A question to all lawyers about public perception of lawyers (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Which is exactly what I was thinking when reading this thread, Todd.

 

[Patrick_S]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

Also it's not my lawsuit that is frivolous it's the other guys.

 

[Kevin Potts]

I'm not so sure that the blame should be put on the lawyers for the influx of frivolous lawsuits invading our "legal system". They didn't create the "legal" market, we did. If these ridiculous cases would just get thrown out of court, instead of awarding millions of dollars to these so called victims, most people would not pursue their own cases. Especially if they have to pay the lawyers fees out of their own pocket if they lose.

After all, it is us, the jurors, who are awarding these shmucks all the money. So maybe we need to think twice next time one of us sits on a jury during a lawsuit.

 

[Mitty]

After all, it is us, the jurors, who are awarding these shmucks all the money. So maybe we need to think twice next time one of us sits on a jury during a lawsuit.

Ah yes, renegade jurors, THAT'S the solution!

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I think a lot of lawsuits would not be started in the first place if loser-pays laws were enacted. Another thing that would discourage lawsuits would be limiting contingency.

 

[MikeF]

I think what it boils down to -- at least with respect to the unpleasant comments made in this thread -- is that people expect lawyers to play some sort of "gatekeeper" role that they are, indeed, prohibited from playing by professional ethics.

It's a lesson they teach on the first day of law school: in a democracy (or at least a society that purports to be one!), the judiciary exists not to make the law, but to interpret and apply it. They also teach that ours is a justice system based on the belief that the adversarial process yields the best results; that is, only when two parties to a dispute are permitted to argue their case skillfully before an independent adjudicator can justice be reached.

The suggestion that lawyers are entirely (or even significantly) responsible for the sorry state of American tort law is simply incorrect. Lawyers have no direct ability to change the law, and the judiciary may do so only incrementally.

The suggestion that a lawyer ought not to provide his client with the best possible legal argument is simply absurd. Besides being a breach of professional ethics, it runs contrary to the fundamental tenet of our common law legal system -- namely, that an adversarial approach will yield a just result.

 

[Janna S]

I think this is just a ploy to smoke all of us lawyers out into the open on the forum . . . and then . . . . BLAM!

Maybe I will try to review and respond to some of the stuff in this thread, but I can't right now (I am at work tryng to get child support money from parents who won't pay).

By the way, I practice in a loser-pays system (here in Alaska).

 

[Max Leung]

The suggestion that lawyers are entirely (or even significantly) responsible for the sorry state of American tort law is simply incorrect. Lawyers have no direct ability to change the law, and the judiciary may do so only incrementally.

Excepting all the ex-lawyers who now serve as congressmen, members of parliament, judges, etc. right?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I think this is just a ploy to smoke all of us lawyers out into the open on the forum . . . and then . . . . BLAM!

Hey you can always drop by to borrow some self-defense. A lawyer with an FFL - how scary am I? (I'm a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.)
Seriously, both sides of any legal argument need expression. Take criminal law as an example. We all know that 95% of all persons arrested for a crime are as guilty as hell. But consider my bullfight analogy. The DA should be compared to a matador. If he makes a clean and elegant kill, he gets the cheers of the crowd and the ears and tail. But if he hacks away crudely and messily, the crowd will boo him. Likewise the DA should make a clean kill of the defendant, marshalling cleanly taken evidence to nail the perp. The PD's job is the QA of the legal system. He's there to hold the DA - the government - to a high Constitutional standard. The PD isn't protecting the scummy crook: he's protecting you and me.

 

[Yee-Ming]

The PD isn't protecting the scummy crook: he's protecting you and me.

sounds exactly like something Eugene Young would say in The Practise. and I mean that in a positive sense.

without holding the State to the rules it has itself formulated, how do you check abuse of process by the State? how do you prevent the descent into a police state where the so-called government can do anything it pleases?

consider if you would prefer to live in a country where the concept of "illegally obtained evidence" doesn't exist: as long as the evidence is "relevant" to the crime for which you are charged, it is "admissible", regardless of how it was obtained.

the price Americans pay for that "peace of mind" is the occasional scum-bag getting off on a technicality -- which shouldn't happen if the police do their job right anyway.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I think a lot of lawsuits would not be started in the first place if loser-pays laws were enacted.

I've actually heard this argument made before, but somebody provided a good counterpoint: if we allow losers to pick up the tab for a law case, only the rich would be able to support a lawsuit while those who are poor or unfortunate would ultimately always lose.

 

[Yee-Ming]

if we allow losers to pick up the tab for a law case, only the rich would be able to support a lawsuit while those who are poor or unfortunate would ultimately always lose.

in a sense. the threat of absolute ruin as a result of a lost lawsuit would certainly deter some whose cases were not particularly strong.

there will always be two sides to the argument, with equally valid points to both.

in some way, the British system tries to achieve a balance, in that although legal costs usually "follows the event", i.e. you lose you pay costs, this is somewhat discretionary and not absolute. in addition, the quantum of costs is not necessarily literally the amount the winner paid his lawyer, the Court will award an amount based on, in effect, the minimum that would have been necessary to fight the case. so big companies hiring the most expensive lawyers available would not be able to claim the entire (possibly inflated bill) from the losing man-in-the-street.

again, I've always thought the bigger problem in the US system is contingency fees coupled with ridiculously high punitive damages. the latter, in particular, encourages lawsuits in the hopes of a financial windfall. if damages were typically only compensatory, IMHO fewer silly cases would be filed, whilst meritorious ones would typically be settled sooner since the plaintiff had no prospect of a big payout (and therefore more incentive to accept a fair offer to settle), whilst the defendant would be more willing to pay reasonable compensation to avoid wasting legal costs, and the downside of setting a precedent of paying out would not attract yet more nonsense claims.

 

[Julian Reville]

I think this is just a ploy to smoke all of us lawyers out into the open on the forum . . . and then . . . . BLAM!

A BILL TO REGULATE THE HUNTING AND HARVESTING OF ATTORNEYS

372.01Any person with a valid State rodent or armadillo hunting license may also hunt and harvest attorneys for recreational and sporting (non-commercial) purposes.

372.02Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfall is permitted. The use of United States currency as bait is, however, prohibited.

372.03The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven in reverse. If an attorney is accidentally struck by a motor vehicle, the dead attorney should be removed to the roadside, and the vehicle should proceed to the nearest car wash.

372.04It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a powerboat, helicopter, or aircraft.

372.05It is unlawful to shout "WHIPLASH", "AMBULANCE", OR "FREE SCOTCH" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

372.06It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within one hundred (100) yards of BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday afternoons.

372.07It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within two hundred (200) yards of courtrooms, law libraries, health clubs, country clubs, or hospitals.

372.08If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary to have a license to hunt, trap, or possess same.

372.09It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter, accident victim, physician, chiropractor, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

372.10Bag limits per day:

Yellow-bellied sidewinders....................................... ....2
Two-faces tortfeasers....................................... ..............1
Back-stabbing divorce litigators....................................2
Horn-rimmed cut-throats........................................... ....2
Honest attorneys......................................... .PROTECTED (endangered species)

 

[MikeF]

A BILL TO REGULATE THE HUNTING AND HARVESTING OF ATTORNEYS

I'm laughing on the inside. Really. :rolleyes

 

[Michael Reuben]

And the reason I might need one would be I'm being sued by (wait for it)...... another lawyer.

Uh no, you'd be getting sued by a plaintiff who hired a lawyer to represent him (or her or it). It's not the lawyer who has a case; it's the plaintiff.
Of course, one of the dumb assumptions running throughout this thread is that every lawyer in the profession handles lawsuits. Many haven't set foot in court since they were sworn in.
M.

 

[Marty Christion]

My view of the legal system changed when I served on a jury last year. It was a personal injury case. Here's a summary of the case:

A poor couple are rear ended. Minor damage to the car. A few weeks later, they go to a doctor on the other side of town (not their usual free clinic) on the advice of a lawyer. This doctor provides physical therapy for three months, then pronounces them cured. The couple send a bill of $8,000+ for doctor's and legal fees.

This was three years before the trial. Basically, the insurance for the guy who rear ended looked at the case, and took a stand, refusing to pay. Thus, it went to trial.

The insurance company chewed up and spit out the plaintiffs. The lawyer was so good, he ate them for lunch. He was so well prepared, he absolutely destroyed the case against him. He proved, using expert witnesses and the testimony of those involved:

-the rear end accident wasn't severe enough to cause the kind of injury they were reporting.
-If they had been injured, the doctor provided unneccessary and ineffective treatments (and seriously overcharged) for the kind of injury they were reporting.
-The couple claiming injury had been deposed, and when their deposition testimony seriously contradicted the doctor's records. They changed critical parts of their story for the trial.
-A handwriting expert suggested the "sign in" log for the doctor's office was forged, implying the couple hadn't even shown up for the majority of their "visits".

It was the most obvious case of fraud I can imagine. I thought jury deliberations would take 1 minute, just long enough for us to fill out the paperwork and get out of there. But wouldn't you know it, there were several jurors who felt pity for the couple, and felt like they should get money from the big bad insurance company. They didn't even think the couple had been injured or received treatment; they just thought this was their chance to play Robin Hood, and take from the rich to give to the poor. We deliberated for a day, and finally enough of the other jurors realized they had no evidence from the trial to back up their feelings, so we voted for the defense.

The whole experience left me feel really bitter about the "jury" system, and lawyers in general. It was obvious that the plaintiff's were just hoping for more sympathetic jurors, who would give them money regardless of the case. I really like a lot of things about our legal system, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Brian Perry]

The whole experience left me feel really bitter about the "jury" system, and lawyers in general.

Marty,

I can sympathize with your frustration in this case, but I think your beef is more with the jurors than the lawyers. There have been cases (can you say OJ?) in which the validity of our jury system is called into question based on the apparent lack of juror intelligence or obvious examples of bias. Some suggest creating "professional" juries, which may be more equipped to handle complicated cases such as those involving patent law. But of course that would introduce its own set of problems.

 

[Julian Reville]

Uh no, you'd be getting sued by a plaintiff who hired a lawyer to represent him (or her or it). It's not the lawyer who has a case; it's the plaintiff.

Technically, yes; however, if there weren't so many lawyers actively soliciting people to sue, then there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. Which is the largest section in your Yellow Pages? In mine, it's attorneys by far, and they have the largest, most egregious ads. A sample:
Bankruptcy- Ward off your debt! Keep your house! Keep your car!
Personal Injury- One call, that's all! Free consultation. Home or hospital visits.

The same lawyer has had the back cover of the Yellow Pages here for the last 10 years. He seems to do quite well handling cases for medical malpractice, dangerous products, harmful drugs, and work injuries. But I wonder, has he ever tried to save a life, create something, or can he only attack someone else's best efforts?

I remember this like it was yesterday. Woman (and her two little kids) brought in her dog that had been hit-by-car. First time client. Her last name was the same as local politician (State Senator and lawyer), and client info sheet showed the politico to be her husband. I fixed the dogs' broken leg, and as they were leaving with the dog, the little boy said: "My daddy's gonna sue that man that hit my dog."
Of course, they never paid their bill.

 

[Michael Reuben]

however, if there weren't so many lawyers actively soliciting people to sue, then there wouldn't be so many lawsuits.

How do you know it isn't the reverse? Maybe if there weren't so many plaintiffs lining up to sue, there wouldn't be so many lawyers. (In reality, both arguments are facile and ultimately foolish.)

Your problem appears to be with specific lawyers, or types of lawyers -- and more generally with the widespread "sue 'em" attitude that pervades American life in general. You've utterly failed to address the point that many lawyers don't sue people or go to court. But since it's obvious that you have a personal axe to grind, I doubt you'd be interested in hearing what some of those professionals do.

M.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Take, for instance, the "case" of the burglar who was awarded damages after getting trapped in his victim's garage and being forced to eat pet food for several days to survive. Why do people find this so absurd? How does this reflect anything wrong with the legal system? The concept of occupiers' liability is not new and, indeed, very well known. The rule is simple: a homeowner must take reasonable steps to ensure that no injury befalls persons he can reasonably foresee being on his property, a burglar or prowler certainly being amongst those he can reasonably foresee. The existence of this rule also, for instance, inhibits a homeowner from concealing a large, pirahna-filled pit in his backyard so as to effect vigilante justice on would-be thieves.

Fictitious or not, the fact someone could, with a straight face, try to defend this kind of thing is.. ugh. It's disgusting.

And what it clearly says to me is that things like common sense and rationale are the first casualities in a given legal case.