If you hire a powerful lawyer you’re guilty! Agree or disagree?
Summary
A straphanger presents a provocative legal theory: hiring a powerful lawyer should be considered proof of guilt. The logic? You only need someone who can "mend and mold the law" if you're actually scared. Kareem pushes back on the absurdity. What's the alternative strategy? The rider suggests hiring an incompetent attorney who fumbles papers and says "oh, golly gee" to convince the jury of innocence. It's backwards courtroom logic at its finest. The conversation veers into the rider's own brush with legal representation: a middle school suspension where they needed a lawyer to deny saying something they definitely said but won't repeat on camera.
Full Transcript
So what's your take? I think if you're in trouble with the law and you hired a powerful lawyer, that should mean that you're guilty. Like, if it's known that you hired like a very powerful lawyer that's good at their job, you did it because it means you're scared.
Yeah, that means you like—we're really like, "Oh, I need someone who can mend and mold the law to protect whoever had done anything." Uh, let's just call it bad. Okay, what would your solution then be? If you're not gonna hire a great lawyer or hire a bad lawyer to make you less good? If I have a lawyer who's like fumbling with his papers and the lawyer is like, "Oh, golly gee," anyone doesn't know what's going on, the jury's gonna be like, "I mean, we got it back. This guy up. This guy's innocent." I'm taking a ChapStick or two at the counter. I've committed petty crime, Patty.
Have you ever had to hire a lawyer? I did once when I got suspended in middle school for getting suspended in middle school.
Yeah? Because they said I said something that I did, but I wanted them to think I didn't. What was that? I don't want to say it on camera.