Detroit lawyer David Draper should not be representing criminal defendants.
Draper left this comment on this post:
“I agree with these guest posts you really don’t get anything expect for me content you don’t agree with or matches up with your site.”
One of a criminal-defense lawyer’s core competencies is the ability to string together a series of letters into what we in the business call “words,” and then to string those words together into “sentences” with what is known as “meaning.” (It is helpful also to be able to string those sentences together into paragraphs, but that’s the advanced course.)
Writing a meaningful sentence is a matter of a) having an idea; and b) converting that idea to written words in a way that the reader gets a close approximation of the idea. Converting ideas to written words is much the same as translating them to spoken words, except it’s easier because the writer has more opportunities than the speaker to edit.
You can see why getting ideas and converting them to words might be important to professionals whose job is advocating for clients’ freedom. If the criminal-defense lawyer has no idea, she’s a gelatinous cube. If she has an idea but can’t translate it to words, she might as well have no idea. In the criminal courthouse, pantomime alone seldom carries the day.
“[Y]ou really don’t get anything expect for me content you don’t agree with of matches up with your site”? Other than “except” for “expect,” which could be mere dyslexia, and excusable, I don’t know where to begin translating this.
Most of us start converting ideas to words at about age one, and practice every day from then on. There are lots of lawyers who don’t write well, but anyone who can’t form an intelligible sentence has no business representing human beings whose freedom is on the line.
So, judging from his comment, David Draper should find other work.
Draper probably paid someone to leave that comment for him under his name; he’s still responsible for it. And the lack of judgment he has displayed by allowing someone to post unintelligible comment spam under his name renders him equally unfit to have human beings’ freedom in his hands.
(How’s the outsourcing working out for you, David? I’ll offer you The Popehat Deal: apologize for the comment spam and provide emails or other documentation identifying the marketeer he hired who produced the comment spam and proving their responsibility for this, and I’ll change your name in this post. “Because lawyers who hire bad marketeers have bad judgment, but bad marketeers are vermin, and ought to be stomped.”)