A good rant on lawyers

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oatka

New member
http://chblue.com/rantarchive/dailyrant052600.asp

Apologize? What the hell for? May 26, 2000

Learned something new this week.

Lawyers can read.

Or, at least, they have somebody around who can read things to them.

A number of those who engage in the so-called "practice" of law got their panties in a bunch over our column that said Bill Clinton had hit a new low when even lawyers didn't want anything to do with them.

"You do a great disservice to lawyers by lumping them all together as liars, crooks and cheats," one wrote. "You owe the legal profession an apology."

Sorry folks. As F. Ross Johnson, former CEO of RJR Nabisco once said, the only thing I expect out of lawyers is that they be back in their coffins by sunup.

Apologize to the legal profession? For what? For turning the United States into the most litigious society on earth? For giving us a country where money-grubbing trial attorneys sue everybody in sight? For dominating virtually every state legislature and the Congress of the United States and inundating us with laws that serve no other purpose than to line their own pockets?

Perhaps there was a time when those who practiced law could hold their heads high, but that time has long since passed. The legal profession is now dominated by ambulance chasers that misuse the law to fatten their bank accounts at the expense of companies with deep pockets. No one need be responsible for their actions, not in today's world where there is always a shyster at hand ready to hang that burden on any corporate or
government entity with a fat bank account.

Got drunk, wrecked your car and hurt yourself? No problem. Just hire a lawyer to sue the restaurant chain that employed the bartender who served you the drinks. Fell over your own feet and broke your arm? Sue the city. It must have been an uneven sidewalk.

Your son was shot and killed by a three-time loser with a stolen gun. Don't sue the judicial system that let the felon walk. Nah. Sue the gun manufacturer. Obviously, they should have known the gun would be stolen, so they shouldn't have made it in the first place.

The sheer incompetence of former assistant Los Angeles County district attorney Marcia Clark and her gang of losers made it possible for a killer like O.J. Simpson to still walk the streets. When you combine the stupidity of lawyers like her with the anything-for-a-fat fee legal strategies of Simpson defense attorney Johnny Cochran, the real loser was justice.

It's no coincidence Bill Clinton surrounds himself with lawyers. Like him, they believe truth is irrelevant, that all statements are subject to interpretation and spin and that nothing is wrong as long as there is a loophole that can be exploited.

Bill Clinton lied to a federal court and was found in contempt for it. But that didn't stop the American Bar Association from inviting him to speak at their convention. By doing so, the association that represents the legal profession as a while condoned the illegal actions of one of their own.

Such actions remove any claim by the legal profession that they are being tarred with a broad brush. As long as lawyers tolerate the Bill Clintons, the Marcia Clarks, the William Ginsburgs and all the ambulance chasers, bottom feeders and miscreants in their midst, they cannot hide behind the standard excuse that "every profession has its misfits."

We stand by our belief that the legal profession, like Congress, is a haven for crooks, liars, cheats, swindlers and other masters of malfeasance.

If you don't like it, sue us. We'll stand on the belief that truth is an absolute defense.

(Doug Thompson is the founder of Capitol Hill Blue. He is also the founder of www.killalllawyers.com -- a collection of some of the best lawyer jokes on the Internet. The Rant appears on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays or whenever the mood suits him)


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oatka:
"every profession has its misfits."[/quote]

Exactly, it’s the bad eggs that cause the whole carton to stink.
 
Grrrrr!

Much ignorance is showing. Lawyers don't cause societies to become litigious. Societies that are litigious demand more lawyers, and the marketplace provides.

There is an interesting and consistent correlation between the number of lawyers in a society and the level of human rights & individual rights. Not suprisingly, China has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, per capita rates of lawyers, with the US the highest. We happen to believe in valuing individual rights highly, and need/demand lawyers to protect those rights. Lawyers dragging down society and the economy is a bunch of horsecrap that Republicans feed the sheeple on behalf of their giant industrial/corporate campaign contributers, just like the Dems feed the sheeple crap about needing more gun control.

IT AIN'T THE GUNS, IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO USE THEM.

IT AIN'T THE LAWYERS. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO HIRE AND USE THEM, FOLKS. WE'RE JUST TOOLS. HIRED "GUNS". THE ANALOGY IS STRONG AND QUITE APT. IT'S THE CULTURE, NOT US. GET OFF OUR CASE. Unless you simply enjoy demonstrating your ignorance.
 
Having said that, I understand and accept the fact that NRA, GOA, etc., "tap into" the fact the the average Joe gun owner dislikes lawywers. So to the extent it stirs the good ol boys up enough to get off their duff and do something pro-2nd, then I'm all for the lawyer-bashing (esp. the ones represent the cities in lawsuits against gun makers.)

BUT, TFLers are not average Joes. Most of you here are a cut above, I like to think, and can recognize a mere tool for arousal when you see it.
 
There's an old joke about the lone lawyer in a town out West. His business was dying -- No customers.

"Man, what this town needs is a couple of fights or holdups." "No", his buddy replied,
"it needs another lawyer".

Have you taken a look at the billboards or TV ads lately? "Been in a car accident? Come see us". Don't tell me these people don't generate litigation.

I am always suspicious of people who can only make a living if there is contention between people.
 
Futo,

Sorry, but your analogy is not apt at all.

Guns do not act without a person.

Lawyers do act without a client.

Some of the most egregious examples of litigation had lawyers searching for "suitable" client to represent.

In addition lawyers do, in fact, have a large population in the legislative bodies. They do write some real bad laws.

Not all politicians are bad, just because they are politicians.

Not all lawyers are bad, just because they are lawyers.

But do you discount the fact that many of the politicians that are working to take away individual rights and responsibilities are indeed lawyers?

I have spoken to many lawyers, and have retained a few in real estate, contract, estate matters and suits. None of them made me feel that they took the service of justice as a calling.

I acted as an expert witness in a water quality case 2 years ago. The opposing lawyer tried several tactics to smear my personal and professinal reputation, having me investigated by the state board of registration for engineers. I was cleared. Did they do this to impune my testimony? Why was that a "smart move" for that lawyer?

Oh, the opposing side did "win".

Oh, and yeah, the opposing side did have megabucks (literally).

Oh, the opposing expert, "in my opinion as a expert" was wrong in his analysis. But that did not change the outcome in this particular case. Our side had our day in court. The community group paid an attorney (and me) with contributions and bake sale proceeds. Why was the smear necessary, where did the attorney get the idea that a smear would help her case? Is that taught in law school or in on-the-job training?

There is a difference in believing that an adversarial presentation of opposing viewpoints will best uncover the truth, and using unethical means to strengthen the position you advocate.

This is the fabric that a vast proportion of people I know must consider the legal profession within.

Litigious behavior in society (by either the clients or the lawyers) no more causes individual rights to be present than violent behavior in society causes careful and safe gunowners to be present.

It is not bull crap that questionable litigation (e.g. insurance fraud, malpractice, the suit by families against gun manufacturers) increases the cost of those related services dramaticaly.

Do people need lawyers to assert rights in cases when they are unfairly treated? Yes.

Do lawyers act responsibly, as a group, in cases where a questionable cause of action is claimed? IMNSHO no.

Are lawyers through the ABA and Trial Lawyers Ass. and in legislatures acting in a commendable way? Ask your fellow citizens what they think. It is not as simple as saying we are being fooled as sheeple.

Futo, please tell me there are huge numbers of your peers that really do attempt to help control the litigation brought by the person that slips on an escaltor with a luggage cart (carts forbidden with a sign posted) and sues the airport (another case I know of personally). Tell me that lawyers meet in all State and National Conferences and discuss ways to curb to litigation like the lady sueing McDoanlds for hot coffee? Tell me that there are not more conference sessions related to "novel theories" to use in suits than there are "curbing senseless litigation" sessions.

Finally, give me the ABA analogy to the NRA Eddie Eagle Program,and other saftey programs for firearms users.

Where is the ABA effort to curb the harm caused by the uneducated, idiotic and dangerous use of the "hired guns"?

Please tell me that I have just missed those efforts by the ABA and Trial Lawyers.

I think there are admirable efforts completed by lawyers every day. But I really wonder what the proportion of "justifiable shootings" the "hired guns" have in ratio to the questionable ones.

Your profession had better get the contemptable ones out if you want to rehablilitate the reputation you have now.

I welcome your thoughts.

In the spirit of offering all due respect,

Noel
 
Check THIS out..... :(
http://www.gazette.com/archive/00-05-26/daily/top1.html

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Suits take a SLAPP at citizens

By Raquel Rutledge/The Gazette
Edited by Mike Braham; headline by Andy Obermueller/The Gazette

Eric Krystkowiak thought he was doing the right thing standing up before the Colorado Springs City Council to oppose a proposed apartment complex in his Briargate neighborhood.
The 28-year-old Air Force captain had never been involved with local government and said he felt proud to participate. He felt even better when the council rejected the development.

Then the developer, Cincinnati-based W.O. Brisben Co., sued him for $16 million, saying he reneged on an agreement to support the project.

"This has turned my life upside down," Krystkowiak said.

Krystkowiak said his legal bills now total more than $25,000. And the case, filed in July 1999, is still pending. A hearing is scheduled for today.

"Not a day goes by that I don't talk to my lawyers or get phone calls or e-mails about this, or bills I can't pay," he said.

Krystkowiak's case - to some legal experts - is a prime example of what's come to be known pejoratively as a SLAPP, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The suits are typically filed by large corporations and deep-pocketed developers to stop the public from complaining to City Hall.

Developers and other attorneys, however, dismiss the SLAPP label and say their suits are legitimate and aimed at holding people accountable when their actions affect others' property.

Although no statistics are kept, Colorado is a hotbed for such suits because of all the new development underway, according to Penelope Canan, a University of Denver College of Law professor who coined the phrase SLAPP and spent nearly 15 years researching such suits.

Krystkowiak's problems began in 1998, shortly after he, his wife and two young sons moved to Colorado Springs from Los Angeles and decided on a house in Briargate.

Within six weeks, Brisben proposed a nine-building, 160-unit affordable housing complex on eight acres southeast of Austin Bluffs and Research parkways, across the street from the Krystkowiaks.

Krystkowiak, an aerospace engineer at Schriever Air Force Base, along with other members of the Northeast Colorado Springs Neighborhood Association, thought the buildings were too tall and too big, and without open space or parking, they said.

After meeting with neighbors, Brisben scaled back the project to seven buildings and 140 units. But neighbors still said it was too big and bulky, so the city hired a mediator to help resolve the differences.

What happened in the mediation is in dispute. Brisben says Krystkowiak and the neighborhood association agreed to support the further-revised plans. The neighborhood association and Krystkowiak say they didn't.

A draft agreement shows a signature from a representative of the neighborhood association but not from Krystkowiak.

Then, after the association and Krystkowiak, chairman of its design committee, successfully argued against the project, Brisben not only sued the city, but Krystkowiak and the neighborhood association.

"We're not trying to be vindictive," said John Spillane, an attorney representing Brisben. "This (delay) has cost the company a lot of money. This is not a SLAPP suit. It's a breach of contract case.

"Do we expect to get $16 million out of Mr. Krystkowiak? No. But that's not the point. The case underscores the seriousness of what happens when a homeowner's association doesn't honor its commitment."

Brisben has offered to further shrink its project and settle the case against the city. That matter is scheduled to go before the City Council in a closed-door legal session next month.

Meanwhile, Brisben's case against Krystkowiak and the neighborhood association continues. Canan, the University of Denver professor, said cases like this are a typical pretext for the true intentions: to scare people into silence.

Because the average person doesn't have the experience or the money to fight lawsuits, they often agree to keep quiet in return for having the litigation dropped.

"It takes a strong neighborhood association or citizen to continue in the face of a multi-million dollar lawsuit," Canan said, noting that damages sought average $9.1 million. "What you end up with is policy being made only by the economic elite."

Although rarely successful in the courts, SLAPP suits are so widespread that 23 states have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation. Typical laws require the party filing the suit to prove they have a reasonable chance of winning. Some states also require the plaintiff to cover the defendant's attorney's fees if they lose.

And there's an increasing trend of SLAPP-BACK suits filed by defendants. In some cases SLAPP defendants have won $15 million and the courts have upheld the award after appeals, Canan said.

Krystkowiak says he's considering filing a SLAPP-BACK.

He says the lawsuit has siphoned hours away from work and his family. He spends many a late night on the computer writing legislators and trying to get fearful neighbors involved. His boys ask when he'll have more time for them.

For the first time in five years, Krystkowiak says he won't be racing in the military's national cycling championships. The lawsuit has robbed him of the time to train, he says.

"Bike racing is something I really enjoy," he said. "But guess what's the first thing to go when things get rough? Bike rides. This has had a huge effect on my fitness."

Still Krystkowiak says he won't fold.

"The very rights that we in the military fight to protect are being threatened," he said. "It's important that I stand behind what I believe."
[/quote]

------------------
"...you gotta ask yourself one question...do I feel *lucky*?"
 
Being generous I'll agree 98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name. For the most part lawyers lie for money or find ways to break agreements. Try to find a lawyer to take an unjust case if it does not pay him his $200 an hour salary ( including talking on the phone to you for the same rate) or taking 40% of the settlement. They only take cases they know they will win with 90-100% certainty. All others will have to pay with there homes. I have seen too many people milked of their homes and life savings very quickly. Lawyers are politicans who do not want to hold an office. You can tell when they are lying because their mouth will move.
 
I've dealt with a considerable number of attorney's through my employment. My personal observation is that most are good decent folk, just like us. People that I am proud to call my friends. However I would estimate about 10-15% as rotten eggs. Most of these rotten eggs end up in politics, because they can't make it out in the real world.

Noel and Futo Inu said "Lawyers do act without a client."

The worse experience I ever had in my life was when an attorney was his own client. He was the president and CEO of the Company I worked for. He was an idiot and was running the Company into the ground. The Shareholders got together and elected a new board of directors who replaced him. This became his personal war between him and the new management. Over the next eight years he filed one lawsuit after another. Most of my time was spent in litigation defending against his harrassment suits. He never did win a one of these suits, but after costing the company a couple of million in defense, the company deceided it was cheaper to settle with this ahole than to continue to fight the suits.

See, he was a lawyer and it did not cost him much to file a suit. The Company on the other hand had to hire, at great costs, other attorneys to defend us.

After about the 5th lawsuit he lost, we filed a suit against him for (forgot the legal term, but was something to the effect to stop him from filling harrassment lawsuits). We won, but he only received a gavel warning from the court, no damages were awarded. So what did he do? Moved to a neighboring state and started filing his suits there.







------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Im not especially partial to lawyers, but because of the legal system we have (however its come about), when I need one I hope he is the best there is. That slapp sueing is the first time ive heard of the phrase. Is it possible on a counter suit to sue the lawyer or lawyers firm that brought such a suit and not just their client? Perhaps if they had to experience the financial crunch and burden of questionable practices directed at them-----forget it, you've got to care about the law first. Lawyers are policiced by themselves,so I doubt there isreally that much help their...fubsy.
 
There's an easy cure for the excess of lawsuits but you might as well wait for pigs to fly before it gets passed into law. What's that you ask? We should follow the English and German example, those that lose lawsuits are required to pay their opponent's legal fees.

Has anyone noticed the new title that congress members have begun using? They now call themselves "Lawmakers." What's next, "Lawgivers?"

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.

[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
Tecolote, I'm with you. IMHO, the absurd situation we have today is a natural result of the system. We need the so-called 'English Rule' - the loser pays the costs of litigation, for both sides. Yes, it will chill some otherwise good litigation, but the result will still be better than the current mess.

As far as legislation goes, our courts need to hold our legislators feet closer to federal and state constitutions. Too many laws. No wonder people have less respect for law these days ... there are too d**n many laws, of too little import.

IMHO, the enemy in this situation is the Association of Trial Lawyers of America ( www.atla.org ). Politically active to a fault, and big supporters of Clinton from what I hear.

Regards from AZ
 
Let me begin by saying that an overabundance of lawyers is the price we pay for abandoning the 10 Commandments . They are very simple and one should be ashamed when breaking one since they are the foundation of " Fairness " . No more , no less .
As far as lawyers are not the blame but the people that hire them are is pure crap . As a bank teller my wife sees many poor immigrants coming in with checks they got by allowing some lawyer to represent them in a matter still unclear to them . The companies settle what is considered a Nuisance Lawsuit for a few grand PLUS legal . The lawyer gets more than the " client " for a wrong still not explained .
You can steal more money with one lawyer than with 100 guns behind you .


------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
Lawyers write the laws and the only way they can be understood is by other lawyers.Making there own business as they go.Who needs it.

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
The problem started to accelerate in the 1960's, when manufacturers became strictly liable for virtually any use of their product which resulted in injury.

I am a lawyer, and am ashamed of a lot of what I see. (I represent local agencies in public works projects and other matters.)

I think it's closer to 90-10%, FWIW.

Regards to all,

Ledbetter
 
[rant]
My wife and I had rental homes. I have entered into contracts and business
arrangements that seemed simple - up front. Yet, every time I did the work
myself, there were later complications.

One law firm was a new firm. As a favor to a friend I used that firm for one
business arrangement. Everything went down the drain. I returned to my
established law firm, explained the problem. They cleared up the problem and
got my money back from the incompetent lawyers. Yes, it cost me more than
if I had used competent lawyers to begin with.

I never have had a problem when I employed competent lawyers.

After all I can do is read the law, find the legislative intent of the original law
and any subsequent modifications, find and interpret cross references and
other possibly applicable or conflicting laws, regulations, directives, and other
secondary material, develop and determine applicability of all related
precedents, Shepardize all findings, and so on. Hey! It’s a snap!

In an afternoon at any bar you can find:
- lots of success stories of the common man winning against these dummies
who spend years in years in law school, or
- lots of people who have been screwed by their own lawyers, or
- lots of people who have been screwed by the other guy’s lawyer!

Yep, lawyers are a bad lot.

But let’s not pick only on lawyers:

I know of a professional driver of tractor-trailer rigs who nearly killed a family
because he was driving while whacked on cocaine. Those danged druggie
truck drivers should all be shot! They ALL are on drugs.

I saw a blonde woman driving a Suburban full of kids, talking on the cell
phone, and taking notes. All blonde women drive Suburbans and are
dangerous. They should be in prison.

And remember ALL cops are Lon Horiuchi!

ALL doctors kill their patients.

I saw a couple men at the range shooting guns in the most reprehensible
manner! Wasting ammunition, making noise, waving those terrible guns
around! The guns owners should all have their guns taken away! These crazy
rednecks are a danger to everyone and should be put in prison!

!

Oh! Wait a minute. Except for me, of course. And maybe you! (Until you
make me angry.)

[/rant]

Tell me something, fellow gun owners. Do we have so many friends and allies
to protect our RKBA that we can abuse and offend people as a group?

I would bet my life that the vast majority of lawyers serve their clients well,
but (frequently) you get what you pay for.

You can’t expect a $50 pistol to be a top-of-the-line handgun. You can’t
expect an attorney to be able to “fix” every mess you get into - especially if
you’ve FUBARed the original situation and all subsequent legal involvement.

You clean your firearms (hopefully) before you bet your life on them.

See a good attorney BEFORE you enter into a relationship. Life usually
becomes much easier.

Do I like all attorneys? Heck, no! But there are some gun owners I wouldn’t
want to be stuck in a diving bell with either.

Let’s treat people as individuals unless and until we discover they deserve our
outrage.

------------------

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Noel, unfortunately I can see that TFLers are NOT a cut above average Joes, if you are any indication. You have shown plenary ignorance (and I use that word with its denotation only, not its common connotation) on the subject. I'm not going to go into great detail, but it is apparent that you, like most others, have bought into the Republcian horsehockey that we are a litigious society run amok. Believe me, there are hoards of lawyers, law professors, judges, and others who are eminently concerned about excessive and/or frivolous litigation, and the laws are definitely in place, and used often, to curb abuses - the debate rages constantly, and the legislatures continuously act to check lawsuits deemed frivolous. You mention the McDonald's hot coffee case. ATTENTION: That case was extremely meritorious under the well-established negligence law of the land; hence the large damage award. Coffee can be very very hot (130-150) - hotter than any drinker would want it, even, and need not under any circumstances be the extreme temperature that is was (around 180). The higher temp is what caused the excessive burn injuries, coupled with a faulty/defective cup top which is not designed to protect against spills and therefore burns. McD was negligent in having TOO hot of coffee, and negligent in not designing and using a better top when it KNEW that people put the hot coffee betweeen their legs and knew or reasonably should have known that the top would often come off and a burn would result. The list of meritorious cases misreported in the media ad "frivolous" could go on and on and on. But either go to law school and read the cases, OR take my word for it: There is constant concern among many of the legal community (you've got two sides, as always) regarding limiting frivolous lawsuits. That's one of the reason I'm so steamed about the gun industry lawsuits, because these are the rare (extortion) exceptions to the general rule of the system working correctly. There is virtually NO merit to the gun lawsuits because the the argument that guns are defective products fails, due to the fact that putting more safety measures on firearms (a) would render the product unfit for what it was intended (because these measures would interfere with lawful use of the guns), and (b) There is no causation. The lack of a safety measure cannot possibly be the cause of a superceding intervening third party's criminal use of the firearm (i.e. a safety device would not have stopped the criminal use). That's why the gun industry has won nearly every ruling thus far on these city lawsuits - it's legal hogwash that no judge will buy (of course the problem is the extortion aspect due to costs of defense). The politician thing is a red herring, because these people are POLITICIANS, not practicing lawyers. It makes no difference what their background is - ALL politicians will seek to aggrandize their power and trample people's rights for power. You think non-lawyer politicians are any better? I challenge you to cite some examples of non-lawyer politicians who don't power grab at the expense of rights just like all the rest. It's an error of logic - one doesn't cause the other - being a lawyer doesn't cause one to be a political tyrant - the SAME power hunger might cause one to do BOTH - become and lawyer and then become a pol. But don't you dare paint lawyers in general with the brush of politicians - that's like saying because you are a Christian (don't know if you are), you must be a racist, because all the white supremacy folks are devout Christians - logical error. As far as lawyers not being like guns because they seek out clients - you do have a small valid point there - it's true that a very small, but HIGHLY publicized segment of the lawyers do seek out clients to sue, but they are the narrow highly publicized exception - it is unethical to seek clients out - ethically, a lawyer must wait until the client approaches them. This comes down to publicized idiots like Dershowitz who don't represent in the slightest the typical lawyer. I don't think I'll change any minds here, as years of Republican crap has brainwashed many, just as years of Democrat crap has brainwashed antis into believing guns are evil. It's very similar, because if you own and use guns (as we do), you learn and KNOW the real deal about guns and gun ownership. Likewise, if you go to law school and read the cases, you will come to know that their rhetoric is mostly BS - the law attempts very much to apply even-handed fair justice. One example among many is the federal and state rule 11s, which sanction plaintiffs AND their lawyers if they are found to have filed a frivolous suit. All that I'm going to succeed in doing here is making the pig mad by trying to teach him to dance - just like trying to convine Sarah Brady guns are a tool, so I'll quit - it's irrelevant to our mutual cause of the 2nd (except to the extent that you must realize that the Republicans' contant attempts at "tort reform" are incredibly dangerous insidious measures, becuase they begin the encroachment into the last bastion of power we have as people to curb the power of governments and corporate giants - the seventh amendment right to a JURY TRIAL!!!!!!!!! - almost as important, if not equal, to the first and second amendments). Thank you for listening. If you flame me, that's OK, I'm ready. But I won't respond because of the obvious futility of this. And BTW, you are right about the ABA. I will never give a dime to that liberal group(anti-2nd), but they are not representative of the norm, IMO. Noel, wait til your tit's in a legal ringer, and you need a lawyer badly, you'll your lawyer is heaven-sent. As far as lawyers getting paid skeeter - duh, this is how we earn a living - I ain't running a charity. I do very valuable work and get paid what it's worth. As to the amounts, you may not like it, but I'll guaron-damn-tee you that you'll be glad to pay it when you need the help. The price/percentage has only to do with the large overhead, and what the market will bear, pure and simple. Have you checked into what DOCTORS charge you?!? If you don't want to pay it, then by all means don't - represent yourself, and see how far you get. /rant off.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited May 31, 2000).]
 
Sorry, Futo, but they are right and you know it. [For the record, Futo Ino objected to my suggesting that I "knew" his level of knowledge. I certainly wasn't implying that. But, I presumed that he knew that most of the mechanisms for deterring frivilous lawsuits and disciplining lawyers don't work, which is general knowledge in the legal community. After all, most of those mechanisms have safe harbor provisions so you can bring a frivilous suit, get busted, yell "mea culpa" and pull out without sanctions. I presumed he knew that but, if he doesn't, I apologize. By the way Futo, I'm not "brainwashed like you suggested in your e-mail. I've just seen too many slime bag lawyers who cover up pre-existing conditions, change facts and in general serve as prime examples of why the moral and ethical standards for getting into and out of law school, let alone the profession itself, should be a hell of a lot higher.] And this is a fellow attorney speaking. I do litigation (generally defense work) for a federal agency in the areas of contracts, property, personal injury and employment discrimination. That gives me a rather large area of experience from which to speak.

Lawyers don't act without clients? No, but lawyers do create clients. The majority of time a person gets pissed off and goes to a lawyer to find out if they have a case. And the lawyer is all too often the one who talks them into it. Or, if that first lawyer won't, then another one will. You and I have both seen lawyers trolling for clients, looking for anyone to sue for anything. Clients come in and ask if they have a case. Lawyer says yes, takes the fee up front, and files a frivilous claim.

There are laws in place to curb such excesses? Sure. As well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Unfortunately, how many times have you seen either the laws or the rules enforced? It's rare as hell and most people I know (attorneys, professors, judges) will admit it. Why? Because the people enforcing those rules are the same ones who have to live by them and may, one day, end up facing them themselves. It's a bit hard passing judgment on a friend and fellow member of the bar. Maybe you'll offer a friendly word of advice, or a private "what the hell were you thinking?" but a public reprimand, let alone suspension or disbarrment? Right, sure. Lawyers who are disciplined are just like criminals who go to prison: they have a long history of abuses leading up to that final event.

You may wish to believe that the US isn't a litigous society, that it's all part of a vast right-wing Republican conspiracy, but that's not the case.

By the way, Futo. Are you a plaintiff's attorney? This is a serious question as I rarely find defense attorneys who don't believe jury awards are out of control.

As for the McDonalds case, this woman knew that coffee was hot, she knew that lids weren't particularly stable (EVERYONE knows that who's above the age of 3) and she still put it down between her legs while driving, right? Sounds like a rather high degree of comparative negligence to me. How about you?

One final note to everyone: ya'll be interested that in Canada, when they eliminated the ability to recover monetary damages for personal injuries (such as whiplash), recovery rates skyrocketed. Kind of makes you question the merits of most of these cases, doesn't it?


[This message has been edited by buzz_knox (edited June 02, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by buzz_knox (edited June 02, 2000).]
 
I'll bet that everyone on this board could give at least one instance of a frivolous lawsuit that they know of personally. This gives you an idea of how widespread this problem is.

I don't know anyone who has AIDS, but here is my dumb lawsuit:

A old man went into a supermarket and tripped over the wheel of a cart that the market uses to replenish the milk. He was suing the supermarket for his medical expenses. His argument was that the cart was places too far in the middle of the isle.

Yea. Right.

------------------
There are two types of men: those with guns, and those at their mercy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top