. But it's perfectly fine to require a clear explanation from lawyer, after all the law is a thing of real world.
Types of Lawyers
Maxim Dotsenko has proposed great classification of lawyers in Russian
. It breaks down to following:
Workhorses who dig up piles of documents, check, recheck, do law work as part of manager work, and else. Don't able to do the whole law work, but, nevertheless, essential.
What by many understood as litigator: a person to squall and persuade. Usually, afraid of Hamsters work, but do not able to do lawyer, besides litigator, work on their own.
Real lawyers. Able to lead a group of Peacocks and Hamsters, possible other Sharks, to achieve result. Finish compliance and other paper work.
Higher lawyers. Do templates
of legal documents: contracts, other agreements, even write laws. Frequently works alone, or with help of hamsters. Does organise groups and lead them as a Shark.
Maxim also notes, that, to be successful at a tier, a lawyer should learn skills from all the previous.
My Very Unprofessional Opinion on Juries
Jury practice was created in Renaissance England as an instrument to promote Civil Society and an evolution of Trial by Combat.
It was successful in this times of desert of laws describing test of facts. The more develops the last, and more Jury was put under treat of punishment for unlawful decision, the more its actions become dependant on presiding Judge's words.
Also, the procedure of choosing had its influence. What it boils down is Judge Alsup's verdict (not Jury, which he influenced almost in any event) in Oracle v. Google case
, creating precedent of not protecting API of code. Counting in the implied permission to "steal" the code by fully rewriting it, but preserving all the features, it is tremendous! It has reverted previous decisions, and later would be reverted. Does such thing is what we need from the Jury?
What could be, in corporate procedures, is business captains acting as Jury. They really could request lawyers an explanation, and judge on the legal grounds. But, anyway, they would not show up due to possible punishment for inlawful decision, and the nation has professionals to do the same job!
What it's in reality is PR machine acting as Jury and shifting the precedent to the public opinion.