[Jim Lindgren, January 5, 2009 at 5:08pm] Trackbacks
Adam's Rib: "Idiot children and more lawyers."

I like Adam's Rib -- and it's one of my wife's favorites (she's a geneticist).

I don't know how Eugene can mention Adam's Rib and lawyers marrying lawyers without quoting its most famous line:

"Lawyers should never marry other lawyers. This is called inbreeding, from which comes idiot children and more lawyers."

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Adam's Rib: "Idiot children and more lawyers."
  2. Adam's Rib:
Thomas_Holsinger:
My brother and I graduated from Hastings three years apart. I drove him to and from the bar exam, and provided company and relaxation, when he took it. We each married lawyers too. Fortunately none of our six children have any interest in becoming lawyers, though one might become a court administrator.
1.5.2009 7:43pm
C Miller (mail) (www):
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love
1.5.2009 8:16pm
Eli Rabett (www):
But you repeat yourself
1.5.2009 8:33pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
The risk is minimal. Lawyers eat their young.

"I don't think of myself as a lawyer. I think of myself as ethically challenged."
1.5.2009 11:47pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
No, they eat OTHERS' young by preference.
1.6.2009 12:12am
theobromophile (www):
Or just demand first-born children as payment for services rendered.
1.6.2009 12:46am
zippypinhead:
There IS a solution to the serious threat to society posed by procreating lawyers, if only the Gum'ment would enact some "Commonsense Regulation" here... Too bad about those pesky penumbras that get in the way a bit -- then again I heard a rumor that lawyers were somehow involved in Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas. Coincidence? I don't think so...

I've actually advised my oldest son (who became dangerously attracted to the idea of becoming a lawyer after getting to follow AUSAs around the Federal Courthouse for a day for his 8th grade "explore a career day") that he should find a career that ADDS to the Gross National Product, rather than just REARRANGES it...
1.6.2009 7:01am
PLR:
Echoing Holsinger, my lawyer wife and I have produced three children, two of whom are non-lawyers. It's too soon to tell with the youngest, but for now she seems too clever to wind up in the legal biz.
1.6.2009 10:07am
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Excuse me for going off topic here to respond to zippypinhead, but as a government lawyer myself, I'm rather sick and tired of hearing this idea that government (and government lawyers in particular) add nothing to the GNP. Our system of laws, including our criminal justice system, are a big part of why our country is so much better off economically than the rest of the world. Past experience (both in our own country and elsewhere) demonstrates quite clearly that in the absence of a strong, fairly transparent system of criminal justice, organized crime moves in to fill the vacuum and take advantage of society. Additionally, individual business deals incur substantial extra transaction costs because of the potential for fraud and the uncertainty over whether a contract can be enforced or not. We add plenty to the GNP.

Go reread your Shakespeare... the reason they wanted to kill all the lawyers first was because the lawyers would prevent the anarchy the plotters wanted to create.
1.6.2009 12:08pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
There will be fewer US lawyers per capita in the future because we must shift from a service economy back to a production economy. That means better careers opportunities in engineering, and worse opportunities in law and finance.
1.6.2009 12:27pm
fortyninerdweet (mail):
PatHMV. Jeesh, cut back on the coffee. It was a joke. Take a deep breath, now, because the next four years will be even busier.
1.6.2009 12:33pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.