I have watched good people change from bright-eyed ideologues when going into 1st year law school. Then, increment by increment, day by day, morally compromising decision after another, they accept moral ambiguity and embrace evil for the paycheck and job security. The Devil's Advocate was a movie back in the day that captured the sentiment.
Those groups that appear pro bono are usually leftist turf operations that are funded by USAID and SOROS to fund the Communist revolution to take down the West.
Law is a control structure.
I have been through a lifeline(s) in secret by lawyers who went to the dark side but saw an opportunity to give me info that cost them nothing but helped me do my work armed with winning knowledge. An atonement gesture, maybe. Darkness years for the light it would seem.
I created a podcast for self-represented litigants with concepts to consider. I might start a series. You might appreciate it.
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I can see how your experiences have shaped a deep skepticism toward the legal profession and legal systems more broadly. I know a lot of people feel that way. When I taught business law at a local university, I would give extra credit for the best lawyer jokes that my students could come up with. It’s true that the pressures of legal practice, combined with institutional and financial incentives, can lead even well-meaning individuals into moral gray zones. That’s a tension many of us wrestle with—especially those who entered the field with a desire to help, not hurt, and not sell our souls.
I'm hopeful that technological empowerment, like GenAI, when used wisely, can be part of the solution rather than the problem, both for lawyers doing lower-paid or pro bono work and for pro se / pro per litigants.
You also raise broader concerns about control structures, funding sources, and ideological capture, which are serious topics worthy of honest debate. While I may not share all your conclusions, I do agree that the deck is often stacked against pro se litigants. It's hard to be successful as a pro se litigant in the legal system.
I appreciate your willingness to speak openly, and dive into difficult issues. I subscribed to your podcast and am interested in giving it a listen!
Thank you for taking the time to respond and endeavour to listen to the legal episodes.
I am currently helping a friend overcome one of the most egregious affronts a man can endure being threatened with eviction from his own property. The lawyer doing this injustice has violated the Officer of The Courts ' DUTY OF CANDOUR' in astounding ways. They misrepresented the facts, and the law and even wrote the Judges Orders in their own way to favour their client and disfavour my friend. Infuriating stuff, all while charging by the hour.
This is going to set a high watermark for dishonourable conduct.
But I am skeptical that the law society would disbar this one because of my experiences in the past.
Anyway, I cannot speak directly about it in my podcast, for now, but it is motivating me to make more legal perspective episodes to pull back the veil of mystery so people can decide for themselves.
I am sorry to hear about your friend's troubles. Hopefully he can show the court the facts and law, and retain his ownership rights. In my experience, the truth usually comes out sooner or later--for your friend's sake, I hope sooner rather than later.
I have watched good people change from bright-eyed ideologues when going into 1st year law school. Then, increment by increment, day by day, morally compromising decision after another, they accept moral ambiguity and embrace evil for the paycheck and job security. The Devil's Advocate was a movie back in the day that captured the sentiment.
Those groups that appear pro bono are usually leftist turf operations that are funded by USAID and SOROS to fund the Communist revolution to take down the West.
Law is a control structure.
I have been through a lifeline(s) in secret by lawyers who went to the dark side but saw an opportunity to give me info that cost them nothing but helped me do my work armed with winning knowledge. An atonement gesture, maybe. Darkness years for the light it would seem.
I created a podcast for self-represented litigants with concepts to consider. I might start a series. You might appreciate it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/pro-se-litigant-or-self-represented?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. I can see how your experiences have shaped a deep skepticism toward the legal profession and legal systems more broadly. I know a lot of people feel that way. When I taught business law at a local university, I would give extra credit for the best lawyer jokes that my students could come up with. It’s true that the pressures of legal practice, combined with institutional and financial incentives, can lead even well-meaning individuals into moral gray zones. That’s a tension many of us wrestle with—especially those who entered the field with a desire to help, not hurt, and not sell our souls.
I'm hopeful that technological empowerment, like GenAI, when used wisely, can be part of the solution rather than the problem, both for lawyers doing lower-paid or pro bono work and for pro se / pro per litigants.
You also raise broader concerns about control structures, funding sources, and ideological capture, which are serious topics worthy of honest debate. While I may not share all your conclusions, I do agree that the deck is often stacked against pro se litigants. It's hard to be successful as a pro se litigant in the legal system.
I appreciate your willingness to speak openly, and dive into difficult issues. I subscribed to your podcast and am interested in giving it a listen!
Thank you for taking the time to respond and endeavour to listen to the legal episodes.
I am currently helping a friend overcome one of the most egregious affronts a man can endure being threatened with eviction from his own property. The lawyer doing this injustice has violated the Officer of The Courts ' DUTY OF CANDOUR' in astounding ways. They misrepresented the facts, and the law and even wrote the Judges Orders in their own way to favour their client and disfavour my friend. Infuriating stuff, all while charging by the hour.
This is going to set a high watermark for dishonourable conduct.
But I am skeptical that the law society would disbar this one because of my experiences in the past.
Anyway, I cannot speak directly about it in my podcast, for now, but it is motivating me to make more legal perspective episodes to pull back the veil of mystery so people can decide for themselves.
Have a great day.
I am sorry to hear about your friend's troubles. Hopefully he can show the court the facts and law, and retain his ownership rights. In my experience, the truth usually comes out sooner or later--for your friend's sake, I hope sooner rather than later.
Best regards!
Thanks for the well wishes.