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 ...
This applies to all the lawyers in the state. When I first started practicing, I used to take pro bono cases from the local legal services clinic, but gave that up because I quickly learned that the people who pay the least, expect the most. Now I give my time to not-for-profit organizations rather than to individuals.
True story: I was once assigned a landlord/tenant case regarding the return of an $800 security deposit. I sent several letters to the landlord, and to then to the landlord's attorney, but she was not going to return the deposit, leaving me no choice, but to bring on a lawsuit in landlord/tenant court. By this time, I had already given about $400 worth of free time and told the client that the case would probably cost another $2000 in my time, and that we should try to settle because the landlord has some legitimate defenses to the claim. He refused because he wasn't paying for my time. I then offered to give him the entire $800 out of my pocket because that was less than half the cost of litigating and why should I have to give away $2000 or more in free legal services when I can write the client a check for $800 and be done with it. The client refused my offer because in his words, he wanted "justice." So we went to trial, and the entire dispute from begining to end cost nearly $3000 in my time, and when we lost the case, the client filed a claim against me with the grievance committee claiming that I was incompetent.
Waitaminute. This PUBLIC library has a cat? Well, heck's bells, I'm being denied equal access to the tax-supported library due to their deliberate contamination of its atmosphere with cat dander. I want to file suit!
Nevermind that I'm a citizen of Michigan and have only once visited Escondido...I want my money! (/sarcasm)
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
You may remember him from Clinton/Algore's press conference with the Dem's just after Slick was impeached.
Doggett was in back trying to get his face on camera.
Yes, this self-made man is #31 on the list of Congress's richest members:
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) - $4.5 million.Doggett's fortune continues its steady climb, from $4 million in 1994 to $4.5 million in 1995, and now more than $4.6 million, according to his 1996 disclosure forms. In his pre-Congress years, Doggett built a lucrative law practice in Austin on big product liability cases.
Well Good Grief! It is true -- no good deed goes unpunished.
Sounds like your client had a bad case of the gimmees. What can we do to stop this abuse of the legal system? It seems that, if the attorney deems the case unwinnable, and the client insists on going forward with the case, the client should bear some financial responsibility.
For the client, this was a "no lose" situation -- if he won, he got the money, if he lost, it cost him nothing, and he could try to sue again (if someone were to take the case against you). This certainly isn't fair to either the attorney or the paying customers who have to wait their turn while cases like this are heard.
Sounds like this guy's a real peach. I don't suppose it would be possible to beat him -- unless you found another rich scumbag with nothing to do but run for Congress.
One thing that gives guys like this the fits -- tort reform law. Specifically, legislation limiting the amount that can be collected by lawyers in class action suits.
If he was only allowed to collect $100,000 above and beyond his legitimate expenses, he'd be out of business.
He's from Austin - the Berkeley of Texas - and they think he's "one of the people." The same kind of folks who mindlessly cheer Erin Brockovich.
Yep tort reform would seriously damage him and his type.
On a related note, for anyone else that knows:
I remember back when lawyers weren't allowed by the bar to do tv ads. When they changed that, the caveat was the ads were to be dignified and befitting the dignity of the profession.
Looking at the ambulance chasing commercials we see here, I wonder whatever happened to that requirement?
Or is it the same old problem of trying to find a lawyer who'll sue a lawyer?
And now they taste like crap, causing me pain and mental anguish. Can I sue you?
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.