The two followers of this blog both know why I haven't been posting lately. My creativity took a crash after recent events, and it's only recently begun drifting back in. Yesterday in my Professional Responsibility class, something my professor said sparked an idea. It's still very rough, and I have no idea where it's going, if anywhere. I typed up these questions in Notepad when I should have been taking notes, and now I'm posting them without further comment.
As I attempt to return to the normal routine of my life, I'll be posting more and more here again. I do miss it. Copied and pasted, these are the questions that came to mind:
What would a society look like where something like a lawyer represented both sides of a dispute?
Would the sign of a really good lawyer be that the decider of law, fact has a really hard time deciding? But this is just as possible with really bad as really good representation.
What is the goal of this lawyer? What incentives are there to uncover all the facts, law?
Lawyer could (and probably should) still act zealously, but what about loyalty and confidentiality? Loyalty to whom?
What are the values of this society?
One positive aspect is that, if there are sufficient incentives to unearth all the relevant info, the lawyer would be an expert in the case.
How do they assure that lawyers won't be swayed by own opinions, interests toward one side or another?
Another positive aspect is that a single case could have several sides, instead of the X v. Y model and multiple trials.
Is there any way to retain the "adversial description" of this system? Intuitively, I'd say no.
What would make people in general agree to this model?
What would this model say about society?
This puts lawyer (need another word?) in a despotic position; who can restrain lawyer in investigations?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)