I have a lot of respect for what lawyers themselves do. The technical aspect of reading and interpreting laws as they are written is quite difficult. My problem is that many lawsuits seem to be filed vengefully or opportunistically. I suspect that potentially a minority of lawsuits are filed because the person was actually, seriously wronged, and I have many doubts that the genuinely wronged find justice. I see a lot of money being lost on pilpul and trying to use the state as a weapon to punish enemies.  I'm a little surprised to hear a lawyer then request a ban on one certain argument. You should know better than most that such a rule would set a precedent that will be immediately and gratuitously exploited. You can't ban discussion of one certain anything without entering the slippery slope. If I agree, then what leg will I have to stand on when the next person asks "I would also like you to ban discussion of my issue"? I have no problem with arguments. It's part of how a community works and you can read them or not read them and voat on them or not voat on them. Banning speech is immoral and only leads to a chilling effect on overall contribution. Mask arguments will only be replaced with a new topical subject anyway.