Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

> while you can represent yourself in court, the lawyers who run the court do everything to ensure you will likely stumble

Non-lawyers who represent themselves in court don't stumble because of a sinister conspiracy by lawyers to trip them up. They stumble because law is a really complicated subject, and no matter how smart you are it's impossible to replace years of full-time learning with a little reading on the side.

The saying "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" is hundreds of years old.

View on HN

Yes but the complexity serves the interest of lawyers collectively and individually. I would argue that is precisely a conspiracy against the public interest.

Put another way: nobody individually profits when the law is made simple and clear.

Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated. And not all actors are acting in good faith, with the same facts, or even rationally.

If you want to have rule of law relying on simple laws just doesn't cut it most of the time.

Now, legalese can and should be reduced, modern lawyers are working on that. But laws will always be used to enforce/define complex systems or relationships. This often requires complex rules.

I believe the argument "Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated" is false because it confuses cause and effect. It's true the world is complex, uncomprehendingly so. But that bears no relationship to laws and policies, upon which man chooses to impose on his fellow man.

I do see how the application of simple law is complex. But that complexity could be seen as a trade-off. I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law.

>I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law.

The people experiencing such injustice are not willing, and violently so.

It's an understandable reaction, but there's no such thing as "perfect justice" this side of heaven.

Individuals do profit when the law is simple and clear. Often to the point where problems arise and people start proposing minor adjustments to the law... wherein it eventually ceases to be simple and clear.

I have to ask if you are speaking from experience here or just dislike lawyers based on tropes in our culture?

Having been through a 2 year legal battle myself, I can tell you that the complexity is there for a reason, and that reason is lawyers arguing a client's case, the court reconsidering their previous opinion, and hopefully a more fair outcome going forward. The world is far more complex than we can imagine, otherwise we'd be able to write perfect, simple laws.

Let me give you a challenge: Say my wife and I are getting a divorce, and we are splitting up community property. I have options and RSUs (any equity asset on a vesting schedule really) that I was awarded before we were married, some that were awarded after, some awarded before that vested after our date of separation. These all have different vesting schedules, strike prices, and hypothetical future value (stock might tank, might leave before it all vests, etc). What is a simple law to determine what dollar value I owe my ex for her interest in this community property?

Let me ask you a related question: how much injustice would you personally tolerate in exchange for simplicity?

For instance in your divorce question: why not excercise everything at the date of divorce and split the proceeds 50/50? Is that outrageous? Or simple?

It's way too simple. Let's say I was awarded 1000 shares of stock that vest over the next 4 years. Let's say I was awarded these stocks only 2 weeks before date of separation. Does my ex have the same community property interest in these 1000 stocks (spoiler: they don't) as in 1000 stocks awarded 2 years previously, before the marriage ended? Does it matter how long I worked at the company during the marriage (yes, it does)?

What if one of the parties doesn't want to sell the stock, or it doesn't make sense because the stocks are currently underwater (but may not be at some future date)? What if many of the assets in question are Restricted Stock Units, with no agreed upon value since they cannot be priced until they are released?

"Just sell it all and split it 50/50! DUH!" is not something that works in the real world, where the law is meant to operate.

Also, you didn't answer my question... What's your beef with lawyers? Have you ever had to actually hire one for something? You view of how simple the law could/should be seems very naive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com