Bricker, I don’t know whether they are permitted, but I’ve seen 50% contracts out of Oklahoma.
Padeye, kindly read the post to which I was responding. My argument was directly responsive to that argument.
If you wish to make a different argument, please do so. But don’t call my argument ‘faulty’ simply because it does not respond to someone else’s point. :rolleyes:
Hey, I said I’m surrounded by money - I never said I had any of it! 
My location refers to the fact that I work in Palm Beach, the richest community in the world. Note that I don’t live there, though. 
'Course, attorneys don’t sue anybody, either. Their clients do.
Sua
Certainly, I’ve read enough news stories about F.U’d lawsuits and verdicts that turn my mind to mush. But the mere fact that such stories are “news” (and the stats) demonstrates that such cases are extremely rare.
That doesn’t mean that the legal system is majorly screwed up in this country - it is. But blaming the lawyers for that has always struck me as being as logical as blaming the returning soldiers for Vietnam.
Sua
This lawyer agrees with shelbo’s observation. The majority of lawyers toil away in anonymity. But a bad one can make a pretty big impact. A common joke says why would anyone expect more from politicians? They are the adult versions of the WORST of the type of kid who ran for class president.
When you hear about some outrageous lawsuit, a professional breach of trust, or a humongous fee, it is easy to lose sight of the person who drafted your will, handled your real estate transaction, or some such more pedestrian task.
I also attribute some of the antipathy for the circumstances under which many people find themselves in need of a lawyer. I suspect that many people envision needing a lawyer when things aren’t exactly going as well as they might. Either they got sued by someone else, or they feel they got injured in some way. Or they are writing a will, aware of their mortality for the first time. Or dealing with an estate of a loved one - from which the gov’t is taking a healthy bite. Under times of stress, it is not unexpected that they might transfer some of their frustration and anger to the members of the occupation they encounter. "Who are these ghouls, PROFITING from my misfortune?!"
I remember hearing something similar about police. The majority of times someone meets a cop they are pissed off. Say they were just a victim of a crime. Or the cop is writing them a ticket.
And finally, a whole bunch of lawyer jokes are just damn funny! 
Didja hear the one about …
Yes, it absolutely does. You’ll note when I posted earlier I said “perception.” The public’s perception is colored by high profile ambulance and deep pocket chasers. Ethical lawyers who work for the public good seem to be far less visible. FTR I think contingency fees can be completely appropriate and makes it possible for some folks to get restitution they would not otherwise be able to afford.
But, (and again, I’m honestly curious) isn’t it the ‘ambulance chasing’ lawyers who say “hey, you know, you could sue them.”?
If they’re so inclined, they’d be just as likely to sue you for not getting involved, and with just as high a probability of success: 0%.
Speaking as somebody trying my best to get somebody out of a really, really bad wing of “jail,” I could not disagree with you more. First, your statement assumes that the lawyer’s client is, in fact, a “criminal,” i.e., that the person actually committed the crime without any legal justification for doing so. Surely, I hope, you would concede that the defendant is entitled to competent legal representation in proceedings to determine whether that is in fact the case? Lord knows, if we could just magically separate the guilty from the innocent, we’d have no need of criminal law attorneys.
Second, the “technicalities” you speak of are there to protect everybody, not just the defendant, from abuse at the hands of the state. The police cannot search through your home and your possessions without a properly obtained search warrant supported by probable cause to believe that the item sought is relevant to a criminal investigation and actually in the location to be searched. When they do so anyway, that evidence (generally) cannot be used against you. Now, we could, I suppose have a system that nominally required a search warrant, but allowed the police and prosecutors to use any evidence against you anyway. But then, what’s to stop them from just breaking down your door whenever they feel like it and checking out your stuff? Such “technicalities” are there to protect all of us, with the cost that occasionally–and it really is very uncommon–a guilty person goes free because the state acted outside its authority.
Minty, thanks for your explanation. I have a few more questions. My second example was actually TRIGGERED BY an episode of the Practice (I know, it’s t.v.), but there was man who was, literally, a nun murderer, and the bodies were chopped up in the closet. The warrant the police had was NOT for his closet, so when they accidentally opened it and found the bodies, that ‘evidence’ was thrown out on a technicality…even though the defense attorney KNEW the bodies were in there and the murder SAID he put them there.
Also, you’ll note that I said everyone is definitely entitled to a fair trial, but let’s say you’re representing someone and he says “ok, look. I chopped up six prostitutes, you’ve got to get me out of this”, can’t you see how that strikes some of us as icky?
Absolutely they exist, and absolutely those lawyers violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility and can face sanctions. Those sanctions are too rarely applied, but that’s another issue.
What you are saying is, “aren’t there corrupt lawyers?” Yes, to our shame.
But should corrupt lawyers be considered representative of the profession? No more than corrupt cops, judges, doctors, etc.
Sua
Well, first, The Practice plays very fast and loose with the law.
But anyway, I agree that the exclusionary rule is a faulty remedy for an illegal search and seizure.
When the police search and seize in violation of the the 4th Amendment, they have violated your constitutional rights. The appropriate remedy is civil damages in accordance with the harm to you that violation causes. If you are convicted because of that illegally-seized evidence, your damages go waaay up.
The deterrent to illegal searches remains (and may indeed by stronger), but legitimate evidence of guilt or innocence may be presented in court.
Sua
Aw, Sua, you blew it re the remedy for violating the exclusionary rule. If person X in your civil damages scheme gets $$$, the money comes from the taxpayers, correct? There’s less incentive for the police to get it right, and it just harms society instead.
The price that we pay for the system we have is that sometimes people who should go to jail do not because of the error of the police. However, as a former criminal defense attorney, I can guarantee you that generally those who are freed on a violation on their constitutional rights (this technicality of which people speaK) almost uniformly remedy this situation when the commit their next crime.
blanx
(who is thankful he now represents insurance companies. I’m certain I’m going to a lower circle of hell for my work now.)
I understand Sua that all lawyers are not corrupt, but the question of the OP was why do people hate lawyers, and I’d suspect the reason is…because of the corruption.
Cripes…we rarely praise the work of the lawyer in Miracle on 34th Street. Sweet lord, he SAVED CHRISTMAS!
The firm I work for has this one client who always complains about how much we charge and how much cheaper it is to do the stuff himself, because it’s all so easy anyway, so every time there’s something to do, like forms to submit with the government, he does it himself. Then, a few weeks later, he calls us, because the government has rejected his application or sent back his form because he’s made some mistake we would have caught, and so we have to fix the problem for him, which takes longer and costs more than if we had just done the work for him in the first place.
I dislike that they always call themselves ‘attorneys’ and never ‘lawyers.’ Bleh. Sounds snotty.
(P.S. I also hate when someone calls themselves a ‘physician’ insted of a ‘doctor.’)
SuaSponte:
Yeah, but my point is that lawyers are right there to profit from that. And isn’t it due to lawyers’ influence that lawsuits are often for millions or tens of millions of dollars even for the most trivial of incidents? For example, how much did Paula Jones originally sue Bill Clinton for and how did she come up with that figure? And all told, how much did lawyers rake in from Bill Clinton’s misfortunes?
the issue about lawyers being the bulk of the legislatures. In Massachusetts,over 80% of the legislature are lawyesr.This means that there is a built-in conflict ofinterest,.Lawyers rely on ever complex, increasingly baffling laws toget more and more power
over us. The idea that all conflicts are solvable in courtrooms is ridiculous…insurance is amuch better way of compensating victims of accidents, for example. My experience is that lawyers act in their own interest,and many times, their interests have results that donot benefit the rest of us. Take the case of West Virginia…doctors are being driven out of practice in that state, because of huge numbers of malpractice lawsuits.The result? Safer doctors ?NO! Doctors are leaving the state. If you need brain surgeryin W, Viginia,you have to go out of state.Is societie’s interest best served this way? Of course, you can always ask your lawyer to do the surgery-see how much help he will be to you! The huge damage awards have the effect of driving up the cost of medicalcare,which is surelynot abenefit to us. So, yes, there are some situations that require lawyers…but in many cases, their effect is negative to the rest of society.
blanx:
I wouldn’t consider another crime as a “remedy.” Another crime is exactly what the first trial was supposed to stop.
However, I still agree with the exclusionary rule, because it protects us all, not just the guilty.
Personally, the only problem I have with lawyers has to do with the way some of them take huge parts of a huge award, and with the whole concept of huge awards themselves. See, the people that are often really paying that award are the public. If a company pays out and raises prices, we pay.
So I think there is an easy solution, and one that would cause a lot of people to like lawyers a lot better.
All we have to do, is have huge awards, and especially punitive damages, not go to the person who sued or their lawyers, but to the public. This could be in the form of public works projects, or some other form. This would also have the added benefit that it would cut down on bad lawsuits, because people would know that they wouldn’t be getting the money themselves, but only giving money to the community as a whole.
I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the profession is lawyering, while attorney describes one’s capacity with respect to their client. Tho this technical distinction is not ironclad and is seldom followed.
So, I am a lawyer by virtue of having completed law school and passed the bar. But I am not an attorney until Joe Blow hires me. In which case I am Joe Blow’s attorney. The most proper synonym for the general “lawyer” may be the ever popular “attorney-at-law.”
The lawyers with the really big dicks are neither lawyers nor attorneys, but rather attorneys-and-counselors-at-law.
And IMO anyone stupid enough to put Esq. after their name should be mercilessly mocked.
I lived for many years in Alabama, the “Jackpot Justice” capital of the western world. Punitive damages read like the stuff urban legends are made of- perhaps most notorious is the $4 million dollar verdict awarded a BMW owner when the dealership lied about his paint job.
URL http://www.cortland.edu/www/polsci/bmw.html
Not to sound like Trent Lott, but I really do have very good friends who are lawyers, but my disrespect for the profession arises from the ones who keep the jackpot business alive by opposing all measures at tort reform and using their incredible lobbies in an incredibly backwards state to prevent the slaughtering of their cash cow. Settlement mills in AL are roughly as beloved by the non brain dead as the tax collectors in ancient Judea.
My other main beef with the lawyer is that it seems to be intentionally written so that the layman can’t make the least bit of sense out of it. While I agree with the adage about people who represent themselves, there are times it would be nice if you could find the answer to a relatively simple matter of landlord/tenant law (e.g. an actual example from this past summer- an apartment complex failed to hold the apartment I reserved and did not notify me until move-in day- they returned my deposit but not my credit app fee- is this breach of contract and am I eligible to sue for modest punitive damages for my inconvenience? and how long do I have to pursue this?) or probate law or copyright law without having to pay for a legal appointment. The only people who can decipher this it seems are lawyers and prisoners (who are probably the most learned legal minds not to have law degrees).
Plus, while I agree it’s the plaintiffs who bring suits, I believe lawyers have an ethical responsibility to refuse to take frivolous cases and should even be subject to damages for asinine litigation they assist in. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for a lawyer to say “Look son, French fries and Big Macs are fattening and if you don’t know that by now then I’ve told you… go and sin no more and don’t sue the company for the fact you’re fat, stupid, and lazy”.
Nightime-
I was being mostly facetious regarding the exclusionary rule, but personally I’d rather risk the crime than live in a country where I didn’t have the liberties we do.
However, in your scheme, what’s the incentive to sue in the first place? I’m a lot of things, but I’m not that much of an altruist. Why should I bother taking that sort of suit?