Trial Lawyers Should Stick to Real Problems
by Julian MorrisThere’s a great new report from the Manhattan Institute emphasizing the role of tort law as a supplement (and alternative) to regulation. If fishermen in the Gulf coast had a right to be free from pollution, perhaps BP would have invested more in preventing the recent disastrous spill. Unfortunately, as the MI piece points out, trial lawyers have tended to focus not on these genuine – and objectively verifiable – harms but instead on hypothetical and highly subjective concerns. A series of class action suits resulting in essentially arbitrary payouts has enriched the trial lawyers but done little if anything to protect individuals or the environment from harm. Indeed, arguably these suits have been counterproductive as they have often led to the elimination of beneficial substances, while diverting resources to lawyers and plaintiffs and away from more productive uses.
One of the examples given in the MI report is MTBE, an additive used in gasoline to make vehicles run more efficiently (and thereby produce less pollution). Oil companies started adding MTBE to fuel in 1979 but its use was increased after 1990 – as the MI report points out “Congress had reached the policy judgement that adding MTBE to motor fuel produced a net benefit, even though the chemical can affect the taste of drinking water if it enters the water supply.” The EPA also evaluated MTBE and concluded in 1997 that “there is little likelihood that MTBE in drinking water will cause adverse health effects” in the quantities present. Given that the EPA tends to err on the side of caution (demanding very wide margins of safety), it seems fair to conclude that MTBE in drinking water really was most unlikely to pose a danger to health.
If historic tort standards were applied, there would be no case: MTBE might have an impact on taste, but that is of course subjective. It does not – according to the EPA at least – cause an “objective” harm to human health. This distinction is important. For the law to act as a guide to human behaviour, it must be based on objective standards. If judges apply subjective standards after the fact, how are we to know the standard against which we will be judged? Taken to its logical conclusion, we enter the world of Kafka’s Josef K, who is tried with crimes he didn’t even know he had committed.
In the case of MTBE, as the MI report points out, “more than seventy suits have been filed against oil companies for using MTBE, many by states and municipalities alleging a public nuisance and seeking money for facilities to eliminate the additive from drinking water (with a large chunk of the proceeds going to the contingency fees of plaintiffs’ lawyers hired to handle the cases). In May, 2008, several oil companies settled suites for $423 million, and in October 2009, New York City won the first of these cases to come to trial, hitting Exxon-Mobil with a $104.7 million verdict.” Unsurprisingly, in 2006 oil companies stopped using MTBE.
Following their success with MTBE, the trial lawyers are now going after atrazine, a herbicide that has a very benign environmental profile. Used by farmers for over 40 years, atrazine enhances crop yields by reducing competition from weeds and – more recently – has been used as an alternative to ploughing, thereby reducing soil erosion (and pollution from tractors). Atrazine was reviewed by the EPA in 2006 and found to pose no hazard to health. Nevertheless, trial lawyers acting for municipal water authorities have launched a series of lawsuits against atrazine, seeking damages to cover the cost of its removal from drinking water.
I am a big fan of the application of tort law to protect the environment (see e.g. my contribution to this book), but when lawyers use tort law in egregious ways to line their own pockets, it results in perverse consequences: good products are outlawed and innovation is discouraged. When the rules are unclear, it is impossible to know what will be the next product on the trial lawyers’ list. That discourages companies and inventors from developing new products. In the end we all lose (except the trial lawyers).
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
116 Comments
What's wrong with trial lawyers? Look what they did for health care in America – you couldn't find a finer example of the law being put to work for the people than the outcome created by class litigation in health care brought to you by the legal class.
Then you can see what they have done for government. My goodness, where would we be without their guidance and assistance?
Look what they have done for our justice system. My goodness, without lawyers we wouldn't have court-mandated respect for liberalism, court-mandated respect for gays and lesbians, court-ordered support for socialism and all the entitlements that make our country so great.
And we are talking about men and women of the people who helped us out of their sense of duty and honor and never for personal wealth, political power or any other gauche consideration. My goodness, we should all turn around today and call our lawyers and thank them for making the contributions they have made to our great country's progress. I know I am grateful. How about you?
OBJECTIVE ///// SUBJECTIVE……….Let's call the WHOLE thing OFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The EPA, that is…….
))
to the author:
as a farmer I'll tell you Mr Morris, "most recently", due to a great deal of excelent research by soil
scientist farmers have learned that ploughing soil gives weed seeds a tiny fraction of a second
flash of light, which enables that seed which may have been buried for forty years lying dormant,
to germinate. Use of chemicals rather than ploughing also conserves moisture, allowing farmers
to reap the benefit of precipitation similar to a storage device (think sponge).
.
SOROS AND WALL STREET BRINGING FINANCIAL COLLAPSE TO AMERICA:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff446.htm
If nothing else, they need to change this to a loser pays all system. As it stands, trial lawyers make big bucks win or lose and there is incentive to settle out of court with both sides' lawyers making a profit. They need to find a way to institute some risk so that lawyers are less likely to create cases out of thin air banking on a payout no matter how it goes. Look at the panhandling case won. Who really thinks the panhandlers actually saw any financial benefit from their case?
All Case Law should be thrown in a pile in the streets and burned. We need to return to Constitutional Law as the Law of the Land. Period. When one man's decision becomes the law, we have ceased to be a Nation of Laws and become a Nation of Men. Welcome to Hell.
I have about as much faith and trust in our judicial system as I do the government…which is NONE!!!
They're all corrupt. They're all liars crooks and thieves.
I want to hear a judge say – if the one filing loses, the loser's LAWYER has to pay half of the costs – out of his BUSINESS account.
For the winner I wanna hear a judge say – 95% of the money actually GOES to the person wronged, the fee's, court costs and everything else get taken out of that 5% – and the lawyer gets whatever is left. (There's some cases right now where the lawyers get 95%….)
See how many lawyers jump on idiotic cases then.
There's too much work (finding REAL facts instead of emotionalism), and putting together a REAL case, finding REAL experts (which aren't currently on their payroll). It just doesn't pay. Sorry.
Do I need to add sarc?
Lefties should take a few steps back and ponder whether a political agenda, which enriches trial lawyers and the political elite, stagnates the very wealthy, impoverishes everyone else, and places in power the likes of Reid, Pelosi, and Hussein, is one to hitch your cart to.
And yes, I ended that run-on sentence with a preposition. So there.
Remember: Lawyers create nothing, lawyers produce nothing, and lawyers provide no service so essential that a man couldn't live without them. So, every penny that goes into the pocket of a lawyer is wealth created by someone else. Tort reform is desperately needed, but since in our current legal racket lawyers make the law, lawyers judge the law, lawyers prosecute the law, and lawyers represent us before the law, the chance of that happening is exactly zero percent.
The best thing that could happen in America is if we figured out some way to break the legal monopoly, and then by statute limited lawyers to only the adversarial part of the legal process, which is the only place they have any business being.
As long as the system rewards Attorneys for being "present" it is not justice.
As long as Holder-like attorneys follow marching orders there is no justice.
Attorneys are supposed to enforce The Constitution. That is justice.
Embattled citizens depend on attorneys to find justice for them. If they do, or do their best, then they deserve their fees. Attorneys can bring peace and justice to the wronged. Anything that will help them to do so, we should support. Protect the victims.
How come we have health care reform, financial reform, need to reform medicare & medicaid, but we never get tort reform? Why is it there is no out cry for tort reform, could be because average citizens believe that this only effects businesses? Here is a wake up call, the lack of tort reform effects every one. The only people that are winning in these lawsuits are the lawyers, they get the lions share of any settlement and the people that actually were harmed get the great privilege of knowing that the lawyers proved them right and a few bucks for their discomfort. It is time to stop the insanity.
Most parasitic politicians are lawers……so, why am I not surprised?
Depending on what type of case it is, sometimes the loser does have to pay the other party's attorneys fees. This doesn't apply to tort cases though, only contract cases. So, if someone sues you for breach of contract and you win, they have to pay your attorneys fees.
The reason why this doesn't apply to tort cases is because, contrary to popular belief, it is very hard to win these cases. Often, people get hurt because of negligence but don't have enough evidence to win in court. If you made these people pay the prevailing party's attorneys fees, it would discourage legitimate cases because a working class citizen can't afford to pay Wal-Mart's legal fees if they lose.
Also, trial lawyers do not make big bucks win or lose. If you represent the Plaintiff, you generally only recover if you win because most of these cases are handled on a contingency basis. If you lose, you are out for all of your expenses and time. This discourages a lot of frivolous suits.
Well, if the Plaintiff wins then it obviously wasn't an "idiotic" case. Also, if the attorney can only keep 5% of the money for attorneys fees, there will be no attorneys to handle cases for people who are injured. Multi-million dollar cases are very rare, most personal injury cases are only for a few thousand bucks. If you think any attorney is going to take a legitimate injury case when they know they will only make a couple hundred bucks for hundreds of hours of work, you are crazy.
Well, I am an attorney. I only take legitimate cases. I charge people reasonable fees. And, if someone can't afford to pay me, I do it for free. But I guess I'm a "crook"?
We still HAVE lawyers in America?
Wow…….who knew. Haven't heard WORD ONE ABOUT ALL THE CRAP DC HAS BEEN UP TO, NOT WORD ONE ABOUT ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSTEPS BY CONGRESS AND THIS GOV'T.
QUITE LITTLE CHURCH MICE ARE OUR SO CALLED TRIAL LAWYERS. OBAMA'S BOYZ ARE ALL LAUGHIN IT UP IN TAHITI SINCE HE TRADED THEM NO HC TORT REFORM FOR THEIR FRIKKIN BLACK SOULS!
When TRIAL lawyers re-emerge from their monastic retreat maybe some will actually DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE SORO-SOCIALIST OVERTHROW.
MAYBE…..
IF THERE'S ENOUGH MONEY ON THE TABLE
AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES GALORE
AND THEY CAN'T GET A GOOD TEE TIME
Sadly, trial lawyers, like most liberals, talk the talk, about being the champion of the little guy. They then walk the walk of self-enrichment, at the expense of the little guy.
Had it not been for the Chicago Ward heel malfeasance most of this tort lawyer feeding frenzy would be a non-issue. As it is, dog gets a bone for political payback. Seen this coming two months into the disaster.
"The best thing that could happen in America is if we figured out some way to break the legal monopoly, and then by statute limited lawyers to only the adversarial part of the legal process, which is the only place they have any business being."
What are you talking about? We have an adversarial system. Every step in a law suit is the "adversarial part" of the legal process.
You have to understand our beef – what you described is the way it's SUPPOSE to be. It ain't that way. If you can't see how your last sentence is WOA-fully wrong, then you don't see what's wrong with the entire system. The LAWYERS always get paid, it's the guy who got TALKED INTO the suit BY the lawyer that's out of money.
Ya know if you put a ladder on a slanted surface that slippery with water and then climb up it, reach over to the SIDE and fall on your a$$ – it's NOT the ladder companies fault, it's NOT the property owners fault, it's not the water pipe company's fault, it's not anybodies FREAKING fault but YOUR own. But there are lawyers out there that will take that and SUE everyone they can even the freaking WATER company to get money. That's the problem. And it doesn't matter if they lose, THEY will make money and they will also COST businesses and individuals money that raise prices on everything. And they've giving the public the "impression" that they can get money for their own screw-ups. So even the public is sue happy.
And "case law" and "precedence" are blatantly un-Constitutional on their face. When you make a ruling on someone ELSE'S ruling – you just broke your oath of office.
the one problem with Trial Lawyers?…
There are TOO many of them. Ergo the need to advertise for clients, to invent disorders, to literally 'chase that ambulance'.
Can you spell 'Tort Reform?'…
ohh?? But yet we have BoBo wanting to tell every OTHER profession out there, how much they are allowed to make??
Kinda hypocritical there, isn't it???
OBAMA'S BLUEPRINT TO SOCIALISM:
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obamas-un-apo...
It's clear by YOUR arguments that you ARE an attorney. As ya'll keep telling the rest of us – how abouts cleaning up YOUR profession before you start complaining about everyone else seeing all the complaints in yours.
Which is why the lawyers always make money – win or lose – so why would they want any reform…….
The civil justice system in this country is based on ideals of free market capitalism, and has worked tremendously well for centuries. No system is ever perfect, and lately there are some who have found a way to game the system with these made-up mass torts. The fix for these problems SHOULD be fairly easy in the legislature, but alas, the ones making all of the money have far too much control of the Democrat party.
We don't need to destroy the entire system, and conservatives in particular would very much hate the civil justice system that other countries have, with the "loser pays all" mentality. THINK about it, conservatives, do you really want to trash the system that our Founding Fathers gave us? And replace it with the system favored by European socialists?
The fix for the system is this: legislatively enacted immunity on a case-by-case basis. Let the people decide on a political level whether to allow MTBE and other mass tort lawsuits. Give MORE power to the people, not less.
Well, I am an attorney, so I think I know what I am talking about. There are a lot of misconceptions about the legal system. Are there crooked attorneys? Yes, there are crooked people in every profession.
I don't understand why you keep saying that attorneys get paid no matter what. Most personal injury cases are handled on what is called a contingency basis. If my client wins, I get a certain percentage. If my client loses, I get nothing. Why would I file a frivolous case and waste hours of my time for a case that is not going to win? If the case does not have a decent chance of winning, I'm not going to bother with it because I will lose money. I will be out thousands of dollars for filing fees, postage, travel costs, deposition fees, and billable hours for my employees. The system is self-policing.
Contrary to what many think, legal fees only account for a miniscule percentage of most companies costs. This is why tort reform won't do a bit of good. Besides, what type of tort reform do you have in mind? Most states already have caps on punitive damages. Are you saying that there should be caps on what people can recover regardless of the facts? If someone hits me with a car and I have $300,000 in medical bills, why should my recovery be arbitrarily capped at some lower number, so that your insurance costs go down? That is socialism, my friend. Making individuals pay for the "greater good."
He who controls the water, controls everything else.
Ok…than I want to sue the government. How much do I owe you?
If the lawyers were doing their jobs there wouldn't be any criminals on the hill. Not to mention on the streets. If you don't like the lack of faith people like me has in the system, than perhaps you of all people can help it get straightened out so you work for the people, rather than for the rich elites.
The lawyers I'm talking about seem to have no trouble at all finding loop holes in our laws for the guilty.
That's what I'm talking about. There are many lawyers who charge after the case is won….big deal…when there's more who charge regardless. And unless you are rich out your butt, the average citizen can't get legal help anyway. Find me a loop hole to get the criminals off the hill, and maybe, just maybe I'll have faith in them again. The system is broke.
What are you talking about? Plaintiff's attorney get paid a percentage of what their client recovers. If the client loses they get nothing. Please, stop talking about the legal system if you have no idea what you are talking about. Not every lawyer is a crook. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are lawyers, too. A lawyer who takes b.s. cases is going to find himself broke very quickly.
And you really, truly believe that any kind of Tort Reform that is enacted by the current slate of idiots would do anything the HELP average citizens?
Wake up! They will only tell you what you want to hear, pass something labeled "tort reform" that lines the pockets of their donors at the expense of average citizens.
We don't need Tort Reform, we need Political Reform. More power to the people, less to the elite political ruling class.
You know, Liberals love, Love, LOVE the whole trial lawyer/tort reform thing, and the way it gets conservatives all riled up. And divided. And focused on something other than the REAL issues, like socialism and the Islamization of America.
MTBE issue is a gnat, and Tort Reform is a sledgehammer. Let's take over Congress and then the Presidency, and worry about the gnats later.
First of all, you say you're a lawyer but half your info a bunch of bunk. Now YOU may play by those rules, but there are way to many of your fellow lawyers who don't. Police up your OWN and them maybe the public will start thinking better of you.
And most states do NOT have caps – they are trying to get caps, and who's the main force fighting those caps —– LAWYERS. I know, because it Texas here we did put caps in and guess what happened – the frivolous suits DROPPED through the floor and medical professionals started coming BACK to our state.
And nice straw man there – the caps aren't on the MEDICAL costs – they are on the above and beyond "emotional" multi-millions "pain and suffering" that are what the problems are. The caps have nothing to do with REAL medical costs (and you know that too, but yet you still brought it up FALSELY – wow..just like a lawyer!!!).
"Ok…than I want to sue the government. How much do I owe you?"
Nothing. If you have a legitimate case I would represent you and take a percentage of what you recover. If you don't have a legitimate case, I would tell you to keep walking. That's how it works and that is why the system is self-policing.
"If the lawyers were doing their jobs there wouldn't be any criminals on the hill."
By "hill", do you mean Capitol Hill? These criminals are on Capitol Hill because idiots keep electing them, lawyers don't have any control over that.
"And unless you are rich out your butt, the average citizen can't get legal help anyway."
Not true at all. Most of my clients are lower middle class or law enforcement officers. Plus, all attorneys are required to provide a certain amount of legal representation a year to indigents.
"The system is broke. "
No the system is overwhelmed because people refuse to pay a .2% increase in sales tax to build a jail to put criminals away. I just got out of court a few days ago and the judge had to let dozens of criminals go. You know why? Because there is no room in the jail.
'You may be entitled to compensation' Anyone else out there tired of hearing all of those commercials?
I can see where I may not have been perfectly clear. What I mean is that lawyers should not be allowed to be legislators or judges. Having lawyers in those positions is an obvious conflict of interest… except to lawyers, it seems. In the case of lawyer-legislators, it is also a violation of the separation of powers, because a lawyer is an officer of the court: lawyers have no business in the legislative branch.
Historically, judges were seldom lawyers before the revolution. Juries back then could also decide whatever they agreed upon, including that the law in question was flawed and should be stricken from the books. Today, juries are just the tools of lawyer-judges, who tell them what they can and can't decide.
IMO, the biggest failure of the founders was that they didn't foresee that lawyers would revert to type versus their enlightened position.
For the record, I detest lawyers. Whenever I meet an attorney, I assume I'm dealing with a steaming pile of excrement until they prove me wrong… and I'm a tough sell.
Maybe you should realize that you're not the only one who "thinks" he knows how lawyers operate. Again – YOU may personally do things "honestly". Get more of your fellow lawyers to do the same thing and maybe it might start improving your image. (and here's a hint – everything here I've mentioned – I KNOW lawyers do – because I've seen them do it FIRST hand – remember you aren't the "only" one here who knows about this…)
Yes, but I"m also tired of hearing: "You are not entitled to Long Term Disability benefits despite the fact that you are obviously totally disabled, and you can't sue us for bad faith!"
When insurance companies know that they cannot be sued, their behavior is very, very different, and not at all nice. Without the ability to sue companies (which is what trial lawyers give us), injustice abounds, leading to anarchy.
Please tell me what your experience and knowledge is based on. If you are saying that an attorney can take a b.s. case, spend thousands of legal expenses, lose the case, and still get paid, I would be interested in hearing how I could do this. Because I would be a millionaire.
Shakespeare had a point….
"there will be no attorneys to handle cases for people who are injured"
But all those commercials that I see on TV (that cost more than I make in a year, and I am a Licensed Professional Engineer) tell me that they do it because they CARE about justice. Please do not tell me that is a lie!
Ok, I'll go along with your reasoning. Let's say fees, court costs, expenses, etc. get taken out of the award, then the lawwwwyer can have his or her time paid for at $50/hr upto a maximum amount per case, say $10,000!!!! They DO NOT get 33% of a $500 Billion settlement!!!!! How long do those settlements take? a couple hours..??
What the hell are you talking about? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Are you seriously saying that HALF of the people in Congress were elected because of voter fraud? Ok, Al Franken is probably up there because of voter fraud, but what about all of the other left-wing moonbats like Nany Pelosi who win by 20%-30%?
Good grief. You hate lawyers, I get it. But I'm sick of people blaming their problems on others. I'm sorry that you resent the fact that people like me have successful years because we worked hard in college and made good grades, spent tens of thousands of dollars on tuition, worked through 3 years of law school while taking care of two kids, and work 70 hour weeks. If you have a problem with the law, then quit electing morons. Don't blame lawyers who are just doing their jobs.
Are you kidding?? Why would I tell someone how to hurt the public more? If you cant' figure out what all your fellow lawyers are doing – you must not be a very good lawyer.
Well, I don't support Obama, so how am I being a hypocrite? I also was not aware that Obama was telling "every" profession how much they could make. The last time I checked, my secretaries get paid what they deserve. I haven't got any letters from Obozo telling me to raise or lower their salaries. This discussion has drifted into fairyland. You hate lawyers, fine. I get it.
Well, a $500 billion dollar settlement probably takes a lot longer than a couple of hours but those types of cases are rare.
And, no, those people on t.v. probably don't care a lot about justice. I care about justice and try to do the right thing, but I'll be honest – I go to work to make money so that I can pay my bills and feed my kids. I'm sure you do, too. Is that a crime now? I thought that was called Capitalism.
" No the system is overwhelmed because people refuse to pay a .2% increase in sales tax to build a jail to put criminals away. I just got out of court a few days ago and the judge had to let dozens of criminals go. You know why? Because there is no room in the jail. "
I rest my case!
unfortunately, sometimes the defendants state that they did what the plaintiff says, on the stand, under oath, and the judge STILL applies Summary Judgemnet against the plaintiff. Or the plaintiff proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the events described by a police officer were physically not possible, and is still found guilty. DO NOT tell us that the system is not BROKEN!!!!
Actually some of my best friends in the world are lawyers. I don't base liking someone or being against them on the JOB they have. But it is bad when 90% of the lawyer make that other 10% look bad.
And ask Bankers how much they are allowed to be paid (along with a few other industries).
Well, summary judgment happens on paper months before a trial date, so I don't know what you're saying about summary judgment and testimony before a judge.
If a Plaintiff proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes they're accused of are physically impossible, there is no possible way they can be found guilty. The system is not broken. There are individual judges who are inadequate and make mistakes, but the system is fine.
Well, I guess I will ask around and find out how to make millions of dollars by filing cases and losing. To think, I've been working hard and doing the right thing all these years, but, according to you, I can make millions by just making stuff up.
Has anything the current chuckle heads and for that matter most of the past chuckle heads been for the benefit of the people? I agree with you that these and past chuckle heads have said what ever they think the American people want to hear so the can get re-elected. I disagree on the political reform though, because I honestly think any political reform will fail when the people who are voting for the elected officials chose to be uninformed as to what is happening in our country. Right now we are in the continuing process of electing people with out virtue and principles.
It is called Capitalism. Do you think that your work is worth more than a Teacher?? a Doctor?? an Engineer? a Police Officer?? the President?? Do you think that your value to society is worth 10 times a teacher? 15 times a Police Officer?? EQUAL to the President?? Do you think that your education warrants a higher salary?? Higher than a Doctors? Higher than an Engineers?? Higher than a scientist/researcher? Higher than a College Professor??
I have NO PROBLEM with your working to pay for your kids Private education and Summer jaunts to Marthas Vineyard. But, I do have a problem with the amount that your profession is stealing. Do you think that every lawyer should get 33% of every case they successfully navigate. Is that 33% realistic if it only 8 hours of work that resulted in a settlement, becuase a trial would take too long?? – continued below-
I have a problem with the system, and that blood sucking leeches have worked their way into the system, and provide absolutely NO benefit to anyone, but themselves. If I invent something, it has to benefit someone else, or I starve. A large percentage of the lawyers that are seen in public ARE blood sucking leeches, and thieves. Your profession has NOT done self policing!!!
Oh, ok, so you're saying that lawyers should only be allowed to be lawyers. That makes sense. I still disagree with you though. I think it is kind of necessary to have judges who have been trained in the law as well. Plus, there are lawyers on both sides of any case, so if you are saying judges will be biased, then who would they be biased towards?
I agree though that we need less lawyers in the legislature. The reason we have so many lawyers in the legislature is actually an economic phenomena. Law can be done part-time, on the side and lawyers can afford to take time off to serve in the legislature. This is also why there are so many insurance salesmen in legislatures.
When the revolution starts, the first thing to do is chase the lawyers out of the country. They more-so than anyone else have done irreparable harm to this country.
Of course when the MMS gives oil companies wavers for having standby equipment for cleanup, what do you expect the oil companies to do?
And when the Coast Guard pours water on your burning rig and it sinks, making the spill a reality, what are the oil companies supposed to do? Shouldn't the Coast Guard have know you use foam on burning offshore oil rigs? Or shouldn't they have asked someone who did.
Or when the MMS approves your single casing well design, instead of the safer dual casing design, what do you expect the oil companies to do?
And isn't this the REAL problem with big government incompetence?
There ya go bringing up a straw man again – not once did I say you could make millions EVER.
And again – POLICE YOUR OWN PROFESSION and then people might not keep thinking so BAD of you. YOU might be doing the "right thing" but there way to many of your com-padre's that aren't. And if you're going to "claim" you don't know that – they you ARE lying your a$$ off.
And isn't it sad that when someone does try to "report" lawyer doing something wrong is that "gray" area of "fees" – a bunch of OTHER lawyers get to decide whether something was right or wrong?? Kind of like the House Ethics Committee "deciding" on ethics. You have to have done something SO blatantly wrong that it would completely embarrass your entire profession for them to even think of throwning you out of the Bar.
Well, if you read Shakespeare's quote in context, you would realize that the quote about killing lawyers came from an evil villain in one of his plays who wanted to take everyone's rights and be a despot. He wanted to kill all of the lawyers so that there would be no one left to advocate for justice and to stop his evil plans. So, actually, this was a pro-lawyer quote.
Ok, I will agree to police my own profession if you agree to police yours. Tell your coworkers to stop putting so much salt on my fries.
Thanks for your response. I may have the wording wrong, but I believe the Judge issued a summary judgement after the plaintiffs presented their case and prior to the defendants presenting theirs.
I am not inclined to bash any profession save politicians. I will say that in every profession a couple of bad examples will set the image for the great many. Frustrations of the American people toward Congress falls squarely in the perception that lawyers sit in those seats writing laws that are contrary to the Constitution. Yes, most of us know that they are not all attorneys but in a large number of cases, attorney's are responsible for the obfuscation of law.
How did the judicial branch get to be the most powerful? When will they declare themselves princes, dukes, and barons?
Yeah yeah I know.
I work at a law firm so I'm around lawyers all day. My personal feeling is that most of what lawyers do is make things so complicated, so difficult to navigate, that they perpetuate their own existence. There are a lot of good lawyers out there, but there are a lot that are a drain on society.
Also, some lawyers have a God complex and are complete bastards. But since they've made a fortune draining society, they feel they can say and do anything without consequence. These people need their ass kicked daily IMHO. I work with 5 such people, and I can find nothing they do to be beneficial to anyone but themselves.
You really must not be a very good lawyer if after just this short time you are resorting to personal attacks. You have people here that aren't even lawyers that can argue better than you can. I hope you're on the opposing side if I ever have to go to court. It will be an easy win. (see how that work the other way….)
Again – personal attacks????
The only people that interpret Shakespeare that way are lawyers. The quote was spoken by Dick the Butcher who was voicing the outrage of the common people against lawyers. Dick did not want "to take everyone's rights and be a despot." Dick was a follower of Jack Cade who was revolting against the king.
SCOTUS declared itself to be long ago . Its called Judicial Review.
You seem to be confused about those terms.
Our legal system has always been based on Case Law, including our Constitutional Law. It is all based on stare decisis, which we carried over from English Common Law. There is no other system to return to.
The alternative to Case Law is not Constitutional Law, which refers only to the law related to the Constitution, or Statutory Law, which refers only to the specific text of the written law, but rather the open system of Roman Law. Using that would allow judges to rule as they please, with no structure or consistency in rulings or even in procedures, empowering all the worst excesses of a Sotomayor or Kagan, defaulting to foreign courts and alleged sexual and cultural background for "inspiration", "insight", and "justification". Not only would the application of the law be inconsistent from court to court, but judges would be permitted to be inconsistent from case to case, solely on the strength of their own biases.
Capitalism? What many lawyers do is game the system, destroy wealth and the engines of wealth. In many cases this is no better than what a crime syndicate does, except that it is technically legal. There are big companies that bring frivolous lawsuits against individuals who do not have the money to fight. That is a lot like extortion and that is wrong. There are individuals who sue big companies because they feel that a product or service offered to them did them harm (i.e. let's all sue the drug companies because drug x has side effects!). That is wrong. You willingly took that drug for whatever reason. An individual is responsible for his/her own health and wellbeing, not your doctor, not the drug companies. If you decide to take the risk of introducing substance X into your body, THAT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. Furthermore, lawyers are supposed to be representatives of the court, they are not supposed to be out there figuring out what company to sue next in order to pay their mortgage. THAT is not the way the system was intended to work. Face facts, many trial laywers game the system, they destroy individuals and companies, they do far more harm than good, mostly because they are out there to enrich themselves and not represent their clients – clients being merely the vehicle, the excuse, the stooge by which many lawyers are able to gain wealth. There is no honor there.
Breitbart should show the VIDEOS involving GANGS of BLACK YOUTHS roaming the IOWA STATE FAIRGROUNDS yelling "BEAT WHITEY NIGHT" and then BEATING UP WHITE PEOPLE. Police won't even call it a hate crime. Apparently it's not a hate crime if the victims are white.
YOUTUBE "BEAT WHITEY NIGHT"! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qeMslmDBxY
Radical ACLU-type Leftist Lawyers, gangsters with law degrees, have infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government. These despotic, partisan hacks believe they are a law unto themselves, cynically living in the world of realpolitik where what matters is to prevail, regardless of their constituent’s best interests or their sworn duties to the Constitution and the Country.
(continued from above)
In their unbridled and unprincipled pursuit for power and control, they incrementally erode our Constitution, destroy the private free market system, and steal our wealth, freedoms and liberty with shameless arrogance:
“Pontification and condescension; elitism and arrogance; unprofessional name calling and labeling; besmirching, intimidation and insidious personal destruction; fabrication, lying and extortion; collusion and coercion; over-talk and double-talk; expediency, appeasement and placating; duplicity, deceit and deception.”
Then, at the end of the day, these fork-tongue degenerates meet at the Good-Old-Esquire’s watering hole to back-slap, glad-hand and congratulate each other on which one brought about the highest degree of corruption in the destruction of We the People’s Constitution, We the People’s magnificent Country and finally, We the People.
Buddy, anytime I hear the words, "…you seem to be confused…" fall out of your proverbial pie hole, I know you're smoking that crack pipe again. Do the world a favor and shove it up yer azz. You are not a lawyer. You're not a Cristian and you're no patriot. You're a F'ing troll and we all know it.
And you are a fool, opening his keyboard, and removing all doubt once again:
Case Law http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1...
n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes.
If you want to say stupid things I certainly cannot stop you, but you are just going to have to stop acting like a progressive and deal with being told when you are being particularly idiotic.
Do us all a favor. STFU, shave your fat ugly face and go get a boyfriend. Oh…and get a job!
Why can't we sue liberals just for being liberals? They are the scourge of this planet and are the root cause of all the problems we are currently experiencing. I think they owe us a ton of money for the damages.
Wow.
That's real "Cristian" of you.
But then you've already proven how you love to bear false witness, why should I expect anything better from you.
It was the trial lawyers that took on and beat the tobacco companies who LIED about their poisonous products!
I don't really care about the argument you two are having, but that comment was hilarious!!! I wish I could give you 10 thumbs up for it!
The poster boy for the christian right.
Why defend the "constitution" when you can make all that money on the free market ignoring it?
Gotta love it.
Good one. That's one heck of a rational thought you've got there.
It comes as no surprise to me that you would consider that an insult. While I do not claim the title, I thank you for the compliment none the less.
Why would an atheist such as yourself care what "kind" of Christian I am in the first place? I could not care less what you expect of me. Judging from your appearance I'd say you'd better get used to a lifetime of disappointments. Your surface ugliness is only exceeded by your inner ugliness. No wonder you hate God! LOL!
I am no atheist. You seem confused about what that term means as well.
And so it remains, you have no idea what Case Law means. I provided you the definition above, and no amount of pathetic ad hominems on your part are ever going to change that you simply do not know what you are talking about when you call for an end to Case Law and a return to Constitutional Law.
Of course you are not a lawyer, and apparently incapable of even the least effort at an internet search that any layman could perform in under a minute.
Anybody catch the article in USA TODAY yesterday about law school graduates and the lousy job market? School loan officers told prospective students… TO GET STUDENTS TO SIGN UP FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN SCHOOL LOANS… that 100% of graduates get jobs!
APPARENTLY NOT.
IN FACT APPARENTLY NOT ALL THAT MANY GET GOOD jobs. The rest are struggling just to pay off their school debt and eat.
POP QUIZ
WHAT DO LAWYERS DO WHEN THEY DON'T GET CUSHY JOBS?
SUE THEIR LAW SCHOOL!
POETIC JUSTICE…. BWAHAHAHA.
I caught various comments on the collapse of the lawyer job market some time ago from Instapundit links.
Things are so bad that law schools are having trouble placing students as unpaid summer interns.
Think about that – your job market is so bad you can't even give it away.
Bronx,
It would be "funny" if lawyers weren't the only effective way US Citizens can get a toe hold into our legal system for redress of grievances or hope to get any justice.
It's beginning to look an awful lot like betrayal of their oath when lawyers aren't willing to perform the one job they swore to execute. Their resounding silence in the face of so many legal outrages seems…….fishy, given our illustrious president is one.
Oh, it rates several dozen MegaNietzsches on the Schadenfreude Meter, that's for sure, and breaks the Irony Meter outright.
And yes, it is very irritating that the law is written to exclude layman from simple comprehension of both its content and its performance.
As for the system itself . . . the main alternative seems to be making all lawyers direct civil servants, and assigning them all randomly from a pool as both prosecutors and counsel. I'm sure a private market will continue to exist for advisors and the like for corporate matters, but the current focus of the profession on super payouts would be massively subverted.
Of course that also means sacrificing the free market for a government bureau.
Of course removing conduct review from the lawyers guild would do wonders for things as well, just like removing review of doctors from the doctors guild would do wonders for medicine.
Once again, Lurching4Superstition, you show what a totally ignorant ass you are.
This is not entirely related to your "Cristian" beliefs. However, while we're on the topic, all religions are immoral and evil, by definition. That includes "Cristianity," as well as the religions of AGW, communism, socialism (statism in general) and the cult of personality we call Obama-ism.
Repent! The End Is Near. (Yeah, right!)
Ohhhhhh yeh,
It's long been a standing JOKE this SELF POLICING crappola. Like any PEER is gonna go after another member of their profession knowing they could be NEXT in the barrel.
As for citizens and due process….we may need to address in future some system that puts law into language that ordinary citizens can understand. As it stands when when the law you object to is written in LATIN I'm not sure how the Constitutional guarantee of either due process or redress of grievances can be honored.
According to the New York Times, in a speech in North Carolina in 1988, Mr. Gore (communist) declared:
"Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco…I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."
How big a part did you have in the murder of millions of Americans, TobaccoBoy? Click on the link below to get an idea of your state's complicity:
http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/commodit/horticul/to...
I've come to recognize there are two parts to that:
For the Latin, it is in the form of what are presumed to be commonly understood loan words, such as
"Habeas Corpus" – which I choose because that specifically appears in the Constitution. The problem with that of course is that Latin is no longer part of the standard school course, private or public, so even someone who manages to finish grade school in the equivalent of the one-room schoolhouse and should know what it means is left scratching their head and watching legal dramas on TV to get a vague idea about it meaning something related to the government not locking you up forever without a trail.
That part is actually rather easy to fix.
The other part is the dense technical phrasing laws are written in. Part of that was to satisfy the most perverse requirements of random judicial interpretation, but now it is used to deliberately exclude any but the specifically trained, or generally adept at interpreting specialist jargon. (For the record, I'm the second.) Part of that is related to ultra-archaic rules of Latin rhetoric (writing style), which speakers of the "vulgate" pretty much completely abandoned in the 1950s. (If you do a lot of reading the changes in style practically scream at you from the page.)
As a result, you get this dense wall of text that defies easy comprehension, and is even difficult to interpret on a functional level. I discovered that when researching self-defense law. Try and look up the legal definition of a blunt, deadly weapon. Its just not there. Why? So if you crush someone's skull with a hammer they can charge you with using one, but if you carry one to work as a carpenter you aren't breaking the law.
And then of course there is the "accumulative" method of writing laws, where they don't actually repeal an old law and set forth a new one, but instead edit an older law section by section, line by line, or even word by word. As a result of that, a "single" law can be dependent on dozens of specific bills passed in Congress, and even the lawyers need consolidated codes to "know what's in the bill".
Good God.
Can we just have a DO OVER???
Seems to me that most of this is the result of idiots twisting plain english to their purpose causing lawmakers to try to imagine every conceivable challenge in advance, and put in wording to specifically counter those arguments…..even though they don't usually happen.
Add to that the fact that no matter how simple the english it can never cover all possible unintended consequences of law.
No wonder gov't is able to feel safe from the electorate! Every time ordinary folks scratch the surface there is a boil the size of a small planet that needs to be lanced and drained and the sheer enormity of the task is just too daunting.
Shrewd, no?
Can we have a do over?
Well, actually, yes, we can – its called a constitutional convention.
Damned clever those Founders, eh what?
And . . . basically, yes – it very much is a combination of idiots, and hooligans, twisting plain English, combined with that simple fact.
Common Sense and Common Law are supposed to stand in for the rest, but the former is a rara avis these days (gratuitous Latin intended), while the latter is rejected by "wise Latinas" and other Supreme Idiots who like to cite non-Amernican or English legislative and judicial proceedings for weight of custom and precedent. (You know, in direct contravention of the explicit language of the Constitution.)
And yes, that is shrewd.
Of course then the electorate gets "uppity", and starts directing Constitutional amendments to effect change in such shenanigans.
"Congress shall make no law that amends an existing law, but shall rather write each law complete in itself."
Likewise the increasingly popular requirement in several states that each law address only one topic to limit gratuitous pork.
Lawyers are one of the biggest enemies this country has.
Trust me, the last thing trial lawyers would want is government run healthcare. The government has tort immunity. Medical malpractice suits would not exist if the government ran every aspect of the healthcare system.
My work is worth whatever someone will pay me. That is Capitalism. So, yes, if I make 10 times what a teacher makes then my work is worth more than what a teacher's is worth. Besides, the idea that lawyers are all wealthy is another myth. The starting salary for lawyers where I live is around $40,000 a year. Pretty modest for a profession that requires at least 7 years of higher education.
What's with the class envy anyway? I thought that was a left-wing thing. If someone doesn't like what a lawyer charges, then they should go to another lawyer.
I think you were thinking of what is called a "directed verdict." The Plaintiff calls his witnesses and presents his case first. The Defendant usually makes a motion for a directed verdict at that time. This just means that the Defendant is arguing that the Plaintiff hasn't proven his case and there is no need for the Defendant to present his case. I have never seen a judge grant a directed verdict but it is just a procedural thing Defendants have to do. If you don't, you can't appeal the verdict based on lack of evidence.
You must be logged in to post a comment.