You'd be surprised. In some jurisdictions, over-dressing or dressing too flashy may be seen as an attempt to hide the lack of substance in your arguments. Juries are fickle.

Here is a motion filed in Florida, in which one attorney argued that the opposing attorney was wearing worn-out shoes as "a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that [he] is humble and simple without sophistication", or the old "I'm just a simple country lawyer" gambit.

I seriously wanna get a Lawyer because I wanna help people who has no help
AND I gotta admit that I got inspired by PW:AA to get a lawyer
Does anyone here think I am A foolish fool who thinks foolishly thaughts becaue of a foolish Game???

yes, me. it's just a game and does not or in any way reflect real criminals, court systems, lawyers, and such.

I hope u know that I am aware of it what and how reallity is and what is only a game

filler.

We also strategerized about what evidence and testimony we should try to get excluded.

The final word about fashion is "Professional". Just don't let your clothes be louder than your voice.

Had a meeting with the mock trial team yesterday. We started drafting the opening statements and questions to ask the witnesses during direct and cross-examination. We also strategerized about what evidence and testimony we should try to get excluded.

Special welcome to Coffee Prosecutor. Please keep in mind that the American legal system, including legal education, is entirely different from the German system.

I wish we had a eureka smiley. This would be the perfect opportunity to use it.

Anyway, having philosophy as a hobby, I have pondered the moral part of practicing law (defending criminals), and have come up with a reason why one shouldn't worry about it.

Let's compare a lawyer to, say, a potato farmer. The big issue with lawyers is that they offer their services to criminals, correct? Well, a farmer would sow their seeds, grow their crops, sell them to a distributor...

Who then gives them to criminals.

Repeat this logic with any occupation. If no one offered their goods and services to criminals, there would be no crime for a lawyer to defend them for, as they would starve to death or something. In other words, all occupations are as reprehensible as lawyers (except for those you can live without, like barbers and car manufacturers).

What's that, you say? A lawyer can control whether or not they serve a criminal? Well, as Edgeworth said in 1-2 (or at least something along these lines), there is no way to tell if a defendant (or a client) is telling the truth. Add in corrupt policemen, and even evidence isn't all that reliable.

btw, no occupation is "essential". A certain occupation may just provide an essential product. Need clothes? Not if you live in a warm enough climate. Food and water? Grow your own, pick wild berries, or hunt for your own food. Find some natural shelter. You get sick? Well, that's what your immune system is for.

I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.

What genius' idea was it to have live stock on the second floor anyway? People scare me sometimes.

Shouldn't it be res ipsa loquitur?

(*is a nitpicky latin freak*)

What genius' idea was it to have live stock on the second floor anyway? People scare me sometimes.

Six hundred pounds isn't really all that much. A refrigerator weighs four hundred pounds. Three corn-fed Kansas on a sofa may approach six hundred pounds. Should everybody keep their refrigerator and sofa in the basement only?

Also, this building was designed and built as a livestock pavilion.

You're absolutely correct. Look, it's even spelled with a u in the scan I posted.
*goes back to edit*

By the way, is it pronounced "ray ipsa" or "ress ipsa"?

It's a long e (which is pronounced as "ay" or "ey", not "ee") so "res" shold be pronounced as you would pronounce the english word "race" (the s is pronunced differently than in "rays"), and the i and a are short so ipsa is just pronouced the way it looks. (This is from my knowledge of traditional latin. If you ask someone who knows church latin or butchered-modern-latin, you may get a different answer.)



Anyway, even if it was built as a livestock pavilion, it still makes much more sense to have the livestock on the first floor.

What are u guys talking about?

latin. if you read the quote you quoted.

I don´t know latin
but what does it has to do with the legal education of an ace attorney player?

Some Latin expressions are convenient shorthand for rules or principles that have no English shorthand equivalent (res ipsa loquitur, for example, or inclusio unius est exclusio alterius). But avoid using other Latin phrases, such as ceteris paribus, inter alia, mutatis mutandis, and pari passu. Judges are permitted to show off in this fashion, but lawyers are not. And the judge who does not happen to know the obscure Latin phrase you have flaunted will think you a twit.

Before the court is a motion entitled “Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response Opposing Objection to Discharge.”