The Misconceptions and Roll-of-Eyes Moments in the Legal Profession

I've encountered numerous misconceptions, stereotypes, and oversimplified views about the legal profession over the years. However, one particular sentiment that stands out to me is the common assertion that lawyers are simply in this for the money. This statement overlooks the complexity, nuance, and the genuine commitment to justice and client welfare that underpins the legal profession. As a lawyer, especially in personal injury law, our primary goal is to advocate for individuals who have suffered due to the negligence or wrongdoing of others. Our work is about leveling the playing field for those who might otherwise be overwhelmed by powerful corporations or insurance companies.

We strive to ensure that our clients receive fair compensation to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and other forms of damage, helping them to rebuild their lives. It's not merely a financial transaction; it's a deeply personal and ethical pursuit to right wrongs and provide a sense of closure and security to those we represent.

Moreover, the assertion that legal practice is solely about financial outcomes is a gross generalization. It's about giving a voice to those who might otherwise go unheard, protecting rights, and making a meaningful difference in people's lives. So, whenever I hear 'All lawyers care about is money.', I can't help but roll my eyes.

Another roll-of-eyes moment occurs when I encounter the use of religious affiliations to prove one's character in legal proceedings. In the context of my practice, which is predominantly Christian Orthodox, sometimes in the past 40-50 years, there was a perception that the prosecution and judges were less strict with individuals of religious backgrounds. Some lawyers from that era tried to leverage this to prove good character. A specific example involving a case from our past illustrates the absurdity of this approach.

In this case, a 20-year-old was brutally beaten by two elders to steal their money. The perpetrator was represented by a lawyer who, when he was found guilty, used the religious affiliation as a way to bolster his client's character. He brought a priest to testify about the client's regular church attendance. However, when the judge explained his reasoning for not giving a lower punishment, stating that even if he could have given a lower sentence due to the client's apparent piety, the brutal act committed just before the church service was a clear indication of the opposite. This example underscores the flawed logic behind using religious affiliations as a substitute for actual evidence of character and the importance of legal proceedings focusing on facts rather than outdated stereotypes.