I'm on board there with much of the general sentiment, but I wouldn't let lawyers off the hook so easily. They're the front-line troops that have enabled the entire mess. They're the backbone of the broken system.
What I wrote:
The lawyers didn't create this situation, they are just feeding off of it - that's their role and legal duty.
It may be true that "They're the backbone of the broken system., but they didn't make it broken - the lawmakers did that.
If you have watched the film The Corporation
- and I agree, I think it's a great documentary too - then you can probably appreciate the distinction between the lawmakers
and the lawyers
(e.g., such as the senate members in the US, or members of parliament in the UK) would have been the ones who enacted the laws/statutes that enable a corporation to exist as a legal psychopathic person and with more rights than an individual person. They may have done this as a result of lobbying by lawyers and others representing corporations.
are independent agents and will accept the role of representative in a court of law for whoever wishes to pay them for the representation (i.e., the client). The role of lawyer must be focussed on what is best for the legal person (client) being represented, regardless of how preposterous or hopeless or hostile to another (e.g., as in divorce or patent infringement claims) the client's position may seem at first sight. It has to be the adoption of a highly subjective/biased position in favour of the client. For this, good lawyers can often command what are arguably well-deserved and high fees.
Mind you, I'm not sure how it works in the US, but, in the UK where the lawyers are involved in (say) a dispute over a contract, then the practice of Case Law mandates that the court (and the judge) considers previous cases of a same/similar type, to see what precedent (ruling) was set, and follow the precedent in that case. If the precedent does not suit his client's case (i.e., he would lose the case), then a good lawyer will seek to differentiate the precedent case from his client's case. If this ploy is successful, then a new ruling will be made, and this becomes part of Case Law. I think this is the limited extent to which a lawyer might be directly involved in the actual creation of a new law.
Having said this, I should add that what I sometimes personally think
of lawyers is probably unprintable.