Lawyer Hate Is Of Old Date

We are wise to be cautious when men too strongly denounce their peers or benefactors; it is often an unconscious way of concealing an unsatisfied obligation. The bonds of affection are strained by the tension of an indebtedness long in arrears. The debt grinds on the bearer, aggravating pains which then find a negative outward expression. The origin of all castigation is some torment awaiting alleviation.

I was reminded of this psychological dynamic in a passage from Ammianus Marcellinus’s history, which is known to us as Res Gestae. It is a detailed and very competent work, covering in its surviving form a period of the late Roman Empire from A.D. 353 to 378.

Ammianus was a Greek or Syrian from Antioch who enjoyed a military career, serving as a staff officer to the emperors Constanius II and very likely Julian. He was also attached to the command of a general named Ursicinus, the governor of Nisibis in Mesopotamia. His duties took him across the Roman world from Gaul to edges of Persia; he was an acute student of human affairs, generally reliable and free from vituperation.


But, alas, not entirely free. Many of his superiors were ousted in the power struggles that marred the history of the Empire in its later stages; and Ammianus found his fortunes rise and fall with those of his sovereigns. He took up residence in Rome sometime around 380, and was likely among those directly affected by the expulsion of foreigners decreed in 383 as food shortages necessitated public rationing (cf. XIV.6.19). He also had a strong dislike for the Anicii, a powerful family in Rome at the time (XIV.8.13). We do not know the circumstances that brought him into collision with this group.

We may note, with amusement, the spectacle of a plain-speaking Syrian general from the wilder provinces trying, and failing, to ingratiate himself with the moneyed political classes in Rome. They would not accept him, and he knew it. He had the military man’s distaste for demagoguery, law-courts, and orators, and revenged himself on them in certain passages of his history, to which we will now turn. The best histories are the products of carefully ground axes.

Ammianus denounces the profession of “forensic oratory” (hanc professionem oratorum forensium) in a remarkable digression in a later book of his history (XXX.4). Forensic oratory was a euphemism for the profession of law. He believes that the profession had declined greatly from the august days in which lawyers were “devoted to learned studies” (attenti studiis doctrinarum) and judges gained office through ability and refinement. He continues:

This trade of forensic oratory…the cunning of certain Orientals raised it to a degree hateful to men of principle…with which I became acquainted while living in those parts… [XXX.4.4]


A courts building in modern Rome

Bad lawyers come in four categories, Ammianus tells us. They are the following:

1. The Scammers

The first class are those who “sow the seeds of all sorts of quarrels” and “wear out the doors and thresholds of widows and single men” with inducements to lawsuits. Failing in this, they invent quarrels. They lead men astray by “crafty speeches” and similar legerdemain with the goal of emptying their victims’ purses.

2. The Fake Experts

The second class of unscrupulous lawyers are those who “profess to a knowledge of law” (qui iuris professi scientiam) but who have never actually practiced law. The claim to reveal destinies and interpret fortunes by a reliance on speculation that masquerades as authority. In a brilliant turn of phrase, Ammianus that these men “assume a serious expression and try to make even their yawning marketable.” (vultus gravitate ad habitum composita tristiorem, ipsum quoque venditant, quod oscitantur).

3. The Attack Dogs

These are those lawyers who try to make a name for themselves by using their “venal tongues” to attack everyone and anything, in the hope of achieving notoriety. They set traps for the unwary, and hope for them to be so ensnared. The victim of such chicanery will be entangled for years, and will have the marrow sucked from his bones (non nisi per multa exsiliet lustra, ad usque ipsas medullas exsuctus).

4. The Clueless Or Ignorant

These are the “shameless and ignorant” lawyers who know nothing, yet urge all types of unsuspecting people to engage in frivolous litigation. “And when they are allowed to defend lawsuits, which rarely happens,” Ammianus growls, “they only learn the name of their client at key points in the dispute.”

And when the find themselves unable to perform, they bury their incompetence in “unbridled license and abuse” (ad effrenatam deflectunt conviciandi licentiam). They are so stupid that “they cannot even remember if they ever possessed a legal textbook.”


In spite of these four classes in the legal rogues’ gallery, there still remain good lawyers practicing before the tribunals. There are some who subscribe to the old Ciceronian ethic, which held that “One may honorably refuse, without criticism, to defend a man; but one may never agree to defend a man, and then deliberately do so negligently.”

It is refreshing and droll to note that lawyer-hatred has been with us for thousands of years. Presumably we could even go back further, and find inscribed on the sacred monuments of Egypt or Babylon some curse hurled against the profession of advocacy. Everyone hates lawyers. Until they need one, of course.

Ammianus lived out the remainder of his years quietly in Rome. No doubt the lawyers who had tried to deport him, or the sharp-tongued legal advisors of the Anicii family, had soured him permanently on the profession.

But perhaps it is just as well. It is just these little angry digressions that make his history so fascinating. History is best written by the disgruntled. Reading through Ammianus’s diatribe against the lawyers of his day makes one suspect that he might have been on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, and left with a pile of unpaid legal bills. All in neatly arranged papyrus rolls.

Read More: The Roots Of Feminism In America

199 thoughts on “Lawyer Hate Is Of Old Date”

  1. As a lawyer, I understand why everyone hates lawyers, and these types certainly exist, along with a few others. Of course, the simple solution to rid society of lawyers (most of them, anyway) is to stop writing new laws and regulations that require lawyers to fight over. These laws and regulations come into being because every time something bad happens, people prefer their government to “do something” instead of collectively accepting that some times bad things happen, and perhaps we should just focus on better enforcing the laws we already have. Easier said than done in our bitchy, litigious feminine society.

    1. Some of the greatest minds in history were lawyers, law makers, constitution builders etc
      Today we are over-populated with ambulance chasing parasites.
      The profession is now synonymous with moral decline

      1. I don’t disagree, but again, the reason we are over populated with ambulance chasing parasites is that when some moron sticks his toaster in the bathtub, we have decided he should be allowed to sue because he’s a dumbass instead of telling him to shut the fuck up about his fried nuts. The first path creates jobs for lawyers, the second doesn’t. Change our outlook, change the number of sleazy lawyers.

        1. Yeah I agree
          It’s a symptom, not a cause.
          The west strains to create new jobs for people without questioning whether these jobs make life better or worse
          Many.. not all… but many lawyers make life much worse in aggregate terms.
          Accidentally bumping your car in the UK can leave you financially devestated because of bullshit injury claims

        2. Who require lawyers, dumbass.
          And plaintiff’s lawyers….who do you think hires them? The insurance companies? Have you never seen a commercial break during the Jerry Springer Show?
          Do you think before you type?

        3. And what do you think happens to your premiums?
          You’re not a real Doctor are you, kid?

        4. How many clients do you get calling you that have life problems and not real legal problems? I used to talk myself out of work all the time by being honest and saying “this will cost you more than you can ever hope to gain and even if you do win, it will not give you peace of mind.”
          There are so many dysfunctional people in this world that they are willing to pay $300+ an hour to have somebody else clean up their messes for them. (it’s also mind blowing the first time you realize that somebody will pay you so much money to think for them).
          No real point here, just talking shop.

        5. Even the ones that have real legal problems have them because they did not think before they acted.

        6. Of course I am son (Edinburgh ’75) and also a lawyer although I’ve never been in practise.
          Insurance is for your protection and any man of substance with assets to protect
          is adequately covered.99% of the time in cases of accidents it is settled between the insurance co. and the insured (or his attorney) and
          only in rare cases does it go to court.There’s also no big secret about how cases are settled and there are formulas for this.When you read about these large judgements that some dumb jury awards that does not
          fit into the established formula they are reduced by the appellate division.Punitive damages also follow a set limit or multiple of compensatory damages. The fact that there are more lawyers wouldn’t effect most of this and it’s always been about the same.Insurance premiums for auto are determined by the insurance zone you’re in for the most part and are based on your residence
          which means that if you’re in a higher crime area where there is more theft, or where the more careless lower classes live who cause more accidents then the premiums are higher.

        7. They are paying you for your expertise in a certain area (Law) and whether they can think for themselves or not is irrelevant, they are not experts in this area.

        8. I have no idea what you even wrote but I think that you’re attempting to say that a Plaintiff hires a lawyer to either get a better settlement in a civil suit or feels that he has some sort of a claim against someone. If it is a legitimate claim and a lawyer believes he can win it he may accept the case but he is not going to take a case on contingency and spend a lot of his own money on a frivolous case.
          And btw, are you either black or from the lower classes who watches this Springer show? Perhaps you should refrain from commenting and read what the more erudite write and learn something.
          Good luck on getting into that technical school so that you may study to be a legal secretary on affirmative action.

        9. I wouldn’t ordinarily reply to some prole but why is it that when you uneducated boys don’t understand something you say troll? Are you really this stupid and so brain washed that you’re not even able to differentiate between someone who is trolling and legitimate comments?

        10. “I have no idea what you even wrote”
          of course not; you have a low IQ.
          And your un-deft attempts to turn against me are exposing you even more as the fool you are.

        11. That presumes the ability to think, which can be a stretch. Or maybe you just have higher expectations for people….

        12. Something observed in people outside the domain of the legal profession too. Human nature or more likely a culture of habit.

        13. If you’ve never practiced you aren’t a lawyer.
          You’re not a boxer if you’ve never laced up gloves.
          Now fuck off you trolling cunt

        14. It’s a diploma moron. Or do I have to explain the simplest things to you? Regardless of whether I had ever practised medicine and had a MBChB or MBBS, or M.D. in the US from an accredited med school I am a doctor and the same is true for law. It’s a degree and not different from a PhD. 20% of Harvard Law graduates never practise Law but this doesn’t mean that they don’t know a gazillion times more than you about the Law.
          Now, go sit at the kid’s table because you don’t belong at the adult’s little man. Don’t get all butthurt now and come back to annoy me.

        15. If you don’t practise law and you’re not a registered as a practising lawyer, then you’re not a fucking lawyer.
          A degree or diploma in law makes no difference. Hundreds of thousands of people have degrees in law and are not lawyers of any kind.
          Now, as I was saying …

        16. Go to the kid’s table now! And shouldn’t you be in bed and ready for school tomorrow? Even in lower class areas school is required by law.

        17. Right. And they are willing to do this even when their problems are not real legal problems and the expertise they’re paying for has no real bearing on them.

        18. Actually, you are not a lawyer until you are licensed. So, as I suspected, you are not a lawyer, you are a law graduate (though I admit, this is more than I gave you credit for). But being a law graduate doesn’t mean you know the first fucking thing about the law.

        19. I wouldn’t waste your time with this one. He’s just butt hurt because he couldn’t pass the bar or land a job with his degree from a third tier diploma mill. He’s not a lawyer, but he likes to play one on the internet.

        20. Oddly enough, a third tier diploma mill will teach you more about the law than Harvard because the former is basically a 3 year bar exam prep course while the latter is more of a goofy social science postgrad diploma.

        21. It certainly does. Degrees like my M.D. are conferred by Universities. However, in order to represent others and collect a fee I would need a license but the LL.B stands. It would be no different from a Ph.D in Chemistry, or whatever, conferred by a Uni regardless of whether the person or professor ever taught a class or worked in the field.

        22. I’ll say it again
          An LLB does not make you a Lawyer. It does NOT work like a Ph.D at all. You think they pass you a fucking certificate and say “right, you’re a lawyer”?
          End of fucking argument you tool

        23. I have tried to not use a lawyer but the judge treats me like I have stolen money from his children which I probably have. If you don’t hire a lawyer the judges will destroy your chances of justice. Lawyers make the rules and the rules make lawyers rich. Go figure!

        24. When your sister steals all the money in the inheritance you need to go to court because the laws against such things are not enforced. To get any consideration in court you MUST hire an attorney or judges will ignore you in favor of the attorney representing the crooked sister.

        25. Lawyers are about as competent as doctors. Both are dumb as rocks. I went to see a lawyer about a book that had stolen almost verbatim entire chapters from my web site but he told me anything on a web site is public domain and can be copied. Bing young I trusted him and left. Later I found out he was wrong but the time had lapsed when I could have won an infringement case.
          As for doctors, they have killed both my parents through carelessness, killed my brother-in-law because they perforated his stomach while doing major back surgery and cost me a job by misdiagnosing a condition and giving me the exact opposite treatment which actually made me sicker.
          TRUST NO ONE!!

        26. When you resort to calling people names over an opinion then you are the one who is what you call them.

        27. Seriously? All you have is name calling? Why not show that you are intelligent instead of insane.

    2. Why hate on the lawyer? It is the judge who issues the binding ruling. All the lawyer does is find a more creative or persuasive way to frame his argument.
      Rogue judges who impose and enforce cruel and unjust laws should be subjects of criticism, not the lawyers.

        1. Since you claim to have met so many ‘malicious’ lawyers give me one example and the facts concerning the case.

        2. Just one? If you were a lawyer, I’d say go look in the mirror – your attitude says all anyone needs to know about the way you would practice.
          But since you imply that you’ve never met a malicious lawyer, I tend to believe you aren’t one. If I had to guess, I’d say you’ve probably been admitted to law school, but haven’t yet attended a class, and still have some rosy view of the legal profession founded on pie in the sky principles of justice and fairness. Once you take a legal ethics class, you’ll see how off base those notions are.
          And, I did not say “all” lawyers are malicious, nor did I say “most” are, but I could easily think of close to a dozen out of the couple hundred I’ve worked with during my practice for whom that description would fit. So how many must I be able to list before you deem it adequate for me to say I’ve met my “fair share?”
          Please enlighten me. I’m very worried about not having your validation.

        3. Apparently you can’t even give one story about a malicious lawyer when I simply asked for an example. I did not say there are no bad lawyers but wanted to see what some kid from the great unwashed class believed was a malicious lawyer. What’s wrong kid, some lawyer didn’t want to take your frivolous case on contingency and you think this is malicious?
          You should easily be able to give me an example of a crook lawyer if you had ever really been around lawyers and not just some punk kid from the ‘hood who is an Internet bullshitter.

        4. “Apparently you can’t even give one story about a malicious lawyer when I simply asked for an example.”
          No, I can give you several, but you aren’t entitled to any since you aren’t the arbiter of such matters. That may shock your precious little millennial mind, but it’s true. Moreover, I have made comments about malicious lawyers before, and you could easily find them in my comment history. I’m not going to bother with the pointless chore of rehashing them for you – since you don’t believe that I am a lawyer, it’s doubtful any evidence would convince you otherwise, so I won’t waste my time. I’m sure this is beyond your comprehension, but I don’t lose sleep or cry over the fact that you don’t believe me. I sit in my office, laugh about it, and get on with the business of making money. If you want an example, go do your homework.
          Pro tip – someone who liberally uses the terms “hood” and “kid” when referring to other adult males shouldn’t throw bombs about the “unwashed class” and being an “internet bullshitter.”

      1. Judges start as lawyers in the US/UK commonwealth. In civil law jurisdictions it is a separate career path.
        Most legislators are also lawyers, and they make laws in a way that requires lawyers to navigate. Every law is the “Full Employment for Lawyers Act”.

        1. Likely, but the “thirteethers” disagree, and their argument has more scholarship behind it than many unconventional interpretations of the law. Their claim is that their was a properly ratified and published amendment to the US Constitution in the 1810s which endid the citizenship of those accepting titles of nobility, which they claim stretches to cover titles such as “esquire” for lawyers and “honorable” for legislators and judges. Obviously no judge would agree, but also the record does not have that interpretation of the proposed amendment at the time, so far as I know.

        2. I was referring to the fact that people tend to vote for lawyers. Over and over again.
          I’d love to see mandatory term limits for all elected officials. Having people in office who know that someday they must live under the laws they impose on the rest of us might give incentive for them to legislate more wisely.

        3. Wiki? hahahaha
          Apparently you don’t know the difference between titles of nobility and honorifics.

        4. If you read carefully, you’ll see I don’t agree with the thirteenthers. Other unconventional legal interpretations are often much crazier, however, such as those who go on about all-caps names and admiralty law, but that doesn’t mean the thirteenthers aren’t wrong too.

        5. But if we don’t vote for lizards, the wrong lizard might get elected! Why do you hate democracy? /sarcasm

        6. Dude I’d *love* it if there was some way to give us better candidates. Most of the good people don’t want the job.

        7. We need a new Constitutional Amendment that prohibits lawyers from ever being in public office since lawyers will make laws that benefit lawyers and harm the rest of society and laws are enforced by people with guns. Dentists and other professions are harmless. Lawyers are harmful to any Democracy.

        1. I know this. But you don’t hate corrupt judges because they’re lawyers. You hate them because they’re corrupt judges and they can sick government on you in order to force compliance. Even the scummiest lawyer on earth can’t do that without a judge to help him do it.

    3. It likely happened the opposite way. There was an excess of lawyers and they needed to create new business or starve.

      1. Both causes feed into each other. But American society is become more and more litigious because it is what the voters want.

    4. yes with the FCC trying to take over the internet, I can already see a new field of “internet law” and I’m certain the law schools are drooling over this.

      1. Technically, this field has been developing for years. But involving the government will make it much worse.

        1. Aye, since the 1930’s if I’m not mistaken (I could be, I’m not a lawyer). At least insofar as public utilities are concerned.

      1. Quite a few it seems, which I find refreshing. Nice to know the whole profession isn’t one big throbbing vagina.

        1. I only stumbled on here a short while ago, but after 4 years of family law, I became very red pill.
          The thing is, I just don’t give a fuck anymore. I spent 10 years in the military and I was willing to kill or die to support this matriarchy.
          Not anymore.
          Then I get my law degree and I am expected to enforce this shit.
          Not anymore.
          Now I am in China and the weird thing is that this Communist Dictatorship gives me more freedom than I could ever have back in Canada.

        2. Family law sucks. I don’t blame you for wanting out of that. I have worked on two family law cases – both pro bono – and I fucking hated it.

        3. I can’t believe how evil people can be to each other; people who they said they were in love with. I was not the best lawyer out there for the simple reason that I would not sell my soul to “win”.
          I had to cross swords with a female lawyer and so I asked about her rep. Here was the consensus: her clients love her because she is a complete fucking cunt.
          I am a man; I don’t do cunt.

        4. Yeah, that’s similar to what I saw on the rare pro bono cases I had. Female partner was trying to railroad some hard working guy in favor of our client – who, no shit, was mentally ill and homeless and wanted full custody and like 75% of this guy’s cash. The female partner was all about it and acting like a complete vindictive cunt to this poor guy’s attorney. I balked at this strategy, and when she wouldn’t listen to me, I talked to some other partners telling them I wouldn’t work on the case any more if this was how we were going to play it because it was borderline unethical and nowhere near in the children’s best interests. They realized that my contributions were more valuable, so they kicked her off the case, replaced her with a litigator who knew his shit, and was fair. Ultimately our client got what she deserved, supervised visitation twice a week and the ex agreed to keep her on his medical insurance for a little while. Shortly thereafter, the female partner was forced to leave the firm.
          Luckily, my primary practice area is relatively small, and much more collegial. But whenever I am asked to assist in litigation in other areas, I am shocked at some of the behavior I see. But the stuff I saw in family law cases was the worst of it.

        5. I tell people I don’t do “family” law because if I wanted to be a babysitter, I’d have been a pre-school teacher.

        6. I put out my shingle and family clients walked in the door. There is a lawyer joke: criminal law is were you make bad people look their best, but family law is when good people are at their worst.
          Some clients were completely fucking stupid. Some were naïve. Some were out for blood and I would not counsel that shit. And some were just victims who I fought for.

        1. I have read your posts and you struck me as rather erudite, so that is no surprise.
          I did 4 years of family law: why area did you practice?

    5. Reading this article made me realize I don’t hate lawyers but I hate those who use the law to destroy society and suppress peoples rights and most of the people who do that are crusaders and degenerates with a JD.

  2. If your town has one lawyer, he rides a bicycle.
    If your town has two lawyers, they both drive a Mercedes.

  3. …a passive and enervate race, ready to swallow anything, and to acquiesce in anything; with intellects incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, and with affections alike indifferent to either; insensible, short-sighted, obstinate; lethargic, yet liable to be driven in convulsions by false terrors; deaf to the voice of reason and public utility; obsequious only to the whisper of interest, and to the beck of power.

    — Jeremy Bentham, on lawyers. —

  4. This could have been a good article if the author wasn’t trying so hard to sound smart

    1. Agreed; articles like these should be more plain-spoken, as they are clickbait material. The author’s tone is more in keeping with a more leisurely reading article, such as one found in City Journal.
      But I give him points for his scholarship. Well done, sir.

      1. That article couldn’t be simpler, it’s just that you boys were taught at such a low kiddie standard that everything is hard for you to understand. Go read the NY Times everyday to improve your comprehension and get a good dictionary because you’ll need it to look up every other word(you’re likely too lazy to even do that). btw, how many books have you read this year and how many have your high school teachers assigned?

        1. 1. Claiming the NY Times will improve your reading comprehension is laughable on its face. What’s next, assigning NPR to improve listening comprehension? This is not an SJW-friendly site, kiddo.
          2. Of course it could be simpler; it is written in a less-easily-digestible style than most articles here. Doesn’t mean it’s bad, just takes a longer period to absorb.
          3. My IQ dwarfs yours and the Great Books I’ve digested would make you vomit from their difficulty, little man. Do not presume a fair criticism of style indicates an inability to grapple with said style.

        2. I read them in the original, translated them into sanscrit, then aramaic, then into english. bazinga!

        3. That’s actually a fun ass game, if you ever get some free time. Place a standard well know nursery rhyme into Babblefish and translate from English to (whatever) language. Then translate the translation from (whatever) to another language (not English). Do another time to another foreign language, then a 4th translation from that last language back to English.
          Hilarity ensues.

        4. Looks like someone joined the “Great Book of the Month’ club to compensate for his lack of a real organised and systematic education.If I spoke to you for a few minutes I’d find gaping holes in what you know compared to even an ordinary middle class Uni graduate.
          Apparently you have never read the Times or you would know that they have top writers whether you like the content of the editorials or not.It’s a large paper, read the science or wine and food section if you don’t like the politics at least it’s well written. I don’t listen to NPR but if it’s connected to PBS then I would say that it would increase a person’s listening and speaking skills regarless of the content there.

        5. #1 sign of insecurity: “My IQ dwarfs yours and the Great Books I’ve digested would make you vomit from their difficulty, little man.”
          Translation: I mop floors for a living, but I audited a course on chic lit at the local community center and the other floor moppers call me “professor.”

        6. Read them in the original what? That would seem to indicate that you know at least four languages, which is pretty impressive for someone who pushes a mop for a living.
          Which works? In what capacity? Where did you do your training?
          Credo ipse puer mentitur.

        7. Bitch, please, I got Alderannian and Elvish as back ups. Word to Galadriel and Darth!

        8. Oooh, reverse psychology! Last resort of poor, little nitwits who can’t marshal an original response. I hurt you, princess and now you’re lashing out. I bet you hate your pedantic, little life; you hate your job, you hate your boss (are you angry because he fisted you?) and if you’re in a relationship, you’re angry, desperate and lonely. Why else would you post comments like this that have nothing to do with the article, but rather are a pathetic attempt to prove your worth?

        9. Your mom jokes? You have a supposedly massive IQ and that’s the best you can do?

        10. Four mom jokes in a row? Be honest: you’re trying to tell us something, aren’t you? Did mommy walk out on you? Did she have the mailman’s pee pee in her mouth and you were jealous/confused? Does daddy like to dress in mommy’s clothes? Paging Dr. Freud!

        11. I find you cute, like a little child attempting to mimic an adult to annoy them.
          There there. *pat pat*

        12. It seems you’re pretty comfortable patting children on the head; is that how you condition them to not tell their parents what you just did?

        13. Oh, please. You project so much (psuedo-narcissism as a cover against a massive inferiority complex), your nickname should be movie theater. Unfortunately, it’s just “bitch” or maybe “prison pussy.”

        14. Your obsession with male prison sex is quite a problem for you; I am sorry Tyrone broke your heart in cell block D. Still, your disordered homosexual yearning for bygone tops to (to your bottom) is humorous. Thank you for the giggle, down-lo.

        15. I am sorry I am dredging up painful memories of what your uncles did to you while your mother allowed it. She didn’t love you enough to stop it, and of course they abandoned you later because they didn’t love you, but it’s only because you disappointed them; it has nothing to do with me, little down-low.

        16. They are destroying you, Legally.
          One needs to know when to throw the towel in.

        17. Same, pathetic, worn-out attempt at reversing. You really don’t have anything else, do you? Must be the toxic fumes from the mop water.

        18. Same mother jokes. You’re tapped out, bitch. “Down-low”? You’re the one who seems to be awfully familiar with the vernacular of homosexuality and deviation. Was that your nickname? Cum Bucket? Well, have a good evening, cum bucket; I have to go. I’m sure you’ll be dreaming of me, hoping that you’ll get my attention. I may make your existence worthwhile and acknowledge you. Jump for my attention, cum bucket.

        19. Oh, poor little rabbit-zombie. You really do think that group approval equals reality. It is quite clear that the mindfuck of your masters goes quite deep. Perhaps they are actually just capitalizing on your own innate mental problems rather than causing them on their own. It’s easy to think that healthy minds wouldn’t be drawn to such silliness.

        20. My dear little zombie, we all live in your Soros-created world, where sexual depravity, dysfunction, and abberantness are all promoted daily as equal to normal healthy sexual relationships. Some of us, however, are good enough to resist such weak-sauce propaganda; you, clearly, are not one of the elect. I am not surprised you are obsessed with sexualizing me, a much stronger figure than you could ever hope to be; it must be the same way you fetishize Obama, Soros, and your other earthly masters, since you know yourself to be far beneath them in intelligence and power, as well as below me.
          Enjoy your trolling of the gay bars, little zombie.

        21. Now, now, little soros-monkey, let’s talk about your obsession with prison sex. We’re all quite aware that you are a bottom; the question really is do you enjoy a “rape” fantasy where you resist, or have you “given up the ghost” as they say, and jump willingly onto your master’s cock?
          I’m sure when they tell you that you’re a “real man” you pretend you don’t hear them laugh at you. Bless your heart.

        22. I believe that Lacan called what you’re doing “The Narcissistic Mirror.” You’re projecting your self-hatred on me because you can’t deal with the awful things you’ve done. You poor bastard.

        23. “Elect”? Who decides that? You? You’re no better than those Bible thumpers who get wood every time they tell someone they’re not “saved.” They get off on the perceived power they think they have to grant damnation (and that sadistic concept of eternal suffering) to those outside of their little club. The only club you have is your boyfriend Mufasa’s as he shoves it up your ass and you squeal like a little pig.

        24. It’s cute how you try to hide your obsession with being pounded on in prison with an attempt to project it.
          That little trick,however, is taught in your beta 101 classes led by Obama. Greater intellects than yourself–like me–can easily see through it.
          But it’s ok; if it makes you feel better to pretend it works, bless your faggy little heart.

        25. Again, your constant gay sex fantasies about me come through! Obama will not be happy; he does not like his low IQ little servants fantasizing about any other strongmen but him. You should apologize to him, personally, before you are all alone.

        26. Are you a negro? OK I’ll cut you some slack then because we don’t judge you by the same standards.

      2. Did you honestly find the reading difficult?
        I’m of the Dennis Miller school of thought on dumbing down. Fuck dumbing down. Quintus routinely submits well written articles that treat the reader as a literate, well read adult man instead of as some thrill seeking adolescent. I appreciate the tone and delivery quite honestly, most reading these days is geared towards 4th grader level readers (seriously) so it’s nice to read an article that respects my intelligence.

        1. Sigh. Stop being autistic. It is merely slower reading.
          It’s slower-reading, and the site is about quicker reading. Quintus has produced other articles that fit the readability standard of the site. It’s just this did not.

        2. I’m not “autistic” thanks for the ad hominem. I enjoy reading articles targeted at an audience who reads above a fourth grade level from time to time. I also engage in the dubious pursuit of reading authors from antiquity in my spare time, a whole “wall of text” thing, if you can imagine. Homer *rambles* but is worth the read simply out of appreciation for sheer poetry and meter.
          Not everything needs to be clickbait. If your comment is simply that you didn’t like this particular article, fine and well and we can certainly politely discuss our viewpoints, but that doesn’t mean that others did not enjoy it.
          Quintus’ articles routinely receive the fewest comments because they appeal to a rather narrow audience. This does not bother me whatsoever. As the site provides countless clickbait and “5 Steps To…” articles, a slow read from time to time is a great way to relax while sipping Scotch at the end of the day.

        3. I won’t even comment on his article but if readers here don’t think it’s ‘plain’ enough then this really is the lower 1/10 as I’ve always claimed and the least common denominator. Perhaps these boys should be reading the NY Times or the New Yorker to learn how educated people write (and I’m not even considering the content)

        4. Perhaps you’d be happier if he did it in comic book format: you know, bright pictures of men in tights, a few Biff! and Pow!s thrown in to help you comprehend the more complex passages . . . .

        5. Wow, I DID strike a nerve–didn’t I? Look at you lashing out like some screeching, little bitch.

    2. We’ll dumb it down for you next time to the level of the typical boy on here with an IQ of 85.

      1. Someone’s all butthurt the article isn’t universally praised. Stop being such a woman.

        1. Since she’s like 90 something have fun.I was going to get her a pet monkey so she doesn’t get bored now you can entertain her.

        2. That’s a horrible (but true) way to talk about your aborted purchase of a black man.

        3. She does have to pay for it. P.S. Sorry about how she took it out of your allowance, sonny boy.

    3. I’m interested to see the articles you’ve submitted, and look forward to basking in their easy communication and direct messages.
      Nothing wrong with criticizing something, but it does help to have an idea of the history of the person who wrote the article. Quintus doesn’t seem to be much into pretense.

      1. Some people can’t distinguish sounding smart and using the most poignant word to describe an idea.

  5. When I started practicing I soon found “the profession” to be filled with those archetypes and not the intellectual and honest people I had surrounded myself with in law school and in my professional circle. I hated having to deal with their arrogance and lies. Through good networking, hard work and some good timing, I was able to move into the judiciary within five years of practice. Now those fuckers have to call me your honor and I get to call them out on their bullshit. It’s marvelous.

    1. Everyone wants a respectable lawyer except when they have to hire one.
      Everyone claims they want Atticus Finch but for some reason they all end up hiring Saul Goodman.

        1. I can’t imagine an endless parade of LeShanquas and DeNanthony types marching through my office.

        2. It’s an unfiltered episode of COPS and Maury Povich.
          Handy tip: GET THE MONEY UP FRONT.

        3. You couldn’t pay me enough to deal with that demographic day in and day out. You have more patience than I could ever muster sir.

    2. Right on man, I thought I read that you were a judge. Well done.
      I was considering law for a while, as I do so like to argue and tend to have a bit of rhetorical skill now and again, but (honestly) I sat down over a weekend and figured out that I *really* would hate hanging out with other lawyers for any length of time and then chose another route. Growing up my family assured me that I would either be a Forrest Ranger (outdoorsy kid) or a Lawyer (liked to argue and WIN arguments). Turns out, eh, not so much. Though being a ranger would be tits to be certain, but it pays for shit.

      1. Depends on the lawyers you hang with, but finding the good ones – read: not limp wristed SJW quasi faggots – is like hunting for needles in a hayfield.

        1. Look up my good friend Richard Neely, elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court at age 32, (and for the next 22 years) and his books, particularly “Why Courts Don’t Work”.

    1. Possibly, but the term is broader than that. In Ammianus’s day, Rome was filled with “Orientals” (i.e., Syrians, Jews, Egyptians, etc). They were known for their wily trading practices and commercial acumen. Rome was like the New York of its day. On its streets you were probably more likely to hear Syriac or some other eastern language than Latin.
      What’s cool about all this is just how old lawyer-hate is. I was also trying to point out that Ammianus himself may have been screwed over by a gang of lawyers. Or his bosses may have been on the receiving end of legal slight-of-hand.
      It’s sad that we don’t know more about his fate.
      There is strong evidence also that Ammianus was targeted for deportation.

      1. I think that we all know what he meant by ‘oriental’ which just means to the East as Occidental means West. He was referring to those word benders and shysters who use their laws to gain an advantage over the Occidentals. The prophet and Galilean philosopher, Jesus, got whacked for pointing this out. I guess that he was too much of a statute of frauds man :o) They were basically making it all up for their own private gain and calling it the ‘Tradition of the Elders’ while Jesus was a written law man.The reason that we have have written laws is so that everyone knows what the exact law is
        I seem to recall that Alfred (the great) had a Baron flogged for some infraction but had to apologise because there was no written law stating that what the Baron did was unlawful. All laws now have to be in writing.

    2. In the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, “Orientals” are the people of the Orient, which included Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt etc. The Jews were found in both the Orient and the Occident, besides they had no influence on the art of rhetoric.

  6. A lawyer is willing to watch the guilty go free, so long as he is paid. A lawyer is willing to watch the innocent rot in prison, so long is he is paid. A lawyer would be happy to ruin your life due to a technicality in some arbitrary dictate from bureaucrats. These simple facts fly in the face of universal morality, and no amount of window dressing or passing responsibility onto “the system” can change that. Enjoy your justifications and your earthly riches, karma always gets the last laugh.

    1. Under the system of common law one of the duties of judges is to police and moderate such behaviour, or, as Gundog puts it below; call them out on their bullshit.
      Of course that still leaves the question of who judges the judges.

      1. In good states, a non-partisan judicial board that suggests a slate of nominees to the governor for appointment. In shitty states, the electorate through elections.

  7. Great article as always. This article especially hits home as I’m currently a Pre-Law student and plan on going to law school next year. But, as an aside, you don’t need to be a lawyer to understand this Florida Statute:
    836.04 Defamation.—Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

        1. Fuck, that sucks. I meant actually when was it entered into the revised code of Florida? When did it hit the books in other words. That sounds *highly* like a pre-1970’s statute.

        2. The history dates its inception in 1883. But yes, that’s the law as it stands in Florida. What I would like to see are more articles involving the law and, well, crazy laws such as this.

        3. Indeed. Shit laws *can* be removed, but it takes action and activism. Ohio went from a ‘don’t you dare carry’ state in the 1970’s to a “open carry is cool and a lot of us do it now, and CHL’s are rockin and a good 40% of adults have one!” state in 2015 due to hard activism and lobbying. The problem is getting people off of their arses to get out and do something really.

        4. I’m not very comfortable around proles who carry weapons especially when they are too shit poor to carry liability insurance. We need to make it mandatory, 5m minimum.

        5. The fuck you say?
          Who the hell are you anyway to dictate how or under what conditions free men should exercise their natural rights?
          You’re a troll. Go find somewhere more appropriate to your lowbrow idiocy.

        6. We have compulsory auto insurance don’t we? We know what would happen if we didn’t force people to be financially sound enough to pay for damage they may do to others. Guns are no different and $5m in a liability policy wouldn’t cost very much.
          It also seems that Zimmermann agrees with me and he’s sorry now that he’s millions in debt that he had taken a policy himself. You do know that when you have a liability policy that the insurance co. lawyers have to defend any negligence claims covered under the policy so Zimmermann would not have any lawyer bills now and they would either settle or litigate cases for you.

        7. One of my ancestors was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. We of the Elite will determine what you proles should have, both for your own good and that of my society.You just don’t have the brains, breeding or experience to know what is good for society. We of the Elite can have Arms because we are rational men, are smart enough and well off enough to carry liability insurance. Rights only apply to whom we say have those rights and those rights do not apply to liabilities like yourself who have never paid your fair share of the taxes that run the country.If it were up to men only about 5-10% of men would even be permitted to vote and that’s still a democracy.
          You’re just one of these silly basement boys surviving on Nutella sandwiches made by mumsy and have no idea about the difference between rights and cold hard reality and what it takes to survive and prosper in this world.
          Don’t question us pickup blog reading boy, we know best.

    1. Yes, that’s one of the definitions of criminal defamation in Florida. Most of the boys on here don’t know that there is still Criminal as opposed to Civil defamation. If you were to spread false information about the solvency of a bank or insurance co. etc. etc. for example that would be Criminal defamation under the law and you can go to prison if convicted for it. Most of the boys on here don’t have a pot to piss in so they don’t worry about Civil suits since they have no money but they are too dumb to understand that they can go to prison for certain offences and may have to learn (the hard way) to keep their mouths shut.

  8. Please. The colonies rebelled against a monarchy that had replaced it’s bishops and cardinals with a horde of bureaucrats. We replaces the kings horde of bureaucrats with a horde of bureaucrats led around by lawyers instead of minor nobility.
    Originally, our founders were smart enough men to set the law up so that the question that the only questions that needed to be asked about a law was that if it was legal under the constitution. Law was a trade. Then some lawyers at Harvard developed the idea of “stare decisis” that made case law equal or more important than the constitution. Now, law students sit around studying and memorizing not so much the law as cases which rulings have effected later interpretations of the law.
    Now, the US, a country with about 5% of the world’s total population, is beset with 50% of all of it’s lawyers. I fail to understand why that is a good thing. Lawyers produce absolutely nothing and leech off of men that do.

    1. Our founders set up the law so that the Constitution did not apply to the states, who were free to set up the regulation of law as they saw fit. It required a civil war and a constitutional amendment to change that.
      Thomas Jefferson himself was shocked when the Supreme Court first ruled a law unconstitutional and thought that the whole idea was bullshit.
      Stare decisis is an idea of Alfred the Great.

      1. SCOTUS granting itself the “right” to rule on the Constitutionality of anything was one of the biggest bullshit scams of the history of this country, followed closely by making Senators directly elected and passing the 16th amendment without an actual legal ratification process.

        1. Not that I disagree, but I do like that there is theoretically a third body that can check the stupidity of the legislature (which is nothing but mob rule after the 17th amendment) and the executive (which is nothing but a popularity contest decided by the same mob). Unfortunately, this third body doesn’t take this responsibility seriously, and decides based on politics (which is what we already have) instead of constitutionality (which is what we need).

        2. In our current highly unconstitutional form of governance I’m inclined to lean towards your view actually. I just resent the hell out of how much sheer damage has been wrought to bring us to this point.

  9. I’m gonna have to say there’s a reason why lawyer hatred is a universal to all cultures of the world:
    A fair amount of why America sucks these days is because of lawyers: lawyers are the ones that constantly push for women to divorce their husbands (knowing that they win the vast majority of custody), and they are the ones who benefit from this country being ridiculously litigious, constantly demanding that everybody sue everybody else.

  10. Another home run out of the park article Quintus. Your research and reading into antiquity and then sharing of this knowledge in an accessible form is highly admirable and profitable to all men. Thank you sir.

  11. I have only one question: Why is it that all the rights under the Constitution go out the window in Family Court? Hm? Some lawyer explain that to me. Why don’t I have the right to a trial by jury for instance?

    1. The government no longer recognizes any of our rights in an absolute fashion. If we can still exercise a right or two, it’s ONLY because hard, dedicated and determined men are out in the field and court battling against this soft tyranny.
      Another component is ignorance. Few deal in family law, until they have to deal in family law. And by then, the die is cast and they are like a babe thrown into a den of lions.

      1. Vagina = infallibility and automatically right?
        Do I collect a prize somewhere?

        1. The place is a Star Chamber, so the first rule is, you don’t talk about family court.
          The second rule is, no, not that, I fooled you.
          The second rule is that there are two sets of rules: the set you can read at the library, and the set that is actually applied.

    2. I hate to answer a question with a question, but which rights are you referring to? The Constitution only protects you from state action (supposedly), not the vengence of some cunt ex-wife.

      1. I don’t know man…I was thinking a jury of your peers of sorts. Other than that I know I am going in there and feel like a corpse while vultures are picking up on it (she, my lawyer, her lawyer, the woman judge, etc)… That’s all…

        1. Yeah, I understand. Believe me, I’ve done some family law stuff pro bono and I fucking hate it.
          As to jury rights, I believe that at the federal level, you only have a right to a jury in a criminal trial. I know the constitution doesn’t say that, but see GoJ’s comment elsewhere about SCOTUS eroding rights.
          But also understand, family law is handled by the states, so standards are governed by state law, not federal (so long as state law doesn’t violate the Constitution).
          I don’t know what your state says about jury rights in domestic cases, but likely there aren’t many unless it’s a criminal situation.

        2. Thanks Nemesis… I live in one of the communist states, so no hope for me. I just want it over with so I can move on with my life.

        3. Sorry to hear this. One of the curses of this shit is that it technically never ends until the kids reach the age of majority (and in some cases longer). But this can also be a blessing. If she marries up, you can usually have the alimony awards reopened and reduced. Of course, this is harder in a communist state, but not necessarily impossible, so don’t lose hope.

        4. Good to know… She did marry up once.. She probably wants upp(er) now. Fingers crossed.

        5. Hmm, this guy claims to be a lawyer and he’s talking about Federal Courts but apparently never learned anything about the Constitution or the 7th Go read it kid and btw since this is 2015 the sum of over $20 would be a lot higher, like $100k in Fed court but the right is there.
          This blog is a joke

        6. I realize what the amendment says. Did you read my comment? Let me help you: “I realize that the Constitution doesn’t say that.”
          Now, oh wise Constitutional scholar, tell me if you have a right to jury trial in suits at equity. Please tell me how your $20 guarantee (which has never been amended) applies in the context of subject matter jurisdiction rules for federal courts. And please explain what it means to have this right, even when you have it, when there are rules for summary judgment and directed verdicts, to name but two methods by which you will never make it to trial.
          And finally, learn to read – my point was that he won’t have a right to jury trial in a divorce case because those are matters reserved to the states. That’s the Tenth Amendment (did you read that far into the Constitution?). I’m aware of only one state – Texas – that provides for the right to trial by jury in a divorce. I’m willing to admit there may be others, but none of the states I practice in do.

        7. here is what you wrote kid. “As to jury rights, I believe that at the federal level, you only have a right to a jury in a criminal trial”
          It’s amazing that you don’t know this precisely. You ONLY have this right in Criminal cases,and that you’re not even sure of? I pointed out to you by citing the 7th amendment, which you didn’t know, that you had the right to a jury trial if the sum exceeded $20 (of course this is much higher today in Federal Court-$75k)
          ” Please tell me how your $20 guarantee (which has never been amended)”
          I guess that you have never heard about the Act of Congress in 1789 Mr ‘Lawyer”
          “when there are rules for summary judgment and directed verdicts, to name
          but two methods by which you will never make it to trial.”
          That’s irrelevant because it doesn’t address the topic of jury trials. We all know that Motions can be made at any time, Your opponent files a motion for summary judgement then you file a motion to dismiss their motion, and of course with the papers since few motions are oral argument.
          Now go away kid. You know I had just thought of something.I have actually been in court more times than Obama with my own personal cases (I wasn’t charging a fee so of course I could do this) in Federal Court.

        8. Listen, little JD, about the only thing you are proving by continuing this thread is that you can selectively edit, make irrelevant points, and talk out of your ass. It is becoming clearer with each passing comment that you probably haven’t even gone to law school. Let’s examine:
          “Here is what you wrote kid. ‘As to jury rights, I believe that at the federal level, you only have a right to a jury in a criminal trial.’” Selective edit. Immediately after, I acknowledged the 7th amendment and explained why it did not guarantee an unqualified right.
          “It’s amazing that you don’t know this precisely.” Talking out of your ass – this tends to show you have probably not even gone to law school. If you had, you would understand how complex
          the law is, and you would certainly understand that very few things, if any, are known “precisely.” That’s kind of the thing with common law, it changes all the time. Further, it appearently doesn’t occur to you that as vast as the law is, it is possible to devote an entire practice to fields where these issues never arise – in other words, your status as a degree holder is even more suspect.
          The distinctions I made with respect to civil trials and why these distinctions exist could easily lead to the conclusion that you don’t have an absolute right in the same way you do in criminal trials. And for the record – the question was about jury rights in the context of divorce, and you don’t have a right to a jury in such a case. Period. In fact, you cannot get a divorce in a federal court – it is a state issue. Double period. But let’s examine your responses to my distinctions more closely:
          “I guess that you have never heard about the Act of Congress in 1789 Mr ‘Lawyer” –
          Irrelevant and talking out of your ass.
          First, the Constitution went into effect in 1789. So you’ve simply proven my point, the $20 limit has never been amended. Strike one.
          Second, all Acts of Congress have names – they are not referred to the way you are referring to them. Strike Two.
          Third, I presume you are talking about the Judiciary Act (though you are so incompetent, it is difficult to tell). The Judiciary Act established our federal court system and set jurisdictional dollar amount limits on the cases those courts could hear – jurisdictional limits do not give you a right to jury trial, nor do they alter or affect those rights in any way. Strike Three.
          Fourth, Congress cannot amend the Constitution by passing a statute. Strike Four (and that’s law school 101).
          Fifth, the Seventh Amendment has not been amended to increase the $20 limit. Strike Five (and that’s just basic reading – you can see it has not been amended).
          What you have demonstrated above, JD, is the danger of relying on Wikipedia for legal research instead of getting a legal education.
          “We all know that Motions can be made at any time, Your opponent files a motion for summary judgement [sic] then you file a motion to dismiss their motion, and of course with the papers since few motions are oral argument.”
          Dodging the question and talking out of your ass.
          And wrong – motions for summary judgment and directed verdict cannot be made “at any time.” Strike Six.
          You do not file a “motion to dismiss their motion.” Strike Seven.
          You do not file papers because “few motions are oral argument” – you file them because you are required to, and all dispositive motions go to oral argument unless the parties consent otherwise, and the court concurs. Strike Eight.
          “Now go away kid. You know I had just thought of something.I have actually been in court more times than Obama with my own personal cases (I wasn’t charging a fee so of course I could do this) in Federal Court.”
          Irrelevant and talking out of your ass.
          And wrong again – if you actually did this (doubtful), you could only do it because you were appearing pro se. Charging a fee is not determinative of your ability to appear before the court – newsflash clown, lawyers aren’t charging fees in pro bono cases but they still have to be licensed to appear in them. Strike Nine.
          And I’ve retired the side.
          Please stop embarrassing yourself, for your own sake.
          And here’s one last pro tip – coming into a forum, needlessly dropping bombs to try to stir up shit, and talking trash to grown men when you have nothing useful to contribute is something women do. Grown men can respectfully disagree with each other tactfully without resorting to childish sarcasm and insults. No one thinks you’re cool, intimidating, or worthy of respect for carrying on in your manner. One day, after high school, you’ll realize that.

        9. You said that the sum of $20 was never changed and I informed you that it was by an act of Congress. Now, get lost retard.

        10. Try again, dipshit. What part of “Congress can’t amend the Constitution by statute” is too advanced for you to understand, JD?

    3. Because some people would throw their own MOTHER into a cookpot and slow stew her for a buck. It is thus essential to do a money ‘shit test’ to any woman who you involve yourself in or any man who you deal with for that matter. Not everyone, but many do have a price.

      1. Any ideas how to do that shit test? I’m seriously interested in a sound way of accomplishing that.

        1. Her: “What do you do?! Tee hee hee”
          You: “I write poetry, I race cars, I fondle women, but, I set my own hours and I have weekends off”
          Or something like that.

        2. I mentioned before, depending on my mood my reply to that kind of question is either “I do nothing” or “I train hamsters for magic shows”.. think I’ve got the last one from here somewhere..

        3. The beauty of this is that no Millenial women know the original Arthur, which I loosely paraphrased, so it comes off as charming. Heh.

        4. The hamsters for magic shows is pretty cool actually. And given the double meaning rather witty.

        5. Tell her you’re a dog walker to the rich and famous.
          That has got to sound better than what you really do lol
          Pick up a few dogs at the pound to make it look good haha
          “Oh yes, the chiquaqua belongs to Paris Hilton and I sometimes board it at my house when she’s away.”

        6. You talking about King Arthur or that new film “Arthur” made recently in ’81?

    4. You could have a jury in divorce cases years ago if you demanded one and I think that there may still be a couple of States that allow it. It may only be a civil case but we have juries in those civil cases, except in Small Claims but we know that is for a quick arbitration of small sums, otherwise it would be filed in the Law Division.
      Divorce and child custody cases should be heard by juries if one party demands it even if the jury only consists of 3 jurors instead of the usual 6 in civil matters(you’d win or lose by a 3-3 or 3-2 vote) btw, the number of jurors is not set in stone but just a matter of tradition or local law, the Grand Jury in that cop case in Ferguson had only 12 jurors(in NY it can be 16-23).
      And although, outside of the juvenile criminal cases handled in Family court, it’s mostly divorces and child support Orders but if you do not abide by the order you can be held in contempt and imprisoned. You may not have a criminal record but you are still subject to a penalty which in effect is the same as one a criminal would receive so yes, there should be juries if demanded.

  12. Great article Quintus. We need a Cicero to fight some of those divorce rape cases.

  13. Why do I feel like if Quintus Curtius made an audio version of his articles his voice would sound like:
    1.) Mumia
    2.) Neil deGrasse Tyson
    It speaks credibility, sophistication, strength. A voice you would want to hear on a history, discovery channel or commercial.

    1. I’d want James Earl Jones, Kelsey Grammer or Patrick Stewart to read it–while that dreamboat Chris Hemsworth paints my toe nails. Oh, did I share too much there?

  14. In fairness to my brethren in the legal profession, it’s the 99% of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name….
    Mistral, Esq.

  15. Lol. It was the opposite in my case. I used to work for a mediation center that provided 3rd party mediation services to allow parties to settle their problems as amicably as possible. Needless to say, litigation lawyers hated me! Haha

  16. I needed a dictionary in between finishing the article. Good thing. There’s no pretense to dumbing down for the sedate masses seeking a breezy read. A good alternative to the typical solid ‘8 things or 10 things’ format.
    Always liked that most of QC’s articles leads one to want to further research the various subtopics within the article or the main topic itself.
    I’m gonna have to replace my recycled paper dictionary with a papyrus inscribed one, though. Apparently they last longer, hehe.

  17. I believe I read that lawyers, as a profession have the highest percentage of sociopaths in their ranks.

  18. Return of Kings? Maybe Return of Lawyers.
    Seriously gents, what is stopping us from taking over the world?

  19. The same hatred for bankers has persisted for about the same time. Huerta de Soto has written some very good accounts of this.

  20. Lawyers have infiltrated ,infested and corrupted every facet of this country. You can make a case that lawyers arent all bad but then again that’s what lawyers do…try to persuade and sway opinion by any means (legally)necessary. Name anything that has been corrupted and there’s always a lawyer there defending and making a case for the corruption.
    If you are a lawyer dont quit your day job.You didnt change my mind that lawyers suck. P.S. I’m not some disgruntled guy that lost everything in some divorce case. Ive just seen what they’ve done by perverting the laws and legalese to win at all costs.

  21. Quintus,
    Ammianus is talking about orators (oratores) not lawyers (iurisperiti). In fact, he gives you examples of famous orators : Demosthenes, Callistratus, Hyperides, Aeschines, Andocides, Dinarchus, Antiphon Rhamnusius, Rutilius, Galba, Scaurus, Cicero etc.
    Orators at that time were not versed in the science of law but in the science of rhetoric (rhetorica, ars oratoria). Some of them were versed in the science of law, and it is this type of orators about which Ammianus says : “secundum est genus eorum qui iuris professi scientiam”.

    1. The name “oratores forenses” means those who practice “forensic rhetoric” (check here:

  22. Everyone hates a lawyer till their ass is in court.
    I love lawyers. Their job is to defend the client. Whether the client is Some huge pharmD company, a divorcing father, or the government, I respect that. The only lawyers I hate are bad lawyers.
    Protect the person who pays you. Nothing wrong with that. It’s not their fault all these stupid laws are so convoluted you need a degree and a staff of paralegals just to interpret it.

Comments are closed.