Perhaps but I think when they point to 90% of people having to represent themselves in family court that illustrates clearly that the vast majority of people simply cannot afford legal representation.
You can nitpick that it it not as bad as the article may make it seem but that is a far cry from saying the point in general is completely wrong.
Idiots like the ones in the Nebraska Legilature who think that limiting PI damages to $3 million actually saves money are shortsighted and ignorant
of current economic conditions.
$3million only yields $75,000 a year @ todays paltry 2.5% interest rate and many severely injured people need much more than that to pay for ongoing care.
Once the original $3mil principal is eaten up, the State’s taxpayers, who didn’t injure the person to begin with, pay for care and the real culprit is off the hook.
There are similarities obviously. And companies are increasingly using technology to make things easier and cheaper. But each case is different. It’s like asking why each murder case takes so long to investigate.
Yeah; moronic, distorted facts like taking the average wage of a select group of the highest-paid lawyers and pretending it’s representative. Pointing this out is not “nitpicking”, it’s basic fucking common sense. Of course, seeing as you just want to reinforce your own prejudices, I can see how this particular “fact” appeals.
Also, I’m a computer scientist, not a lawyer. Perhaps if you werent so eager to justify your biases, you wouldn’t automatically assume anyone with the temerity to disagree with you has a vested interest. Anyway, I presume that my despicable refusal to slander an entire profession based on daft misconceptions gleaned from TV shows similarly condemns all of my kind. Maybe if I continue on this downward trend, I’ll end up as scummy as my barrister friend Dave, who has volunteered his time representing death row inmates in Texas, performs pro bono work across London and is even nice to puppies, the bastard. I should be giving more time to facts, and ignoring things in front of my eyes.
Hey, Whack-a-mole. Just taking some time off from being a first year attorney, perusing the SDMB, and stumbled upon this thread.
As someone who has represented asylum applicants pro bono, was active in community groups against the death penalty, volunteered at local charter schools, and worked in campaigns to increase the minimum wage . . . as well as represented criminal defendants whose innocence was not so clear-cut, drafted contracts on behalf of corporations to protect their shareholders from unnecessary risk, and worked with employment-side lobbying groups to study and reform workplace laws, I just wanted to say:
Fuck off. Reading your drivel is like opening up a John Bircher tract that was rejected because its was too conspiratorial. Please go home and let the grown-ups talk this one out.
The Supreme Court of the United States completed upended a fundamental doctrine of patent law recently by reviewing and reversing an unpublished opinion (KSR v. Teleflex).
I think you’re engaging in a little post hoc, ergo propter hoc here - most unpublished opinions are not suitable for a discretionary appeal for the same reasons that they are unpublished, but not because they are unpublished.
I was referring to the California Supreme Court, although one exception with the US Supreme Court highlights the problem, it doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. A practice of a judicial body is not a law of nature. While you have correctly described that some may be unsuitable for discretionary reasons and unpublished for the same reasons, you are committing the fallacy of composition, that what is true of the part must also be true of the whole: just because one is not suitable for discretionary review does not mean that they all aren’t.
In California they are all ignored. I do not know of a single unpublished case being granted cert before the Cal Supreme Court in the past two decades.
Meh, this thread hasn’t convinced me that lawyers, in general, should not be “despised” any less than they currently are by society.
The OP just sounds to me like a butthurt lawyer whining that people don’t view him as some noble bastion of truth, justice, and freedom. Or some such. Whatever dude, I’ve personally known more scumbag lawyers than honorable ones, so whine all you want - lawyers are going to continue to be despised in general based primarily on negative personal experiences, no matter what good things lawyers have also achieved.
Sucks for the honorable ones, sure, but them’s the breaks.
Two instances may make a case for you in the Pit, but not in the real world, the quoted articles prove the point that they cases are not heard. So out of the past 10 years and 100,000 cases, I will go statistical: two out of 100,000 couldn’t be better proof of my point (except by two). So the Cal Supremes admit that the Court of Appeal abuses non-publication less than every two out of 100,000 cases. Without conducting any scientific studies. Or are you going to go for a string of citations? I’ll tell you what.
Ok, here’s the thing. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just pointing out that you are a moron, fitting in the taxonomy I provided. Your major mistake is in assuming that I, someone who is not a fuckwit, care that you believe me or not. I’m probably never going to convince some redneck Nascar-loving homo-hater that being gay is a valid life choice, but that won’t stop me from pointing out they they have a terminal case of (small) 2 minute penis.
Likewise, my job is not to convince you of the truth so we can have rainbows shoot out our eyeball as we embrace and demonstrate at the end of the movie that we can overcome our differences and grow to love one another (in a manly way) as “Ebony and Ivory” plays in the background to a montage of us having a picnic and hugging kittens and puppies and slow dancing to “Lady in Red”.
Nope, you and your idiot friends and the other idiots that think the same thing are just that: idiots. Don’t flatter yourself that I actually give a shit what you think, just like I don’t tiptoe around my dislike of brother-sister incest when I drive though parts of Tennessee. It’s pretty much a given that a substantial portion of humanity is just going to be fucking ignorant, and I’m fine with that, but once in a while I just need to point out how ignorant you are. That doesn’t mean I’m going to get bogged down in some point-by-point “debate” with a bunch of mental deficients to prove my point. I, being the judge and jury (pun intended) have already found you and your kind guilty on all counts and thus feel that you and your inanity are acceptable targets for my wrath.
So, if you are frantically typing a line-by-line quotefest post or seventeen to show me what an asshole I am and how wrong I am, feel free, but be aware that I have pretty much written you off as a valuable contributor to society, and thus you have been reduced to nothing more than a mental punching bag for me to throw my asshole posts at. But don’t flatter yourself that I actually care.
You’re the one always quoting people and acting the fuckwit. Really, how lame is it to hate complete strangers who hate lawyers? Does the irony not seep in far enough to realize that you have now equated people who disagree with you with homophobes? Just once in a while, shouldn’t you look in the mirror and have a good belly laugh at how ugly a troll you are?
I pulled my “distorted” facts from a CNN/Fortune magazine article. You are rebutting that with…what? Opinions pulled out of your ass? Good job on that.
Don’t like the cite then you are free to find your own numbers showing the quote is bullshit. So far you’ve got nothing as your mini-rant here clearly displays. It is your own prejudices being challenged and in time honored fashion you resort to ad hominem attacks to distract from your utterly failed notions because you got nothing otherwise.
TV shows? I have provided cites galore to back up my reasoning. You have provided nothing to support yours.
I am not bashing your friend Dave either. Sounds like a swell guy. I am bashing his profession however and with good reason. There are glaring and horrendous holes in the justice system that I have pointed out at length up thread. You have addressed none of it directly. You cannot hand wave them away because Dave is a nice guy.
If you actually paid attention to facts it’d be a good start.