[hijack]
ACK! You GOTS to be kidding, yes? Certainly, Ms. Clark and Mr. Darden made some incredibly stupid decisions, but even with that, it is generally agreed by virtually every criminal attorney I have ever heard speak on the subject that this should have been a slam-dunk. There was more evidence, solid, concrete, no-question-about-it evidence against oj than is usually found against any 10 other convicted murderers combined! If he had not been “OJ Simpson” ,and Gil Garcetti hadn’t been such aPC idiot and left the trial where it belonged, in Santa Monica, that man would be where he belongs today: rotting in jail.
[/hijack]
No, I’m not. The lawyers for O.J. were good enough and had enough resources to find doubt where less able and more harried defense attorneys wouldn’t have, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was doubt to be found. To me, the two key issues were Furman’s testimony and the glove. The jury could reasonably find that Furman wasn’t credible. As for the glove, Darden tried a bone-headed grandstanding play, but the fact remains that the prosecutors argued that “this is the glove worn by the murderer. Oh, it doesn’t fit O.J.? Um, well, it’s still his, and he wore it.” The explanations for it not fitting were reasonable (and very likely correct), but the fact remains that a jury would be justified in finding reasonable doubt in the fact that the alleged murderer couldn’t wear the murderers glove.
[quote]
Is our legal system out of control right now? Yeah. But there’s a simple solution - regular guys like you, WB, have to just stop suing each other. Until you guys learn self-control, Jodi and I will keep making the big bucks.
Sue, your wisdom never seeks to amaze me. You are indeed correct except esprix made a very good point also.
But you know me I just can’t let things be. Do you think the general public would stop suing(or at least slow some) if lawyers stopped advertising?
I am going to use a drug analogy if you don’t mind. Because greed is a drug in a way. How can you blame the heroin addicts for continue to be users if you kept putting billboards showing a spoon and a needle with a caption saying “Black Tar Heroin, Will Take You to The Moon.” See what I mean. ::wb ducks and hides and waits for the backlash.::
This is totally off topic, but you should know that advertising, while increasing brand / product / service awareness, does not often directly affect consumer demand. Your point fails because the user or consumer of any product or service must make a conscious decision that he needs it. SuaSponte’s statements still stand, regardless of your ill-informed attempts to discredit them.
WB, in addition to tymp’s response, you should know that attorney advertising is pretty new – until the 80’s, attorneys were forbidden by our ethical rules to advertise. The explosion of the American litigious society started before then.
Even today, the large majority of law firms don’t advertise, and many of us look down on those who do.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Advertising can create demand. This is age ole debate to btw(I use to argue this point with advertising agencies all the time). Anyway I am sure people had a need for a pet rock all along. That was a sure advertising directed event.
[quote]
Your point fails because the user or consumer of any product or service must make a conscious decision that he needs it.
[quote]
And even if you don’t like my pet rock example greed of money is need to people.
Sua,
First, sorry about the name thing it was just a typing mistake. Second do you have facts showing that litigation was as wide spread before lawyers started advertising. I would not have thought that.
Oh no! Jodi, you’ve just damaged my mental picture of you cruising along the Mediterranean coast in your favorite Porsche, posting to the SDMB using your palm top with satellite link while being tailed respectfully by your band of high priced bodyguards. Are you saying that legal professionals don’t always live like royalty? Do you mean that some lawyers do their difficult, often-thankless jobs because they like it and not because they are all the soulless tools of the devil? This changes everything!
Tymp, Jodi was obviously lying, 'cause that’s what we lawyers do. She created this ridiculous story about being undercompensated just to throw WB off and to make it seem like lawyers aren’t as evil as we are.
Uh, WB, don’t read this ;).
I’ll try to track one down, but very likely I won’t be able to provide a link, as the studies of litigation in America I’ve read have been in law review articles, which are online in subscription services only, TMK. One example I can give you now is that “toxic tort” litigation (e.g. asbestos, DES, and Superfund-related litigation) all exploded in the 60’s and 70’s, before lawyer advertising was legal.
BTW, I think you have a pretty warped view of lawyer advertising. As I noted before, the vast majority of lawyers and law firms don’t advertise at all, and the fact that they don’t advertise hasn’t stopped clients from seeking us out, looking to sue somebody.
Wildest Bill, you are right! You are a genius! Why didn’t I see it before?
Al Gore and George W. Bush were TRICKED! We could have ended this whole election mess weeks ago, if only they hadn’t been sucked in by lawyer commercials on late-night TV.
“If you have been injured on the job or in an auto accident…if your child has been injured due to medical malpractice…or if the voters didn’t pick you by a wide enough margin, please call the offices of DeJure & DeFacto LLP.”
I join the other posters in this thread in asking how you would solve this, if not through the legal system. Your suggestion of single combat, while entertaining in a Thunderdome sort of way, is slightly…inconsistent…with the U.S. constitution.
The only difference between lawyers and non-lawyers is three years of law school and passing the Bar exam.
Complaining about lawyers being involved with legal issues is almost as intelligent about having to deal with an M.D. when you have to have surgery.
WB, we all know you’re anti-lawyer due to you’re having repeatedly been a losing defendant. It is a real pity you didn’t learn from your mistakes, but your constant complaining about attorneys is getting boring.
You probably don’t advertise because you are one of the more reputable firms. Now how much of your work does your firm take on referal from another attorney that advertises?
See I have met attorneys(see I really find law and the legal proffession facinating)who said they sue like hell for quick settlements but they are scared to death of going to court. So what they do (this is what they told me) is they advertise like crazy to get clients and then refer them to real attorneys I guess and then they get 50%(which I thought was alot)of what the real attorneys get? Sounded pretty pretty lucrative to me and easy too if you got the law degree and the start up capital for an office and a huge budget for advertising.
I still can’t believe I am hijacking my own post but oh well if I can’t do it who can?
Well, I’m a paralegal at a law firm (Don’t make big bucks either…) and we don’t advertise. Most of our clients come from referrals from other firms, or recommendations from existing clients. Most of the other firms we deal with don’t advertise either. Oh, and Bill, we don’t sue. It doesn’t happen often, at least. If one of our attorneys is in court, it’s usually as an expert witness. And to answer your question, no it doesn’t bother me that “lawyers are picking the president”, because they’re not. They’re interpreting current law (which is what lawyers tend to do) to see who won the election. Not that your battledome suggestion should be rejected out of hand, though…
Some states (New Mexico for one, IIRC) do allow close or tied elections to be settled by direct competition between candidates. In such matters, what counts is the state constitution, not the US constitution.
Fists, blades, pistols, cards, coin toss, tequila shots, nine ball, darts . . . Any of these things would seem to allow a more decisive and amusing victory one way or another than what we are currently wading through. However, I do still prefer the peaceful, sensible system we have in place and in action.
We take no work at all on referral from other attorneys who advertise. As I noted before, the only firms I’ve ever seen advertise are medmal and PI firms, and we don’t do that kind of work.
Here’s a challenge for yas. Go to your local library and pull out the Martindale-Hubbell directory of law firms for your state. Look up your city and count the number of firms. Now compare that to the number of advertisements you see on TV for attorneys. You’ll note the percentage of law firms who advertise is vanishingly small.
I’m in New York City, and I can think of 5 or 6 TV ads for lawyers that run on a semi-regular basis. Some of them are lawyer referral services that serve maybe 10 law firms. I’d say there are maybe 25 law firms in the New York City area that advertise. There are easily 500 firms in New York, probably closer to 1,000. 5% of law firms advertising (at most) does not mean that lawyer advertising is causing litigation. It really means that the firms who advertise can’t get clients otherwise.
Well, I do that too, but only because I’m so darned independently wealthy. The “H” in “jodih” stands for “Huffington.” Arianna and I are thisclose.
Out here, that number would be “none.” Why? Because our Bar (you know, we scum-suckers collectively) decided that attorneys would forgo their right to advertise on television or radio rather than open themselves up to more criticism of “anbulance chasing.” The most you’ll see here in the way of advertising is an ad in the yellow pages. Although some “have you been injured in an accident?” firm purchased THE WHOLE BACK COVER of the phone book – if you can imagine being so intrusive. :rolleyes:
