@farmerman,
Om Sig said Quote:Failure to be literal exposes u to potential criticism n complaints.
farmerman wrote: Your belief in that is funny (especially for an ex lawyer who is payed to be a liar in court
But, I guessThats what separates us from those with severe autism
What u said is
factually incorrect, farmer.
In a spirit of charity, I will assume that u just
do not understand
what u r talking about, rather than that u have chosen to deceive us.
Your error lies in the unfounded (tacit) assumption
that lawyers get paid to give testimony in court, regarding the facts in litigation.
If a lawyer begins to testify, any decent adverse counsel
will be
QUICK to object on that ground.
It is
reflexive. Failure to raise that objection is malpractice.
The rendition of testimony is for
the WITNESSES,
not for legal counsel. Indeed, if counsel did testify,
then he 'd be exposed to cross-examination by adverse counsel,
such that he might have to give evidence against his own client.
(
THAT might compromise the lawyer-client privilege of secrecy; very awkward.)
That is not what lawyers r for; thay r not supposed to have first-hand knowledge of the facts.
If thay
DO, then thay shoud
not have accepted the case, if thay r going to testify.
That 'd be a conflict of interest; a
serious conflict of interest.
David
