I did not say that all lawyers are wealthy. And, you have no reason to conclude that I am making my judgements about lawyers on the basis of one article and a quote.

Your charge that I am a minion of the wingnuts seems to be an example of Ad Hominem Abusive, but you have me stumped. I defer to the experts. Anyway, thanks for the laugh. Ann Coulter! Hey, I voted for McGovern. (You remember him, don?t you?)

Here is my installment for today:

“…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” Thomas Jefferson

?The legal profession may do well to rethink the reasons for its existence. The private antitrust airline settlement tells you something is amiss. Because I could not do justice in recounting the case that gave the public certain ten to twenty-five dollar discount coupons while the lawyers walked off with $16 million in fees?? Judge Stanley (?Where were the lawyers??) Sporkin

Coming next, if I can fit it all in: The lawyers? oath, the Professional Code of Conduct, and Is a Lawyer an Officer of the Court?

Adam, this might help you understand the case. At law, there is a doctrine known as “foreseeability”. It traces back to old english common law.

The idea behind “forseeability” is this: if you know that something you are doing is likely to harm other people, and you keep doing it, then you should be responsible for your actions. It’s really a doctrine of personal responsibility.

The defendant can and always does assert defenses, so it’s not as if defendants are thrown to the wolves in court. What’s more, various procedures at the initiation of a suit are designed to weed out frivolous cases. The defendant can also make what’s called an offer of judgement, for example, which means that the plaintiff is responsible for costs if he/she/it does not prevail in excess of the offered amount. But, I digress.

Here, the defense might have been something along the lines of, “she’s at fault because she must have known it would be hot and yet she carelessly spilled it”. Then you get into arguments along the lines of, “yes, but it isn’t reasonable for her to anticipate that coffee would be 180 degrees” and “McDonalds knows that its customers are likely to spill coffee on themselves — it happens all the time” (this goes to the question of foreseeability again), etc. etc. You get the drift.

It’s up to the lawyers to present evidence on behalf of their respective clients, and up to the juries to reach conclusions. Juries apportion the percentage of fault to both parties based on the allegations and supporting evidence. Unless the skill level of the attorneys is really out of whack, juries usually make fair decisions. The role of the judge is to ensure that both sides play fair, i.e. present their respective cases in accordance with a pre-established set of rules called the evidence code.

Does this explanation help you understand the case a little better?

Yes, there are frivolous suits, but I would not say they are the norm. Unfortunately, the business practices of some insurance companies encourage frivolous litigation. Insurers need financial predictability, so they tend to settle cases in order to get them off the books. This encourages some of the bottom feeder-types to file lots of small but questionable cases in the hope of extracting settlements. Generally, however, the system works the way it is supposed to. Most cases are legit, but this is not to say that the plaintiff is always right: there are always two sides to a story, and reasonable disagreement as to whether the defendant should be held responsible. That’s why we have a code of civil procedure, judges, and juries.

Attorney for 12 years on the defense side; now work on the front end of the law ;)

The law was cleaner…

CeceK.

as to the debate that has eaten most of this thread: my wife is a legal assistant at a law firm that defends corporations from lawsuits. the kind where someone falls in a parking lot and goes after k-mart. that kind of thing. its silly, mostly. and her firm charges through the nose. and the corporations dont care cuz their insurance is covering it. and you know what? most cases settle way before trial. it’s a big waste. i have yet to see one case of knowing neglegence. you show me the case where the corporation knowingly put someone in harms way (and that includes serving coffe 100 degrees too hot so it sits longer and they save a few pennies) then the prosecuting trial lawyer instantly becomes an american hero, and no settlement is too high, if for no other reason than to show corporations they have to make money without hurting the public interest.

I’m not touching this one. If you think that all lawyers are wealthy, then I really do pity you. Also, if you think that all lawyers are greedy crooks because of a single article, and a like-minded quote then I am not going to dignify this with further response.

I have no response to the Supreme Court, I am sickened to death by the decisions of the Rhenquist Court from Bush v. Gore to Padilla and Cheney. The decisions are without merit and lack a fundamental understanding of the law or precedent. But they can only be impeached not prosecuted, and I cannot recall any time in history when any Justice on the Court was impeached. They are lifetime appointments and in case you did not know, they cannot be prosecuted! Here is some important text for you, from Article I Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Impeaching the Chief Justice for High Crimes and Misdemeanors would be difficult, but if you want to see it done, then I suggest you go to the following link.

http://www.petitiononline.com/insure/petition.html

Nobody is above the law, what happened in Bush v. Gore was wrong, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires, but it was not criminal. Hence the US Justice Department cannot go after the Supreme Court. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you write your Congressman….who is probably a lawyer and not above the law either.

FYI Bill Clinton was a lawyer, he was impeached for obstruction of justice, tried in the Senate, but did not get convicted. If he ad, he would have been removed from office. He was not, but upon returning to civilian life, he was disbarred – to my recollection.

In addition, I suggest you research the ABA Model Rules before you talk about 40% contingent fees (or read my previous post more carefully) or here’s a link that seems about your speed: http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/scourt4.html

And yes, the practice of law, like the practice of medicine or any other profession is a business, that was never my point, but please, keep writing as if you know what you are talking about. Or better yet, go to law school.

My original point still stands though, John Edwards is a good man, but your reply here just demonstrates how the Republican Slime Machine (go to Ann Coulter’s website) is already chugging along.

From Bonsignore, John J., et. al., “Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974):

“Lawyers had to overcome the popular concept of law practice as business in order to justify the status of professional self-regulation. Professional identification came through the codification of professional standards of ethics and the development of the concept that lawyers were officers of the court?charged with the social mandate to provide justice for society.?

This effort by the lawyers to become immune from the law began around 1870. I have only begun to make the case here. If there is still any interest in the subject, I will continue in later posts. To conclude this one, I quote from the June 2004 Atlantic article, “Greed on Trial”:

“Look, I’ve known him for forty years, and I think he’s a terrific judge, but the law is an industry now, not a ‘learned profession.’”

It has always been an industry, but if we forced the lawyers to live by that fact, they wouldn’t be in a position to rake off 40% for a contingency fee, or to commit their numerous other outrages against society.

(and mbf, there is an excess of people who are willing to study for a degree in law, so the hell can’t be all that bad, especially when they know that the rewards will be so extravagant.)

And to Garthpool who claims that lawyers are out of control…..I really resent that!!!! There are some bad apples in every profession, but until you go through the personal hell of law school, take it easy. Lawyers are officers of the court when they appear before a judge, but only the JUDGES are members of the Judicial Branch of Government. When an attorney is elected into public office, she must immediately disassociate herself from he practice of law, having no client contact or any conflict of interest whatsoever with the duties of the public office she now holds. There is no seperation of powers issue here. As for the rules that lawyers enact (in addition to laws), they are standards and guidelines for ethical conduct. If a lawyer violates those rules, they can be sanctioned, fined, disbarred or even face criminal charges.

Our Republic is not doomed due to lawyers, it was founded on the principles of law from the likes of John Locke and our Founding Fathers, who I might remind you were mainly lawyers. The practice of law is an honorable profession, and laws are the basis of a civilized society. That is why we have a Constitution and laws to protect our rights and lifestyle. Legislation is only a stranglehold when those who become corrupted by power abuse it (Patriot Act). In my opinion, every elected official at the Federal level should be an attorney, these Neo-con businessmen that we have now (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) do not have law degrees, and Ashcroft must have gotten his out of a Cracker Jack box because he’s about as clueless when it comes to the law as the Man in the Moon.

Not all lawyers are greedy, and I pity you if that is what you think.