I don't hate lawyers that much....
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
I don't get the point. So what if 1,000 or 1,000,000 lawyers show up?
Keith.
Keith.
My point is a few fold:
A convoy of lawyers (from all over the world) is a target that we should hammer....with extreme prejudice.
1 lawyer, 2000 lawyers, there, we now have proof that Saddam is insane, lawyers will do anything, and you can add as many lawyers together and still get an IQ in negative teritory.
A convoy of lawyers (from all over the world) is a target that we should hammer....with extreme prejudice.
1 lawyer, 2000 lawyers, there, we now have proof that Saddam is insane, lawyers will do anything, and you can add as many lawyers together and still get an IQ in negative teritory.
I don't blame lawyers in general, but the system is broken here in the US. Tort reform is badly needed, but one of our political parties is getting too much money from ambulance chaser trial lawyers like VP candidate Edwards for that to happen.
Keith.
I don't blame lawyers in general, but the system is broken here in the US.
Since most of the members of congress are lawyers, its in the lawyers that have created the system that treats them so well. Class action law suits really get me torqued.
Since most of the members of congress are lawyers, its in the lawyers that have created the system that treats them so well. Class action law suits really get me torqued.
Well Keith I wondered how long it would take for the Repubs to bring out the "Edwards is a lawyer" reason you shouldn't vote Kerry. Guess there are no lawyers in the Republican Party.
How come it's always the other guys lawyer that's scum, not yours?
My opinion is actually against the legal profession and how it's organized. The largest closed shop in history. Lawyers are important but like any professional group income protection and information control become the main focus. I think far too many lawyers control the simple legal requirements that most people have day to day and shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to accomplish. Most lawyer work other than evidence and courtroom presentations is the filing of paperwork. I had a situation where I had a dispute with my county, They said I was located in their county, I said I was located in the county I wanted to be taxed by. could have been solved by State Property Tax Commission but the good ole boys there sided with the county and would not hear the case. I tried to see if a lawyer would take my case but of course the money they needed far out weighed the return I would have gotten. To make a long 3 year story short I did research and read law books at the local University and took the case to Superior Court myself. When I went before the judge with all my evidence (a lot) the county didn't even attempt a fight and basically said we don't have a case your honor. I won over $13,000 in back taxes and got transferred to the next county. I showed in court that the county had gone against the State Constitution but they continue to rule against similar cases by citizens and force each person to take them to court. Dinners ready got to go now.
How come it's always the other guys lawyer that's scum, not yours?
My opinion is actually against the legal profession and how it's organized. The largest closed shop in history. Lawyers are important but like any professional group income protection and information control become the main focus. I think far too many lawyers control the simple legal requirements that most people have day to day and shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to accomplish. Most lawyer work other than evidence and courtroom presentations is the filing of paperwork. I had a situation where I had a dispute with my county, They said I was located in their county, I said I was located in the county I wanted to be taxed by. could have been solved by State Property Tax Commission but the good ole boys there sided with the county and would not hear the case. I tried to see if a lawyer would take my case but of course the money they needed far out weighed the return I would have gotten. To make a long 3 year story short I did research and read law books at the local University and took the case to Superior Court myself. When I went before the judge with all my evidence (a lot) the county didn't even attempt a fight and basically said we don't have a case your honor. I won over $13,000 in back taxes and got transferred to the next county. I showed in court that the county had gone against the State Constitution but they continue to rule against similar cases by citizens and force each person to take them to court. Dinners ready got to go now.
Thanks for answering a question that was not asked.
Nowhere did I say not to vote Kerry because Edwards is a lawyer.
I seem to have hit a sore point
By the way, I am not a Republican and have always voted for the candidate, not for any party. Indeed, there are good democrats like Joe Lieberman in my home state. Poor old Joe was doing well until he teamed with Al Gore Jr. and changed his positions, then changed them back when they lost in 2000. Now he is out of touch with the far left that has control of the party (Daschle, Gephardt, Kennedy, Hillary, Pelosi, ...). Joe reminds me of Zell Miller - the democratic party has moved far left and deserted them.
Keith.
Well this is interesting. Who are the real terrorists??? To me the lawyers in the convoy are terrrorists just like the terrorists that fire RPGs in Iraq. Personally when that convoy of terrorist Lawyers heads into Bagdad-I be rooting for the terrorists with the RPG's
Allright Keith, here's the token motorhead lawyer's response:
1) This whole "Saddam's parade of lawyers" thing is laughable. The facts are the facts, as I've told many clients; one lawyer or a thousand, they aren't going to change. Every once in a very great while, you get a bizarre result (OJ, million dollar verdict where not called for, etc). My experience has been that the bizarre, unjust results are far more likely to be the opposite of the stereotype. My prediction: Saddam swings, regardless of how many lawyers he hires.
2) What the heck does tort reform have to do with Saddam? But since you mentioned it, tort reform is just another symptom of the erosion of responsibility in our society. If I run you down with my car, should I not be responsible to pay for the harm I cause you? TR means one thing and one thing only: if I hurt you, I get to walk away and tell you and your health carrier to foot the bill. Funny how the party that usually likes to wave the "personal responsibility" banner drops it real fast when their insurance company donors come looking for tort "reform" favors. The repubs (I'm an "I" by the way...) have delivered tort "reform" to their insurance company benefactors repeatedly over the years in numerous states on the promise that premiums will then go down -- but they never do oddly enough. . .
3) Sure, we lawyers have a few detestable bad apples. Seeing their "trade your wreck for a check" TV commercials (that's my personal favorite) makes my blood boil. If you believe we're all like that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. It's just a little unfair and unbalanced that no one makes a stink about the virtual army of "insurance defense" TRIAL lawyers who do their best to shoot down every claim, regarless of its merits. Before my recall to active duty, about half my practice involved this type of case. Hundreds of times I've had cases dragged on for literally years by insurance defense lawyers who delay resolution of a case so that they can keep billing the ins co $200-400 per hour.
4) I guarantee you that the insurance company contributions to the non-Kerry party dwarf the "ambulance chaser" contributions to the dems. Just a hunch, but I don't think that those insurance company execs are any more concerned for the public well being than you believe the "ambulance chasers" are.
5) You don't blame lawyers in general???? Aww come on, yes you do, read the rest of your post. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. As a lawyer myself, I'd be the first one to step up and admit that we are often our own worst enemies. I would just encourage you to look at reality and use your own analytical ability instead of blindly buying into the slogans and propaganda that are designed to benefit one small group. Think for a minute of who benefits when the American public/jury pool is pre-conditioned to dislike plaintiff's trial lawyers, while they hardly know of the existence of insurance company trial laywers and the slimy tactics they often use??? 97.5% of us are nothing like the stereotype you, and so many others, enjoy tossing around.
From at least the beginning of the last century, the hard left has worked to take over the judiciary. This was the soft target most easily exploited. From this seat of power, by fiat, they would be able to overcome all resistance within the body politic and remake society in their own image - radical nihilism.
Their success has been total.
With what zeal will they now support their "little Stalin"...
Their success has been total.
With what zeal will they now support their "little Stalin"...
Dont blame lawyers, blame the people who hire them..
No, their failure has been ALMOST complete. It amazes me to hear people talking this way. How much time have you spent in a courtroom lately? The solid majority of federal judges are Reagan/Bush (elder) appointees. Most are fine judges are liberal lefties they're not. In the state courts where I practice (Florida), the vast bulk of judges are hard-core conservatives. Sure there are a few extreme lefties here and there, but they are a distinct minority overall. I'm particularly amused by how much negative attention the 9th Federal Circ Ct of Appeals draws as a liberal court. You know what: it is. But haven't you noticed how the 1st through 8th and 10th and 11th Circuit courts DON'T get the same attention??? They don't because they're either pretty well balanced or they're outright conservative/right-wing courts.
This perception is fueled by an extreme element in the media that picks up on the occasional unfortunate out-of-whack decision by lefty judge, which is then portrayed as court business as usual. Few things are further from the truth.
Good couple of posts Ekpolk. From my earlier, had to go now post, the point I was getting to was that I was able to bring a case against a county and win when no lawyer, even though they agreed I deserved relief, would take the case because there wasn't enough money in it for them. One reason it took me 3 years was trying to understand the lawyerspeak in the law books. If the language is in code (almost) then the ordinary citizen has to go through and pay the legal gatekeeper. This denies access to legal resolution by ordinary citizens. In my case the judge awarded me on every point in my suit. The system is caught both ways. It provides poor people a way to launch expensive cases when harmed by the rich and powerful but it also forces middle income people to pay awards because they can't afford the money to fight the other guys lawyer, "I won the case, but I lost my house". I wish the courts and the legal profession would police their own better. Not much chance of that though. I agree with you about this push for so called legal limits on "pain and suffering" as just a way to prevent people from launching expensive suits against corporations. Where do people think their legal fees are paid from, it's the pain and suffering awards leaving the actual damages won for the plaintiff. Maybe we should have a better system to pay lawyers with, instead of the present legal lottery.
Total thread hijack
Did you know that in the U.S. there are 10 Lawyers for every engineer and in Japan there are 10 engineers for every lawyer. Now there's a recipe for success
BTW epolk-in Tort Reform option in auto insurance you can still sue. You have given up the right to inact frivolous lawsuits. I think the day is coming when Doctors on their own will have their patients do their own tort reform or not be treated. That will be very interesting when it gets rolling. So folks that go to docs that don't have tort reform will be paying 10 times the rate bc they know they have ideas of suing. It will have to happen or the whold medical system will collapse. Here in Pa. its on its way down the crapper
Did you know that in the U.S. there are 10 Lawyers for every engineer and in Japan there are 10 engineers for every lawyer. Now there's a recipe for success
BTW epolk-in Tort Reform option in auto insurance you can still sue. You have given up the right to inact frivolous lawsuits. I think the day is coming when Doctors on their own will have their patients do their own tort reform or not be treated. That will be very interesting when it gets rolling. So folks that go to docs that don't have tort reform will be paying 10 times the rate bc they know they have ideas of suing. It will have to happen or the whold medical system will collapse. Here in Pa. its on its way down the crapper
Tort reform is apparently evil and a sure sign you hate all lawyersquote:
Originally posted by Al:
Total thread hijack
Did you know that in the U.S. there are 10 Lawyers for every engineer and in Japan there are 10 engineers for every lawyer. Now there's a recipe for success
BTW epolk-in Tort Reform option in auto insurance you can still sue. You have given up the right to inact frivolous lawsuits. I think the day is coming when Doctors on their own will have their patients do their own tort reform or not be treated. That will be very interesting when it gets rolling. So folks that go to docs that don't have tort reform will be paying 10 times the rate bc they know they have ideas of suing. It will have to happen or the whold medical system will collapse. Here in Pa. its on its way down the crapper
Keith.
[ July 07, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: keith ]
Guys, "tort reform" is an extremely broad heading that has meant many different things in many different places at different times. It's about as specific a term as "motor oil." Lots of things, good and bad fall under that heading. In short, "tort reform" is a vague term that's generally used as a propaganda rallying cry.
Now that this thread has totally veered off course, let me tell you why "tort reform" has zero to do with "frivolous lawsuits." Truly frivolous suits are almost unheard of in the real world. Why? Economics. A typical non-trial personal injury costs the plaintiff's lawyer maybe $2,000 to prosecute, while the very least expensive trial case would be in the $10-15k range, and many are much more expensive. This is just the costs (overhead if you will), we're not even to the fee part of it yet. So, as a businessman, why on earth would I put out $10-15 grand of my hard-earned cash on a "frivolous" lawsuit. I can assure you that 99 times out of 100, an jury will hand me my butt on a platter unless my case makes total sense. The unsupported million-dollar verdict is, despite the popular urban legends to the contrary, an extraordinary rarity. The very vast majority of us won't touch anything remotely frivolous because we know we will LOSE at trial and then LOSE that $10-15k that we spent to get the case into a courtroom. Beleive it or not, cold hard economic reality does a fine job keeping things in check.
Now that this thread has totally veered off course, let me tell you why "tort reform" has zero to do with "frivolous lawsuits." Truly frivolous suits are almost unheard of in the real world. Why? Economics. A typical non-trial personal injury costs the plaintiff's lawyer maybe $2,000 to prosecute, while the very least expensive trial case would be in the $10-15k range, and many are much more expensive. This is just the costs (overhead if you will), we're not even to the fee part of it yet. So, as a businessman, why on earth would I put out $10-15 grand of my hard-earned cash on a "frivolous" lawsuit. I can assure you that 99 times out of 100, an jury will hand me my butt on a platter unless my case makes total sense. The unsupported million-dollar verdict is, despite the popular urban legends to the contrary, an extraordinary rarity. The very vast majority of us won't touch anything remotely frivolous because we know we will LOSE at trial and then LOSE that $10-15k that we spent to get the case into a courtroom. Beleive it or not, cold hard economic reality does a fine job keeping things in check.
Uh? You must be talking about the MTV show, "Real World".
Council of Economic Advisors report
Bringing Justice to Judicial Hellholes
West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely candidly described one of the reasons behind this phenomenon in his recent book: "As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to injured in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so. Not only is my sleep enhanced when I give someone's else money away, but so is my job security, because the in-state plaintiffs, their families, and their friends will reelect me....It should be obvious that the instate local plaintiff, his witnesses and his friends, can all vote for the judge, while the out-of-state defendants can't even be relied upon to send a campaign donation."
Good old Mississippi is still dead last:
The Legal Costs of Doing Business: How Does Your State Measure Up?
"Opportunistic trial lawyers are flocking to courts in a handful of out-of-the-way places that are stacked in favor of plaintiffs' attorneys and that have shown a willingness to dole out huge awards in frivolous cases..."
The CBS show, "60 Minutes", has run stories on frivolous lawsuits in Mississippi and other states.
Welcome to the real world my friend.
Keith.
Big, liberal lie, trial lawyers benefit the little guy at the expense of the rich. Sorry, the insurance companies just raise their rates. Then millions of other little guys end up paying higher rates, higher prices, or losing their jobs because their employer found the cost of doing business here too high. Edwards and the other leeches are bleeding this country dry. Edwards is a very poor excuse of a man, and Kerry knows it. Of course Kerry is delighted to have such a skilled man to make distorted, emotional appeals to the voters.
For now, they are blocking the appointment of judges that would demand fairness and rational arguments. If elected, count on Kerry to appoint the worst possible judges.
There are many, many decent, honorable lawyers. John Edwards isn't one of them.
EDWARDS IS A PART OF THE PROBLEM.
For now, they are blocking the appointment of judges that would demand fairness and rational arguments. If elected, count on Kerry to appoint the worst possible judges.
There are many, many decent, honorable lawyers. John Edwards isn't one of them.
EDWARDS IS A PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Who promised that? The civil justice system isn't about Robin Hood giveaways, it's about accountability. Juries don't assess damages based upon how little the plaintiff is or how rich the defendant is, they do so based upon who did what to whom. If I run you down with my car, should I not pay for the harm I cause? If a doctor botches a procedure he or she's performing on you, who should pay for the harm done?
There's a lot to debate here, but I can tell you one thing I figured out from my years in the legal trenches: if the insurance companies treated people halfway fairly
half of the time, there would be few if any plaintiff's trial lawyers, as there'd simply be no need for them.
And if you want to be "fair and balanced," you should also recognize the excesses of the insurance defense trial lawyers. The bogus defenses and endless delay tactics used by these folks make the "greed" of the plaintiff's lawyers pale in comparison. Funny how these lawyers' shenanigans never get included in the anti-trial lawyer propaganda.
I never said there weren't aberrant results, and even places where the scales are out of balance, but to portray this as the way things are across the board is simply not correct. Mississippi and West Virginia, with all due respect to those who hail from those places, are hardly the center of the legal universe. Between my original departure from active duty and my recall, I spent over ten years of my professional life slogging it out in real courtrooms, handling real cases (civil and criminal), in front of real judges and juries. The wacko situations you cite are just that: wacko situations. They bear virtually no resemblance to REALITY as its found in most courtrooms across the country. They bear absolutely no resemblance to the reality I personally have seen in my ten years in court. Believe it or not, most judges and juries care about the job they are called upon to do, and do their very best to serve well. Most of the time, they actually get it right.
- Status
