“Trial Lawyer” isn’t really fairly limited to plaintiffs/criminal defense/public interest guys. For every one of us, there’s at least one…and in my experience usually two or three…insurance defense/government guys. They also try cases, just as we do. They just happen to represent the Dark Side of the Force. The skillset is pretty much the same. I happen to be a conservative/libertarian that does public interest work. Sorta like being a semi-druidic atheist. A walking contradiction, if you will.
Fair enough – I was trying to elide a longer discussion because I wanted to go to lunch. The group’s financial fortunes are certainly a part of the discussion, especially because tort reform as it’s often bruited about wouldn’t merely lower their ability to make a living, it would decimate it. It would also ensure that many innocent members of the public suffered horrible, unfair injuries with no hope of recompense from the actors that caused them through carelessness and unbridled profit-seeking; like me, I agree that most trial lawyers also believe passionately that this is bad for society.
Certainly there are many trial lawyers who do not fit the description, but the phrase “trail lawyers,” as used in (typically airheaded) political discourse, means this group of people.
–Cliffy
Nooo…“trail lawyers” would be those that argue over who has first dibs on a preferred campsite. :D:p
I tend to find these sorts of claims by the right or the left usually inaccurate and usually self-serving. I think it is really impossible to come up with an accurate numbers since the vast majority of people are moderates in my opinion, and shift to one side or the other as the political climate changes.
Here is an non-partison cite that implies the above is incorrect, but again I think this needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well as there is too much middle ground that shifts and this study was from 2004, and let’s face it there was a fair amount of shifting in the middle this last election.
Probably the same place the idea that the mainstream media is generally liberal comes from. I.e., Hell.
No, but trial lawyers, i.e., the personal-injury plaintiffs’ bar, do, which is why the “tort reform” movement exists, with lavish backing from the Republican Party, conservative-movement foundations, the corporations and especially the insurance industry. See Blocking the Courthouse Door, by Stephanie Mencimer.
Here’s another example (2008 House exit polls) that shows pretty much the same thing, using “Republican” as a proxy for “Conservative” and “Democrat” as a proxy for “Liberal” (see the “Vote by Education” section). Granted that these don’t exactly align, but they’re pretty strongly correlated.
That source divided people up into too many categories to be meaningful, IMHO.
Bolding added. Criminal defense attorneys actually benefit (financially) from drugs being illegal. Despite that, they generally favor decriminalization because of the high social costs of prohibition.
In the UK its opposite, Barristers (the equivalent of trial lawyers) are almost always conservative. Solicitors are liberal.
I still suspect that people at higher education levels tend to be more liberal, but you have to separate the effect of income levels from education levels to show this. That is, of course if you just look at the raw statistics of the differences between people with bachelor’s degrees and those with just high school degrees, you will find that the college-educated ones are more conservative, but that’s because they make much more money, and that’s what makes the difference. If you looked at groups of people who make the same amount of money, the more educated ones are more liberal than the less educated ones, I suspect. However, I don’t have the statistics on this. Does anyone have statistics on the effect of education on being liberal/conservative when you eliminate the effect of greater income?
all I can say is that if lawyers tend liberal, Rand Rover is one hell of an outlier. 
Just a random thought.
Lawyers want to solve one persons problems by having another one pay for it. In addition, they want to get paid for doing so.
I’d say offhand IMO that there is fair bit of overlap between how your stereo typical lawyers think and operate and how your stereo typical liberal thinks and operates.
Nope. What you suggest applies to only a subset of law practice–torts, and maybe some contracts cases. Other areas of practice, like Criminal defense, Domestics, Corporate, Transactional, Tax, Probate and Estate Planning don’t work that way at all.
Oh, I don’t know – the sterotypical defense lawyer also says “I know your problem was our fault, but we don’t want to pay for it. We don’t give a shit whether anybody pays for it. You can fuck off and die for all we care.” And that seems to me how your stereotypical conservative thinks and operates.
–Cliffy
The plaintiff’s trial bar tend to be very “libera” insofar as they give money to the Democratic party who traditionally block legislation designed to cap damages or otherwise limit claims.
The ABA also tends to be fairly liberal but then it’s populated by more activist types. Overall, my experience is that you get the full range of the political spectrum with attorneys. Perhaps corporate lawyers being a little more conservative.
For every case in which there is one party suing another party to get money from them, there is a lawyer or several lawyers on both sides. Usually it’s the poorer party suing a richer party (since otherwise it’s pointless). Usually the richer party will have more lawyers on its side. This means that usually there are more lawyers trying to stop someone from trying to get money from other people for whatever reason. Thus there are more lawyers working to let richer people keep money than there are ones trying to get money from poorer people from richer people.
What prompts that question in this thread?
First of all the OP presents no evidence that most lawyers are liberals, and none of the responses cite either ethnicity or religion in response.
Methinks…
I wrote:
> . . . to get money from poorer people from richer people . . .
I meant:
> . . . to get money for poorer people from richer people . . .
Slight hijack: I started a thread a long time ago, which the Search function fails to locate, asking if people tended to become more conservative or more liberal as they grew older. Although I still consider myself a moderate, I’ve definitely become more conservative as I’ve aged. I have degrees from multiple universities, which I mention only because of the education aspect that was brought up.
I’ve known a wide variety of people in many different occupations, and my personal experience is that people do grow more conservative as they grow older, although becoming more conservative may not necessarily mean the same thing as being conservative. (Other people have told me they’ve had the opposite personal experience.) I think income level may play a large part of it; once you’ve accumulated a stash of your own, you may find yourself suddenly backing conservative measures that will protect it.
Lawyers are in constant odds with the system. They see how it has been showing preference to the powerful. They see how much better you fare in the legal system when you have money. The deeper you get, the more ugly you see. Lawyers get a constant reminder of the inequities of the system.
I don’t see how this factors into the equation.
Regardless of who wins the lawsuit, the lawyers on both sides get paid. So it’s in the interest of lawyers - regardless of what side they’re on - to have as many lawsuits as possible.