Do we have lawyers solely because the average person can't read or think?

Regulation Z has a right of rescission for a loan secured by an security interest in a "dwelling" (homeowners know this as the 3 day cooling off period). There are viral videos on youtube and tik toks claiming that you can rescind a loan for a motor vehicle and people are filing lawsuits left and right in state and federal courts. There are a half dozen written opinions from the federal courts where judges actually had to say that a motor vehicle is not a "dwelling".

So, yes. Lawyers do exist because some people do not know how to read.

Law is very complicated and procedural. Good luck navigating them waters on your own.

I wanted to get a writ of Habeas Corpus, but I should’ve gotten a-rid of you instead.

bold-faced the problem for you. Accepted legal practice is to uncritically follow jargonized precedents and routines.

Accepted legal practice is it's some higher court's job to actually check whether that remains consistent with statute.

Accepted legal practice is higher courts don't do that except in the most egregious cases, or when someone with lots of money makes them by paying their case up to that level.

99 percent of people are useless

Um...NOPE! Real Obvi got the "INCORRECT!" part right, but he emphasized IS by capitalizing it AND italicizing it, and I don't do that...capitalization almost exclusively and once in a great while I will bold something. Why? That's how I roll.

Have never known anyone who couldn't read and write. So...????

Smart people know when and how to use lawyers. Just as one example, if you are a businessman who started and grew a company to the point where it is time to take it public, is it really worth your while to take time from running your business so you can try to learn all of the federal and state laws and regulations pertinent to public offering of securities, and thereafter keep up to date on all of the additional periodic requirements? Of course not.

If your business charged with a criminal violation are you going to have the head of your accounting department add the preparation and argument of the defense to his or her activities? I doubt it.

There are some routine things that people can, and often do, without lawyers. But the notion that brains and reading ability alone should make lawyers unnecessary is silly. Most of the people who hire lawyers are reasonably smart and can read.

Interesting - most state courts have mandatory retirement ages. The fed circuit is a strange place

he thought he could do it himself and he got fried

Open image

No, we have lawyers because people quickly realised that hiring someone who knew the law well enough to manipulate it - rather than simply doing what is right - was more beneficial to them, than representing themselves.

Most people have jobs of their own, and can't devote themselves full-time to interpreting the law, so they hire someone else to do it (someone who is likely better at it).

Manage the legal system on your own next time you're in a lawsuit. Tell me how that goes.

Well said. Can be said of teachers and psychologists, too.

Ahh the most ignorant statement in history. Circular logic. Nobody "wants" a lawyer even when they "need" one. They have to. The sole reason for an attorney is the system and paperwork is so unnecessarily complex, you need an attorney to navigate the minefield. It doesnt matter if the client is a genius, the system is created to keep these people employed.

So let me fix it for you.

Everyone needs a slimy lawyer

when someone else hires a slimy lawyer.

Teachers are necessary. Attorneys are a product of an artificially complex system that keeps them in work.

O.J. Simpson can read and think. Francis Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran and Barry Scheck were worth every penny.

If you go against IRS in a tax fraud case, be smart and hire a c.p.a. attorney.

Just because you know how to read doesn't mean you should defend yourself in court.