Posted on 12/09/2002 7:42:13 AM PST by sfwarrior
Lawyers have the only profession with a virtual cottage industry of mean-spirited jokes aimed against them.
The lawyer jokes were created as a peaceful outlet to vent the extreme frustration many Americans feel about a system that's rigged to benefit lawyers at the expense of citizens.
This is not a new sentiment. Back in the '50s, the Three Stooges had a skit in which they played lawyers. Their law firm was called Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
There's much support for this sentiment, and the corrupt legal system does indeed need a huge overhaul.
Taxpayers don't know whether they're criminals or not. There are some 20,000 pages of IRS tax codes. They were written by lawyers, are interpreted by lawyers and continue to reap a windfall to lawyers. The codes are a result of corporate lobbying by lawyers on behalf of their clients. Given the complexity of the codes, any one of us could be a criminal at any time. The situation is much like Dorothy looking for the wizard in the Emerald City, only to find a pathetic old con man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, the old con man holds our fate in his hands. We know it's ridiculous and intolerable, but we feel helpless to change the situation.
There's an attorney for every goofy case. And, unfortunately, many of these cases are not thrown out, and many of them result in plaintiffs receiving outrageous awards from juries. The system frequently works with an attorney willing to take the case on a contingency fee. They're in there for a share of the profit. Now, not every lawsuit is a scam. However, often plaintiff and lawyer are partners in a scheme to shake down whomever they can, and they do.
This scheme is clearly a potential conflict of interest if a lawyer won't settle early, even if an injured client wants to, because the lawyer has an equal stake in the outcome. That our courts and legislatures allow this malevolent scheme to continue is shameful.
How bad is the system? It's out of control when we have a system that allows dogs to sue cats. Consider this case: When Richard Espinosa and his 50-pound Labrador-mix dog, Kimba, visited the Escondido city library last fall, L.C., the 10-pound library cat, allegedly attacked the dog, causing $46.49 in veterinary bills for Kimba and a $38 charge from Espinosa's chiropractor. Espinosa has filed a claim against the city for $1.5 million.
He also wants the cat declawed and the library to post a warning sign. According to the claim, the attack caused the following injuries: "significant lasting, extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress including, but not limited to, terror, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, mortification, chagrin, depression, panic, anxiety, flashbacks, nightmares, loss of sleep (and) loss of full enjoyment of life as well as other physical and mental afflictions and pain, suffering."
Catherine Crier, the former judge who now hosts "Crier Live" on Court TV, writes in her compelling new book, "The Case Against Lawyers," about our screwy legal system and the law profession's role in creating this monster, "Why is it that if you can't kick nicotine, you can win a lawsuit for billions, but if you can't kick another drug, you can go to prison?"
It was the lawyers who got the billions in the tobacco settlement with the nation's attorneys-general; the individual smokers didn't get a dime. States shared the bounty with private lawyers -- fees to attorneys were in the billions. They have now set a new bar for greed in ripping off private industry. The tobacco settlement was what many commentators are now calling the single biggest wealth transfer in our nation's history.
Consider that now some fat kids are suing McDonald's, blaming the restaurant chain for their obesity. Why don't they just sue their mothers for taking them to McDonald's and giving them the money to buy the junk food? Give me a break. And you thought a woman collecting millions when she spilled hot coffee on herself was an anomaly.
You can't blame only these greedy lawyers. It's the judges who allow these cases to be heard, and it's the juries that are awarding these jaw-dropping judgments. The lawyers simply say, "That's the American way" -- all the way to the bank. All the lawyers must do is find industries that in any way contributed to a problem and then get them to pay 200 percent of all economic costs, plus all past and future costs, including theoretical costs, not just for their clients but for an entire class of people. Moreover, additional punitive costs can be several times more of the actual damages. That's a good way to bankrupt American industry.
The precise economic effects of such a huge tort burden on the American economy are hard to measure directly but are nonetheless significant, according to a study conducted this year by the actuarial firm of Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. The United States continues to have the most expensive civil-justice system of the 12 industrialized nations studied, according to the report, "U.S. Tort Costs 2000: Trends and Findings on the Costs of the U.S. Tort System." Among the report's highlights: The U.S. civil-justice system costs 1.8 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, or $636 per person. In 1950, the system cost $12 per person.
Moreover, individuals suffer from the high price of insurance and the increased cost of goods and services. Businesses are hurt by the higher prices they must charge to pay their insurance costs. Children are hurt by the loss of playgrounds at many schools, housing developments and public spaces due to fear of lawsuit liability. Companies and/or entire industries such as boat and single-engine... (READ THE ENTIRE STORY-CLICK THE LINK BELOW)
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Q: How is a trial lawyer like a slinky?
A: Neither one is much good for anything, but it's still fun to watch one tumble down the stairs.
I'm not sure I understand your question, because anyone can lobby goverment.
Here in Illinois, there was a suggestion to introduce legislation to disqualify any candidate for judge who had been a lawyer.
Needless to say, it went nowhere.
Slight problem with your question. Companies don't pay taxes, they only collect them. Only people pay taxes, either directly to the government of reflected in the cost of goods and services they buy - and passed on by companies.
At least with taxation we get something.
Laywers, lawsuits and fear of lawsuits on the other hand, drive up costs. Twenty dollars of the cost of a $120 ladder is directly attributable to legal fees (source, Werner Company). Very little of that goes to bringing about a safer ladder unless you suggest that every frivilous ladder suit has led to improved safety.
You are correct that lawyers are mainly the brunt of what is wrong with the trial law system. But, there are plenty of examples where the scorn felt for lawyers is directly justified. They are not all just innocent capitalist as you suggest. Except for the shield on the wall that gives legitimacy to what they do, many are just like the extortist in less legal profressions - many every bit as cold and ruthless.
Well, I wouldn't say only. Don't forget, psychology majors in their final year are required by most states to do community service at state-operated clinics before they receive their doctorates.
Many licensed psychologists continue to work in these clinics free of charge "after hours," supervising psychology students and assisting on cases. This is done on a voluntary basis -- these doctors are not compelled by state law to contribute their time.
Perhaps if the lawyers were as generous with their time, the state would not feel compelled to force them into pro-bono work against their will.
Personally, I don't believe the state has any business regulating the off-duty hours of licensed professionals, but what do I know. I didn't write the law.
Who's talking about lobbying?
Most lawyers that I know were already quite generous in giving away free time even before the mandatory pro bono rule was put into place. I just don't like being to told that I have to give away my time, any more than a truck driver woud like to be told that he has to deliver turkeys free of charge to the projects, or that teacher has to offer free tutoring during the summer to the poor, or that architects and engineers have to design low income housing free of charge.
Under the rules of ethics they are not supposed to solicit, but they get away with it anyway. My point, however, is that next time you stub your toe on a curb in a parking lot and some lawyer tries to solicit you to sue for millions of dollars -- just say NO! Too many people say "yes" and then complain and call the lawyer greedy because the lawyer took one-third of what the plaintiff should not have received in the first place.
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.