(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."

But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.