Are lawyers useless?

>>1969697
You understand that they can drag it in court for years BECAUSE they have good lawyers, right?
So I suppose that's pretty useful for them...

>>1969697
Find a meme lawyer who has worked these kinds of things and reach out. Maybe they take you on pro bono.

>>1969697
No, in court a good lawyer who is allowed to spend sufficient time on your case makes all the difference in the world.

>>1969972
And of course a lawyer is going to advice you against anything that could jeopardize you, like taking on a whistle blowers role.

>>1969908
>So I suppose that's pretty useful for them...

Lawyers are only useful to the rich, is that what you're saying?

>>1970005
Not if both parties have similar assets. If spending a million on lawyers would bankrupt one party but barely affect the other, then yes the lawyer is only useful to the rich side

>>1969697

You do realize there are attorneys who, as a practice, will not accept payment unless you are awarded compensation in a settlement or verdict.

These are typically going to be larger personal-injury firms that can float their labor and expenses for the duration of the trial.

These are typically good for litigants not only because of the lack of up-front cost but also because these attorneys will make a conservative assessment on whether your case has a chance of receiving compensation.

>>1969697
>>1970041
Think about it from the lawyers point of view here. If they don't win they've essentially just wasted two years of their lives for nothing.
>>1970005
shut up faggot

>>1969697
He saved you money and frustration, so he's definitely not useless.

If anything the law here might be useless.

>>1969697

Lawyers have a use, and it is serving the idiots and assholes of the world. And getting rich while doing it.

They are like insurance companies, they contribute nothing but you have to have them to oversee the bullshit.