Congressman Billybob Sez: Why I Hate Lawyers

Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but it fits in a headline. I don't dislike and disrespect all the members of my profession, just most of them. Or at bare minimum many of them, numbered in the hundreds of thousands. I have sound reasons for that judgment.

But first, I offer one of Aesop's Fables. If the court of public opinion will bear with me, this shortly will become relevant:

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp, "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It is my nature..." (With typos corrected, this is taken from a delightful website on "Aesop's Fables.")

Hold that thought, and let's talk about lawyers in American society. Based on history, more than a century ago lawyers were highly respected in society. They were the cutting edge of the establishment of civilization in the West as America expanded to the Pacific. Lawyers were responsible for many of the reforms that largely began in the West, including the initiative, referendum, and recall. And for the first guarantee of the vote for women, in Wyoming, admitted as a state in 1890.

Go back another century, and lawyers were the very backbone of American independence from England, and of the establishment of the most successful governing document in the history of man – the Constitution of the United States. So why, today, are lawyers so much the butt of jokes, largely disliked and disrespected in society?

Lawyers have come to this sorry state of affairs the old-fashioned way. They earned it. Three examples will prove the point.

Consider Mark Geragos, defense attorney for Scott Peterson who is charged with killing his wife and about-to-be-born son. We can draw some inferences from the available evidence. First, Mr. Geragos knows whether or not Scott Peterson killed his family.

I began my career as a trial lawyer. In the 70s I was a panel attorney defending indigent clients (before the Public Defenders Offices were created). The very first question I asked of every criminal defendant was: "Tell me everything you know about the crime, and leave nothing out."

What clients say to their lawyers is, of course, in confidence. But if the attorney doesn't know everything that his client knows, the attorney can be blind-sided by evidence presented at trial. The results of that are not pretty. It would be gross legal malpractice for any attorney not to ask that initial question of a criminal client. So, Mr. Geragos has asked that question of Mr. Peterson, and gotten a full answer.

It is also true that at least 90% of all criminal defendants are guilty of at least some of the charges brought against them. That's why criminal defense is an area of the law that makes you want to go home and take a shower after work. That's why many attorneys, including me, have left that line of work as soon as possible. The business of criminal defense attorneys is not, most times, to have their clients declared not guilty. It is to strike the best available plea bargain for them, and avoid trial.

Inference number two is this: Scott Peterson killed his wife and child. I won't rehash all the evidence. The public record shows that the police got a search warrant for the home based on the conclusion that Laci Peterson was killed there sometime during the night before Scott went on his "fishing trip." The police could not have gotten that warrant without presenting some evidence to support that claim.

Inference number three: About three months before the scheduled trial date, Mr. Geragos will advise his client to accept a plea bargain of guilt to the murder of Laci only, and to receive a life sentence, not the death penalty. The State will accept that plea because it takes only one squeamish juror to block the death penalty, and a jury finding that Scott also killed his son Connor would be subject to years of appeals about the charge of murder of an unborn child.

So far, I have described what any competent attorney would do. Why, therefore, do I have a healthy dislike for almost all criminal defense attorneys? Although he is under a gag order, and he will deny this, Mr. Geragos is engineering the stories about a possible "cult murder," and the "brown van," and the connection to another San Francisco area "murder of a pregnant woman." He certainly should not be pushing the latter angle, because that woman was apparently murdered because she was in the middle of a love triangle involving a married man. If that gets before the jury, it will help convict, not exonerate, Scott Peterson.

Every day, news stories show up about the Peterson case. Most of them include the Geragos-inspired "somebody else did it" stories. Greta van Susteren on Fox News has gone so heavily into this that watching her show now makes be physically ill. As a lawyer, I used to appreciate her show. Now, as a human being, I turn it off immediately.

When Scott cops a plea to one murder, or when he is found guilty, will Mr. Geragos apologize for the false stories he generated? Never. Will the press apologize for covering these false stories to the exclusion of legitimate news? Not a chance. And all the time and attention that millions of Americans wasted on these false stories will be a total loss, not to be recovered in any way.

Example two of why I intensely dislike most lawyers comes from the Congress of the United States.

Last week, the US Senate temporarily defeated a tort reform proposal generally backed by Republicans and many health care organizations including the American Medical Association. The bill to cap "non-economic damages" at $250,000 per patient was vigorously opposed by most Democrats and by several lawyers organizations, led by the American Trial Lawyers Association.

Although the bill enjoyed the support of a majority of the Senate, it was pulled by Majority Leader Bill Frist when it was clear it would not survive a filibuster mounted by the Democrats.

This fight pitted the interest of doctors in not being forced to give up their practices because of skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates, against the interest of lawyers in their (usually) 40% contingent fees in the unlimited payoffs from such litigation. I note at the outset that in all jurisdictions following the English rules, contingent fees for lawyers are barred as "unethical." (Such jurisdictions have other ways of guaranteeing access to the courts for plaintiffs who have little or no money. But I digress.)

How important is the flow of money to lawyers, and then the contribution of lawyers' money to politicians who will maintain the status quo, and keep the money spigot open? About a decade ago I worked with a colleague on a private research project to find out what percent of the money donated to federal candidates (House, Senate, President) comes from lawyers. It should have been an easy project, because federal law requires donors of more than $200 to list their names, addresses, and occupations. And the law requires candidates to report that information to the Federal Election Commission.

Lawyers were among the most common liars and lawbreakers in the FEC process. Again and again we found "John Q. Public" making a donation from his home address on Long Island, or some other tony suburb, without giving his occupation. Using secondary sources, we were able to identify John Q. Public as a senior partner in a Wall Street law firm, or wherever. But by leaving off his business and occupation, Mr. Public was avoiding serious questions about his firm's and his clients' associations with the candidate in question.

Bottom line: once we had smoked out all the hidden lawyers from the FEC records, lawyers gave more than 25% of all money in federal campaigns. I understand that the lawyer share has gone up, since then. I also understand that no donor and no candidate has ever been prosecuted by the FEC for "accidentally" leaving off the "occupation" of any reported donor.

The cycle is simple, and much of it is visible in the public record. First, trial lawyers get fat fees from class action cases, which would be unethical in many jurisdictions. Second, they donate a fraction of their gains to the reelection efforts of mostly Democrats, with an occasional Republican, who will hold the doors open for rapacious lawyers. Third, the lawyers get more fat fees – and the music goes round and round, and it comes out here.

Example three of my disrespect for most lawyers comes from a memo sent very quietly by the Democratic National Committee to presumed friendly recipients in the national press.

I have only one source for my column, an article on 6 July in Capitol Hill Blue, by its former Editor-in-Chief, Doug Thompson. But I have read his work for years, and know his accuracy. Here is his source for his article, which as he writes, is being ignored by the mainstream media: "Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB's parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President's real intentions, including: – Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party...."

Other charges the talking points urge on Democrat office holders, and friendly Democrats in the news media, include accusations that the Bush Administration "manufactured" evidence against Saddam Hussein, and that the Administration went to war to revive the nation's "lagging economy." The DNC memo concludes, "It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values. To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war."

In short, the DNC memo asks Democrats in office and Democrats in the press to join in trashing the entire Bush Administration and all of the current foreign policies of the United States, for the purpose of making the Administration and the nation weaker so the Democrats have a chance to take over the wreckage.

Who are the authors of this memo, which many members of the press have received, but only one has reported? They are Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.

McAuliffe, Carville and Gephardt are lawyers. Daschle is not a lawyer, but has learned to think like one after decades in the House and Senate. A legislator/lawyer can insert one small clause in the bill that is flying through Congress on a fast track, and millions of dollars in benefits can flow to one individual, one corporation, one industry segment, with few people the wiser. No one, that is, except the intended beneficiaries, who are then expected to express their financial gratitude to the Member of Congress who pulled a real rabbit out of an invisible hat.

What does all this have to do with the Aesop's Fable at the beginning? Simply this:

Lawyers have descended as a profession down from being among the Framers of our nation, down from being pillars of their communities, down to being mere legal technocrats – playing the angles and grubbing for their rewards. Because most (or many) lawyers have a minimal concept of public service, they are willing to cause any type and any amount of damage to American society, so long as they and their clients get their chosen payoffs.

Yet, if American society becomes badly damaged or destroyed, the lawyers themselves will also lose. The lawyers have become the scorpion, and our society is the frog. As our society dies, the lawyers will then say, "It is my nature."

John Armor is an author and attorney. He specializes in appeals cases, filing his 17th brief in the Supreme Court last week in the campaign finance case.

I'm delighted that this, my 359th weekly column, is my first submission for "The Corner," FreeRepublic writers posted up on Townhall. (See separate thread put up by Bob J, earlier today.)

I think most FReepers, including FReeping lawyers, will nod their heads in agreement with this. Lemme know.

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion. He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?" "Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic
Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion.

He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?"

"Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

Didn't read the posting, I confess, and I will. But the title reminds me of an "L.A. Law" episode. Some sleazy businessman, who'd been cheating innocent people for years, was on trial. He'd managed to make his character an issue in the trial, and the lawyer (one of the L.A. Law associates) was grilling him on the details of one sleazy deal after another. The defendant didn't hold up. In fact, he had a heart attack and died, falling forward out of the stand. The lawyer, literally standing over the body, asked the judge to grant a restraining order preventing the businessman's heirs from disposing of the man's estate until the lawsuits were adjudicated. The judge admonished him for being insensitive, but the lawyer persisted, pointing out that if the order wasn't granted, the man's heirs could take them money and flee the court's juristiction, keeping the cheated parties from getting redress. After some more moralizing, the judge granted the motion.

Back at the office, the lawyer was being grilled by his peers and superiors. The peers were impressed and congratulatory. His superiors were worried about how this affected the law firm's image. "What kind of lawyer is this?" one asked.

Answered the quietest and least-assuming lawyer in the firm: "The kind people hire."

Everyone hates lawyers who are sons of bitches. Until they go to hire one, and then they want one who's the worst son of a bitch in the world.

With all due respects Congressman, your view of history is very selective. Shakespeare, and many others both before and since, have had very unkind things to say about lawyers.

The truth is they are an accurate reflection of human nature but are hated because they are feared. They're hired guns...and dangerous.

American society is changing as all societies do. For better or worse is hard for the living to determine. The causes are even less accessable.

Only one source for the DNC talking points, and that source is Doug Thompson? This 'one source' stuff is getting out of hand.

While I have no problem with the premise of the article ('money corrupts, and it corrupts lawyers along with everyone else'), I'm having a little trouble with the dot-connecting. Not all lawyers are trial lawyers -- many are corporate lawyers who wield their skills at the behest of their 'corporate person' client to do quite bad things to real people. Others are well-regarded defense lawyers who have done real good, not for money, but for justice (c.f. - The Innocence Project) in countering the tendency of government to convict the convenient victim, instead of the correct criminal.

So, other than the corrupting influence of money, why *has* the profession of attorney gone from the civilizing heights of John Adams to the degraded depths of Johnny Cochran?

As a class of people, lawyers are responsible collectively for the most human misery, and contribute the least to society. You have to wonder about someone who spends their entire professional career honing the skills needed to screw people to the wall with arcane language and money. Also, lawyers are the only class of "professionals" who claim to know every subtle nuance of their trade the day they graduate. In an ideal world there would be no use for lawyers, save perhaps hog slop.

I agree it's an excellent article but I do believe the problems created by the "lawyering craft" go much deeper. Who created literally millions of codes, regulations and statues aka "color of law" utilized by gov'ts. of all types to extract ever increasing $ from the American people. Who's behind all these schemes to craft immigration policy to allow millions of illegal invaders to attach themselves to our welfare system to provide a steady pool of very cheap labor for their corporate clients. Who's behind all these sovereignty robbing insane deals like NAFTA, GATT etc. that have created a giant sucking sound of factories leaving our country as well as legislation that allows their corporate clients to import foreign tech to replace more and more American workers.

I don't think it was the small business owner trying to slug it out in this very difficult economy, the cab driver in Peoria or the soccer moms in Tx. We all know who's behind legislation and policies that've brought this country to the brink of insolvency and for most of these low-lifes it's a despicable way to earn a living. Many good people that are lawyers need to have the courage to stand up and inform the public on what's really happening behind the facade of blow dried, grinning idiots that pop up continuously on our TV screens....the time for truth continues to dwindle.

Having lawyers write all the laws is the same as having Teamsters write all the traffic laws. The potential for abuse is obvious.

I have used this analogy: If doctors were like lawyers, you would be laid out on the operating table, and two sets of doctors on opposite sides would argue over whether you needed your appendix taken out, and which part of you was your appendix, anyway. Another doctor wearing a black scrub robe and holding a rubber-headed hammer, would rule finally on whether you would have any parts removed, and if so, which ones.

Then, one way or another you would pay the entire cost of all those doctors, regardless of whether the operation helped you, or killed you. Does that put it in perspective?

Billybob

You raise a very interesting question, my friend.

The corruption of money is the very last stage of the process. The corruption of lowered expectations in society, among practicing lawyers, but especially among the faculty and students of law schools all come first. Once the idea that law is a noble profession transmogrifies into a handy profession offering lots of money and some fame to those who are really good at cutting corners, the damage is done.

But I agree with the implications of your question. The rot begins at the ethical and moral level. It allows money, ultimately, to become the primary value. And yes, I have read and vastly enjoyed the biography entitled simply and elegantly, John Adams.

Billybob

When I was young, I thought that I would like to be a lawyer and I applied to a prestigious law school. I was accepted but literally at the last minute (the day I was to fill out the final admission papers) I changed my mind. I had developed doubts during the application process; something inside told me that I would not be happy in this profession.

I have never regretted the decision.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.