Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

I feel like "the lawyers told us to do something stupid for no legitimate reason" is just one part of a bureaucracy trying to blame another part for the fact that the bureaucracy itself is doing something stupid for no legitimate reason.

View on HN

While you’re correct there’s also no ambiguity about who has the final say in that scenario. The lawyers always win out.

This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed. In turn this implies that the others are doing something which is different but possible, and the scoundrel companies could be doing that too.

Even if the something is no more than engaging less fatuous attorneys.

> This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed.

All it takes for this to happen is the lawyers not knowing.

You seem to be assuming that there is actually a law requiring them to do this. If you believe this to be the case, please identify it so it can be targeted for repeal.

Whereas if there isn't, the obvious alternative is that the other banks have lawyers who don't erroneously advise their client that they're required to do something they're not.

> there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed

Yes, because that particular set of lawyers haven’t said it has to be blocked. Doesn’t mean my statement that lawyers have final say is “objectively not true”.

Somebody is choosing which lawyers to employ. They have the ability to choose differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com