By my unscientific calculations, I answered my five millionth stupid question yesterday. Not a question from a client, which may not always be the greatest question, but never falls into the stupid question category. Rather, a question from the outside, whether a potential client, a law student, a dabbler or a lawyer who made a mistaken career choice.
No doubt questioners believe that they have good reason to ask, but that doesn’t mean that the question isn’t stupid. Earlier in my legal career, answering stupid questions wasn’t a big deal. Just part of the game. But they’ve lost some of their pizzazz after the first few thousand answers. The problem is that the same sorts of questions are asked over and over, and they don’t get any better with age.
I’m not talking about the cocktail party questions. Those can’t be helped. I’m talking about the predicting the future type questions, the “you’re the lawyer so you should know” questions about why the law doesn’t meet the simpleton’s solutions for all things. The whiny questions about why the law doesn’t revolve around the particular individual’s personal needs. Will I handle your sad, pathetic case pro bono because you are the only person ever maligned by the criminal justice system and ended up in a completely untenable situation, and you’re broke. That sort of stuff.
I’m often called prickly by those who like me, and mean by those who don’t. I’m expected to tolerate a never-ending onslaught of first year law students who want to debate a law they have yet to grasp, or laymen who think that there’s a magic bullet solution to every problem man can create. Others demand that I explain to their satisfaction why they can’t immediately get everything they want, since they are invariably right about everything and yet no one else seems to get this obvious reality. It’s tiresome.
Yes, I’m sure you’re brilliant and if I don’t agree with you, I’m a terrible human being. I’m equally sure that you’re worthy of my time and attention, even though you’re not my client and, in fact, are merely some anonymous person with a computer who emails me to demand answers to problems of your own creation. Of course, since online marketers and websites bombard you with the expectation that every lawyer is there at your beck and call, available for free answers, I owe you.
If I fail to meet your expectations, I’m sorry. I’ve disappointed many who demand my time before, and expect to continue to do so in the future. But I’ve heard your question too many times already, and you just aren’t nearly as interesting to me as I may be to you. Feel free to call me any name you please. Feel free to never come back to Simple Justice again as my punishment for not treating you with the respect you demand.
But I’ve already been asked five million stupid questions. That’s enough. Go ask someone else. I’ve done my part.
If you’ve got an interesting question, on the other hand, well…
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Boy, Scott, if you don’t knock out that last sentence the onslaught will never stop.
I’m praying that it isn’t going to happen that way, but I know you’re right.
Sorry I called. I will try to be interesting next time.
Hi Mr Greenfield, real quick question that I know your readers will be interested in: Say a guy goes out drinking Friday night, and next thing he knows, he wakes up in a hotel room, and there’s a big pile of cocaine, a 9mm pistol with 5 bullets left, $6100 cash, and a dead hooker. What should that guy do? I’m not asking for any reason, I just want to know, but please answer as soon as you can. Thank you in advance.
Yeah, I’m probably guilty of that. As a non-lawyer, things that are interesting to me or that I’m curious about are probably stupid questions to an experienced attorney.
Scott: if I owe you an apology for stupid questions, my profound apologies.
You’re not the least bit sorry about failing to meet those expectations, and we all know it.
Sometimes, you just need something special: some fantastic chocolate or ice cream or a piece of music that touched you long ago.
Or a trip downtown . . . .
So if you had a nickel for every dumb question, you would have made $250,000. Not bad. Given your state’s practice of allowing unbundled legal services, I see a great opportunity to become the go-to guy for dumb questions. Maybe base my new practice on a Twitter platform. It won’t even require a laptop, just a smartphone.
It would be appreciated.
Unlike Pattis, you’re always interesting.
Trust me, most don’t even hava a nickel.
Mr. Greenfield is currently unavailable, but we had a lively debate about this on Twitter, although we did have to truncate your question to “hotel room, big coc…”
In any event, we concluded that you should send Scott the $6100 and get another hooker.
HTH,
/Dissent
A 17th-year Student at the Acme Online Law School
True, but I’m trying to sound less curmudgeonly and more empathetic.
But if I, er, I mean this guy sends Scott the $6100, how will he pay for the second hooker, huh? Answer me that! See, this is why you need a real lawyer to handle these kinds of questions!
Is your calculation correct?
5,000,000 is a lot of questions. Let’s say you’ve been practicing law for 50 years. That’s 100,000 questions a year. If you work 300 days a year, that’s over 300 stupid questions a day.
NO! Don’t do that. Your curmudgeonliness permits me to live vicariously and refrain from blogging myself. If you weren’t doing it I’d feel morally compelled to fill the vacuum…and I wouldn’t do it nearly as well.
I said it was unscientific.
An exaggeration to make a point.
You did mention you- I mean that guy had a big pile of cocaine right?
Sir, there is just enough room under “Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. This is free. Legal advice you have to pay for.” to include a price chart for questions with a credit card button. Or a simple statement that you don’t take cases pro bono so don’t ask.
Then to make sure to cover all bases, you might add it to your business cards, answering machine right after hello, and after each time you shake someone’s hand. I’m sure that someone younger and just starting out would pay you a referral fee for pro bono cases that they win on.
*Gloria and girls at the firm suggest trying decaffeinated and something called sugerfree nookie and you’ll be just fine. Thanks.
You’ve asked a few questions of me from time to time here, as I recall. So here’s a question for you: Do you feel entitled to my time?
Sir, I absolutely do not feel entitled to yours and/or anyone’s personal time and am sorry that you got all of that out of my comment. You seemed pissed off so I tried to assist others in getting you out of the funk and obviously failed. I’m simply honored to be allowed in your presence. And I know how you feel about Texans (sometimes.) I apologize but the following just might take up a lil time and there are no questions (this time.)
I’ve asked everyone including: FBI, ATF, attorneys (since 98) ‘questions’ regarding just how in the hell the Harris County ADA Mr. Casey O’Brien aka: jigmeister was able to place a .38 cal. Rohm revolver with a 5 or 6 inch barrel on a table in front of the jury. Known as the ‘Mystery Gun’ due to there being no weapons related to the Aggravated Robbery except for the one mentioned by the victim, “either a black .22 or .25 revolver with a two inch barrel.” I was on probation at time of arrest and ‘no’ there are no records of any weapons.
You took the time to (and are the only one to do so) put the issue to rest by answering that a prosecutor would never introduce a .38 when a .22 was reported. For that you made my life one step easier by knowing that what Mr. O’Brien did wasn’t lawful. The police didn’t plant it or it would have been in the report so it had to be him. The Judge allowed it and that makes them both turd sandwiches.
You also allowed me to confront Mr. O’Brien about this ‘Mystery Gun’ & the blatant description descrepentcies of the suspect(s) in a Post titled “Plea Bargaining 201.” He claimed that his mind was feeble of the facts I asserted as being in the Houston Police report and the certified case file. I offered to get him copies via a third party and he pissed himself then went away. How one could forget prosecuting a brown haired white boy and a blonde haired white boy in a case with black haired, black skinned suspects is very hard to believe. Throw in a big-ass pistol that no one knows anything about and it’s even harder.
PNG was created in lieu of any further Full Pardon applications, where I name names, and allow others to do so also. *If you ever get time to visit PNG there’s a quote at the top of the home page I received from a very wise man. A person I owe a great debt of gratitude. Thanks.
Glad I could help. I appreciate knowing that more than anything else.