A lawyer walks into a bar…

January 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Stop me if you’ve heard this one: How many personal injury lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? The answer: Three – one to change the light bulb, one to destabilize the ladder, and one to sue the ladder manufacturer.

The joke above comes from my new 2009 desk calendar: “Lawyers: Jokes, Quotes, and Anecdotes.” It’s filled with other jokes that take a crack at the profession, along with quotes from the movies or real people about attorneys, and excerpts from actual court records.

I can think of no other profession besides car salesman, or perhaps clergyman, that has as many jokes made at its expense as the legal profession. The calendar got me thinking about why that is and what makes these jokes funny. Is it because there’s a hint of truth to them or that they play into the stereotype the general public has about lawyers?

At what point in our society did lawyers get a bad rap and jokes about them become funny? I’ve found some of the quotes in this calendar go back to the mid 19th century. I’ve heard or read numerous jokes about lawyers, and I usually laugh at them. How do you, as members of the legal profession, feel about lawyer jokes?

Here are a few more for your enjoyment:

Why is money green? A: Because attorneys pick it when it’s ripe.

What do you call a criminal lawyer? A: Self-aware.

Did you hear the one about the big-shot attorney who broke off his engagement after six months? He sent his ex-fiancée an invoice for 4,572 billable hours.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT