Guilty! The Case Against Trial Lawyers

SF Gate (Chronicle) ^ | December 9th, 2002 | Adam Sparks

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>No bar association I've ever seen disciplines lawyers for filing lawsuits.<<<

That's a judge's job. And if the judge is elected and accepts funds from the trial bar, but does a terrible job of fining for frivolous lawsuits, don't you think the judge's political opponent can use that for fodder quite effectively?

[litehaus]

"If anyone is to blame it's politicians who won't change the laws, judges who let cases go "

And what animals inhabit/constitute these worlds?(Politicians/judges)

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The people bringing frivolous lawsuits are in fact the ones in control and in management positions in the bar association.<<<

I can identify with your concern but lawyers HATE being adjudicated by them because they're already wise to the art of advocacy and seductive reasoning that lawyers are trained to use. Additionally, such administrative lawyers gain points with their peers when they help reduce the population of lawyers because competition not only hurts profit margins, it also forces (campaign contributing) companies and (agenda-supporting) corrupt politicians to behave.

[pgyanke]

"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."

---

We agree more than we disagree. I've never sued and never will... frivolously. However, there are far too many who do and simply telling people to "just say no" isn't going to stem the tide as long as it remains a surer method of wealth-attainment than the lottery.

The control in this argument can only be exercised by the attorneys. They run the legal system (through the bar associations, legislatures, benches and court rooms) and they have the power to regulate the system. As long as they promise the downtrodden "get rich quick" lawsuits, we'll have them.

I agree with what many have posted... make it a "loser pays" system and you'll stop much of the frivolity.

[reformed_democrat]

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 . . .

Well, as I said, I don't believe the state has any business regulating the off-duty hours of licensed professionals . . . But I didn't write the law. It was written by state legislators, most of whom are lawyers. Why hasn't it been contested as unconstitutional under state laws? And if it is deemed constitutional, why hasn't legislation been put forward to amend that state's constitution to stop government interference in private enterprise?

[Amore]

No. Usually if a judge thinks the case is frivolous, he will not assess a fine, but he MIGHT just enter a summary judgment for the defendant. But even if a trial judge does throw a case out on a Summary Judgment, you know what happens? The plaintiffs appeal and the appellate judges will, more often than not, reinstate the case. After a while, those trial judges get tired of getting reversed on appeal so they stop throwing out frivolous cases.

As for whether that could be used against a judge politically, that's very hard to do. For one thing, usually if the public sees anything about a judge, it's his ranking by the bar association. Now guess which judges are going to get the highest rankings?

Further, in most places, a judge is not allowed to say much at all about what he would or wouldn't do if placed on the bench. He has to speak in vague generalities about promising to uphold the law (as if judicial "interpretation" of the laws did not exist). Again, those rules have all been set by bar associations and judicial decrees. It's not like regular elections where you can tell people you are a conservative, and where you stand on the issues, etc.

[reformed_democrat]

He and Nixon BOTH got disbarred.

To the best of my recollection, Bill Clinton was not disbarred. He voluntarily surrendered his Arkansas law license for five years.

[BikerNYC]

And what animals inhabit/constitute these worlds?(Politicians/judges)

They don't get there by themselves. Either we vote them in or the people who we vote in vote them in.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Hmmm... Well I've been told he was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court, but is eligible to re-apply by around 2008 (in time for Hillary to appoint him Supreme Ct. Justice, although one need not even be a lawyer to become that).

[Amore]

Oh, I'm not saying the bar associations are totally ineffective and I'm well aware attorneys don't want to be involved on the disciplinary end of such proceedings. I certainly wouldn't.

But your saying the bar association proceedings "help reduce the population of lawyers because competition not only hurts profit margins, it also forces (campaign contributing) companies and (agenda-supporting) corrupt politicians to behave." Sorry, that's not happening, not at anything close to a statistically significant level. Not in my state and I'll bet not anywhere else either. As I've said, lawyers don't get disciplined for filing frivolous lawsuits, they get disciplined for mishandling money. That's the message lawyers take away from reading ethics opinions. The bar association can take care of the very worst of the worst, but that still leaves a heck of a lot of greedy opportunistic lawyers operating with the approval -- not the disapproval -- of the bar association.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The bar association can take care of the very worst of the worst, but that still leaves a heck of a lot of greedy opportunistic lawyers operating with the approval -- not the disapproval -- of the bar association.<<<


A lot of bad stuff is also said about CEO's and medical doctors (and for that matter college professors). All are typically in it for the money (or job security), and all do things that lots of folks disapprove of. Capitalism ain't pretty sometimes.

[Labyrinthos]

But I didn't write the law. It was written by state legislators, most of whom are lawyers. Why hasn't it been contested as unconstitutional under state laws? And if it is deemed constitutional, why hasn't legislation been put forward to amend that state's constitution to stop government interference in private enterprise?

Actually, the rule was put in place by the chief administrator of the courts, not by the state legislature, and there are cases out there indicating that the rule does not implicate the taking clause because its a condition for being allowed to practice law.

[reformed_democrat]

Either we vote them in or the people who we vote in vote them in.

The unfortunate fact here in Illinois is, the only people who can afford to belong to the legislature are attorneys. State House races in the Chicago area can cost several hundred thousand dollars, to "win" a job that pays about $35,000 annually.

This may be true in many states. The pay for a State Representative is quite low -- it was never meant to be a full-time job -- and the hours are quite long -- what was supposed to be a part-time job three months a year has blossomed into a career, with many state legislatures meeting year-round. When the legislature isn't in session, the rep is usually out meeting with constituents, spending time in his district office(s) (if he has a large area as his district, he may have offices in several counties), or campaigning. That doesn't leave a lot of time for earning money to support himself.

A lawyer can be a partner in a firm, and the firm subsidizes his legislative efforts because it's nice to have political connections if you deal with any state industries. Of all the state reps in Illinois, I can only think of one who is not an attorney. He's the oldest son of a family who owns a real-estate and construction firm. They ran him for State Representative because he was such a scr*w-up he was costing the business money and they wanted to get him out of the way (He's my State Senator now. Lucky me.)

[Amore]

Sorry, I don't consider what's happening with the judicial system, "Capitalism." Corrupt doctors, professors, CEOs, etc., don't have control of one whole branch of our governmental system.

[reformed_democrat]

I've been told he was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court

I believe that's true. But I don't think being disbarred by the Supreme Court prohibits a lawyer from practicing law. It simply means he cannot appear as a lawyer on a case before the Supreme Court.

I remember something about that incident that struck me as, "well, who cares then." Most attorneys never appear before the Supreme Court, so most aren't qualified to do so. They still practice law, but wouldn't be able to try a case beyond the jurisdiction of their state courts.

[pgyanke]

"Corrupt doctors, professors, CEOs, etc., don't have control of one whole branch of our governmental system."

---

ONE branch?! You missed two of them...

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Slick Willie did not get disbarred. He must not practice law for 5 years. Then he is back in the law/schyster business.

[End The Hypocrisy]

At least in some courts, he must re-apply in hopes of getting his license re-instated. If the only place that lets him do so is Arkansas, that says a bit more about Arkansas than it does about our country's legal profession, don't you think?

[reformed_democrat]

. . . there are cases out there indicating that the rule does not implicate the taking clause because its a condition for being allowed to practice law.

Thank you. That explains a lot.

I've often wondered why no one did anything about that. It seems overly dictatorial -- "If I let you have this, you have to let me have that." -- and no lawyer worth his salt (at least none that I know) puts up with that without a fight.

Does this apply specifically to trial lawyers, or is this required for all attorneys practicing in the state ?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

just don't like being to told that I have to give away my time

Then you are lucky that you are not an engineer. Engineers DO have to give away their time and are not covered under Fair Labor laws because they are "professionals" not hourly wage earners. The Navy has fun awarding contracts to engineering companies that state that their engineers will work 48 hours per week, giving the Navy the last 8 hours per week. The engineers then have to work 8 hours per week for free.