11–20 of 40 posts
Better to take it one step further. Find people like this, interview them, put the videos online and let everybody share in their wisdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
Seriously, though, before you can defend against a strategy, you have to recognize and understand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
I had a conversation with a well-known entrepreneur in my city. He has created a chain of cafés (completely different from my field) but we talked a lot (in fact, he talked, I questioned and listened) and I learned a great deal. At the end of the conversation, he said "it has been a long time since I talked that much". WHAT? It meant that I was probably one of the few lucky who had learned from his experience. I alwa…
Most people, including me at times, take part in a conversation just to say something, which means that those who listen can learn a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
Now, now, trial by combat has a long and venerable history... Seriously, though, before you can defend against a strategy, you have to recognize and understand it.
Trial by combat was no joke. It was the process for centuries. It presumably had the virtue of resolving disputes in a manner short of war or century-long blood feud, and its obvious bias -- toward the better fighter -- was, I'm guessing, a design feature: In the absence of government police, any judicial system that didn't weigh the odds in favor of the stronger party was liable to be ignored in favor of extrajudicial violence. Why take a guy to trial rather than just stab him in a bar fight? Well, if the trial resembles a bar fight, but one in which the winner emerges with a clean reputation and clean legal record, nobody has anything to lose by going to trial.
But it literally involved losing limbs and eyes, followed in short order by either the legal rights or the life of the loser. I like the lawyer system better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.
I doubt the lawyer would risk his career by giving away his strategy/tactics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…
A great lawyer must be agnostic. His job is to find a settlement in favor of his clients. He must manipulate the context to create a situation where his client wins by a landslide, using whatever means possible. There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.
Surely you don't believe that actually falls under any reasonable definition of good?