Lawyer (from Lat. Advocatus - legal consultant), a person who has chosen to provide legal assistance as his profession. People pay money for consulting lawyers, sometimes quite significant ones, and, of course, they want in return to get more, better and cheaper. In short, the consumer has the right to count on a quality and affordable service.
In the opinion of specialists providing legal services, clients themselves, turning to them for help, do not always understand the essence of the activities of lawyers. In the captivity of their own illusions and in the pursuit of immediate profit (wanting to save cash), consumers lose much more.
In other words, clients are deceived more often than lawyers deceive them, therefore, when going to see a lawyer, you should get rid of some misconceptions.
Myths about lawyers
Experience comes with age, so the older the lawyer, the better. This is not true. The path to jurisprudence has no age barriers, and a person of any age, any profession can start from scratch a career as a lawyer in the provision of services to the public. But there are exceptions that require mandatory legal experience. For example, to acquire the status of a lawyer, you must have worked in your specialty for at least two years. Therefore, a 50-year-old lawyer may have no more experience than a 25-year-old, if they passed the bar examinations at the same time.
High quality doesn't have to be expensive. The client seeks to find a top-class lawyer, but wants to pay as little as possible. And some are deliberately looking for a better known person, without taking into account the price factor. Let's give an example: once a very poor woman came to see a lawyer. After receiving a free consultation, she asked what kind of remuneration he would take on her case. Hearing the amount, the woman said that she could not even pay that kind of money, after which she asked where to find one of the most famous lawyers in Russia N. To the question of the specialist who consulted her, "Do you really think that N's services are cheaper?" - she answered yes without hesitation.
We need a rich lawyer. This is the opinion of some clients, assessing the capabilities of a specialist in his financial situation. Of course, the success of a lawyer is noticeable in his security. But wealth is not necessarily the result of his career in this field. He could inherit wealth. In addition, the services of such a lawyer are much higher. It is all the more strange when clients, turning to such specialists, hope to save on hospitality expenses, for example, hoping that the lawyer will go to court and business trips in his own car and therefore they will not have to spend money on a taxi or train.
Here's to you ... dollars and do not deny yourself anything (all-inclusive tariff). This is the reasoning of clients who, turning to a lawyer, give almost all their modest savings over many years (you won't wish it to the enemy, but this happens). Naturally, in this situation, they have no additional funds either to compensate for the actual costs, or to prevent failure. They require the inclusion of all costs in the amount of the fee, as well as a guarantee to win the case. Of course, it is naive to believe that a specialist will pay for obtaining evidence out of his own pocket: then his remuneration may not be enough for the evidence base. Regarding guarantees, we note: a lawyer is only a person assisting justice, and his opinion is not decisive for officials who are just making decisions, therefore he cannot be held responsible for the improper performance of their duties. Moreover, according to part 3 of article 16 of the Code of Professional Ethics of a lawyer, he "should refrain from concluding an agreement on a fee, in which the payment of remuneration is made dependent on the end of the case in favor of the principal." This rule does not apply to property disputes, where the remuneration may be proportional to the value of the claim if the case is successfully completed.
I need a well-connected lawyer. In fact, an attorney rarely uses personal connections for a client's needs. A friend of the investigator or judge, as a token of gratitude for the patronage, will take care of the peace of the official, not the principal. It must be admitted that there is a certain contingent of lawyers who, for one reason or another, cooperate with investigators or judges. Such a professional symbiosis is beneficial to both parties: the defender uses the recommendation of an official, who in return is provided with "peace and quiet" in the process, saving the benefactor from having to respond to numerous complaints. "Their" lawyers actually work against the client for his money and value such friendship very much. There is a widespread belief among the population that a lawyer will use connections as an intermediary in transferring a bribe to resolve the case. In part, perhaps, this is true. But it should also be borne in mind that corruption in our state is not absolute and not all-encompassing. Along with dishonest employees of state structures, there are also principled ones. If we talk about lawyers, then many people still value their honor more than their fees. Even a single transfer of a bribe deprives a lawyer and, consequently, his client of the main guarantee - independence - by involving him in a criminal conspiracy with a judge, prosecutor, or investigator. The lawyer who helped bribe the participants in the proceedings is no longer capable of active action. Paraguayan dictator Stroessner said: "Corruption breeds complicity, and complicity breeds loyalty." It should also be borne in mind that even theoretically "buy-sell" is not possible for any business, but only for one that has a certain qualification. Otherwise, the acceptable risk of liability will clearly be higher than the possible illegal remuneration. But in the minds of our compatriots, the myth that the judge must "must be given" is firmly rooted, so everyone considers it his duty to make an offering, and since our people are poor, the amount of "gratitude" is appropriate. However, such "bribes" also insult a dishonest person. The consequences of such actions are clear.
The lawyer is delaying the case to get more money. Many cases, especially civil ones, last more than one year, some more than five years. The reasons, of course, are different: somewhere the process is hampered by the bureaucratic apparatus, somewhere the deadlines for the execution of forensic examinations are long, or even the client himself could have blundered something. In such situations, the principals tend to despair, but the attorney should not be immediately accused of deliberately delaying the case, he is the least interested in this. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the specialist receives remuneration in the form of a one-time payment when concluding an agreement - it is more profitable for him, on the contrary, to quickly cope with the client's business and work out the money. Theoretically, only very wealthy clients, whose fees amount to tens of thousands of dollars, are trying to "pull the rubber" into the hands of lawyers, but then the demand from the defender is different, he risks losing his reputation, therefore he values any clientele: both financial tycoons and workers.
Out of money? Then we go to you! This misconception follows from the previous one. The client, seeing that there is not enough money to pay for qualified legal assistance, refuses a lawyer and tries to find an advisor outside the institutions of the legal profession. The result of such a decision, as a rule, is not encouraging: by saving on quality work, the client actually sacrifices the opportunity to win. The relationship between a defender and a client should be based on mutual trust, so you cannot see an enemy in a lawyer. It is possible that fate will confront you with an unscrupulous member of the bar, but because of him, you should not disdain the entire corporation. Ultimately, the choice is yours to heed the advice offered or to reject it.