D) Powerful Corporations who wish to limit their liability to next to zero when they screw up, but still allow themselves the ability to sue people into the poorhouse are ruining America.

A truckload of our elected officials have led us down the road to failure due to their incredible ineptness. And they are pretty much all lawyers.

Wasn't this on Jeopardy last week?

I think psychiatrists ruined America.

It's never the plainiff's (or the defendant's) fault. No, it's the middlemen -the lawyer's fault.

Makes perfect sense.

A very good article.

"C", it's always "C".

Could someone please be original and maybe make the correct answer "B" or sumpin'?

/Sheesh

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one ...



\Not a lawyer

kmmontandon: Everyone hates lawyers until they need one ...



\Not a lawyer

I see lawyers as the 'nuclear weapon' of disputes. If you deploy them, no matter who 'wins' they destroy everything around them and leave nothing but a polluted wasteland in the aftermath of the dispute.

So before getting a lawyer, consider the consequences.

My NEA membership comes with a $1,000,000 legal insurance policy.

Never EVER be alone with a student. EVER.

Well, (B), but they weren't alone.

Quoting one of my lawyer friends, after he exited the bar exam: "I was looking around this room, just filled with random people, and it occurred to me -- anyone can be a lawyer."

kmmontandon: Everyone hates lawyers until they need one ...



\Not a lawyer

Came here to post this.

Weaver95: I see lawyers as the 'nuclear weapon' of disputes. If you deploy them, no matter who 'wins' they destroy everything around them and leave nothing but a polluted wasteland in the aftermath of the dispute.

So before getting a lawyer, consider the consequences.

I don't know, man. I kind of like having organizations like the ACLU and even the NRA who are willing to ensure our rights. And if the day comes that I'm ever arrested, I'll be goddamn grateful to have a defense attorney.

The problem with lawyers is that.. well, they make their money off lawsuits and settlements. It's not that lawyers are bad or anything like that... they simply, like most people do, seek to maximize their income.

If the amount of income lawyers could make off lawsuits and settlements was curbed, I think we'd see some interesting changes. Isn't it something like 1/3 of the legal award goes to the lawyer?

thereadlines: Well, (B), but they weren't alone.

Quoting one of my lawyer friends, after he exited the bar exam: "I was looking around this room, just filled with random people, and it occurred to me -- anyone can be a lawyer."

Yep. I never understood why it was considered so difficult to be a Lawyer. A few years of school, a test and bam: Lawyer.

If it was that hard there would not be so many of them.

T.M.S.: thereadlines: Well, (B), but they weren't alone.

Quoting one of my lawyer friends, after he exited the bar exam: "I was looking around this room, just filled with random people, and it occurred to me -- anyone can be a lawyer."

Yep. I never understood why it was considered so difficult to be a Lawyer. A few years of school, a test and bam: Lawyer.

If it was that hard there would not be so many of them.

You still need a doctorate, correct? A JD? Eight years of school doesn't sound like a walk in the park.

I went down the slide headfirst.
On wax paper.
After waxing the hot slide with wax paper.
Cut my chin.

Did not sue.

I'm a lawyer so I'm getting a big kick out of these replies .....

As a lawyer, I really got a kick out of that article.

/forwarding it to the rest of my firm

WFern:

I don't know, man. I kind of like having organizations like the ACLU and even the NRA who are willing to ensure our rights. And if the day comes that I'm ever arrested, I'll be goddamn grateful to have a defense attorney.

On the other hand, if a lawyer is your Weeners to everything, it's all going to be about preventing litigation; not exactly a promising tenet of personal liberty. There's something to be said against the "Ready. Fire. Aim." philosophy some have about lawsuits.

G.I.R.B.: "C", it's always "C".

Could someone please be original and maybe make the correct answer "B" or sumpin'?

/Sheesh

I thought it was always D. Unless there wasn't a D, then it was pure chaos.

Jsc810: I'm a lawyer so I'm getting a big kick out of these replies .....

Let me be the first to kick...

Lawyers are not culpable. They are HIRED...you know, like assassins. : )

WFern: T.M.S.: thereadlines: Well, (B), but they weren't alone.

Quoting one of my lawyer friends, after he exited the bar exam: "I was looking around this room, just filled with random people, and it occurred to me -- anyone can be a lawyer."

Yep. I never understood why it was considered so difficult to be a Lawyer. A few years of school, a test and bam: Lawyer.

If it was that hard there would not be so many of them.

You still need a doctorate, correct? A JD? Eight years of school doesn't sound like a walk in the park.

AFAIK, JD is a 3-year post-bac degree. My lawyer friends claims they drank more in law school than they did as undergraduates.

I live in Broward County where the "No Running In Playgrounds" issue had come up. Here are two great quotes from people from the School District:

"We could do a lot more if we didn't have to watch our back every single second. We sometimes get a letter from the attorney before we even get an accident report from the school." (Jerry Graziose, safety director for Broward County, FL, elementary school playgrounds)

"To say 'no running' on the playground seems crazy. But your feelings change when you're in a closed-door meeting with lawyers." (Robin Bartleman, Broward County (FL) School Board member)

Normally I disagree with a lot of what the School District does or says - the best way to waste money is to give it to a government bureaucracy, and they do that quite well - however, in this case, I feel sorry for what they are up against here.

Lawyers are advocates for their clients. They often present interesting arguments in the execution of their duties. Vicarious liability is a way to find money for a client when the actual person involved does not have "deep pockets". Trust me, nothing is better than a good lawyer working for you when the legal chips are down.

I think a lot of responsibility lies with juries (and judges). At some point, much of this nonsense could have been discouraged by juries basically saying "NO" to ridiculous lawsuits. Just because someone makes a claim does not mean they have a "right" to anything. They are simply advancing an argument on their own behalf. Lawyers don't make the ultimate judgement of an award. It is the job of the jury to agree or disagree.

On the left you have Law, on the right you have Freedom. Imagine the point where they meet is a pendulum. If it swings too far to the right, Chaos. If it swings too far to the left we get....America today?

On a related but not directly note, I always post this video in legal threads because it is just so informative and easy to understand. Don't Talk to the Police, by Professor James Duane (new window)

kmmontandon: Everyone hates lawyers until they need one ...



\Not a lawyer
......

I hate lawyers, even when I need one!

FTFA:No official at the Florida school would put a restraining arm around the misbehaving child lest he or she be sued

I saw a white girl get tackled, TACKLED, by a black male coach in PE when I was in high school in '03.

No lawsuits were involved

Ignorant juries are the culprit here. That and pansy insurance companies willing to settle at the drop of a hat and then turn around and jack up premiums. I've told more than one employer to remember they are only one disgruntled person away from losing their asse(t)s. Not that many of them listen, however.

thereadlines:
AFAIK, JD is a 3-year post-bac degree. My lawyer friends claims that they drank more in law school than they did as undergraduates.

Zombie Jesus: D) Powerful Corporations who wish to limit their liability to next to zero when they screw up, but still allow themselves the ability to sue people into the poorhouse are ruining America.

If by "screw up" you mean, higher a statistician and sociologist to determine how much they can get away with and set their profits as high as possible by being terrible, then yes, I agree.

The whole point of suing corporations folks isn't to get lots of money to the guy suing, but to punish a company for wrongdoing. Otherwise we would have companies screwing millions of people over, and paying back only thousands of people who are able to prove that they personally were harmed. The company can't be thrown in jail for what would be personal criminal behavior if a single person were in charge. Instead, lawsuits push a company toward not screwing people over with the threat of all that lost money.

A company would steal a buck from 100 people if it knew only 5 would force the company to pay it back. With lawsuits, the 5 who can force the company to pay it back end up costing the company more than the 100 bucks it tried to get away with scamming.

A lot of the cases of the type quoted by George Will in TFA are often ripped from the headlines, but are out of context, reversed on appeal or isolated incidents.

I can tell you about a Utah jury that awarded 20 million in punitive damages to an insurance company, and not tell you about the reverse on appeal that reduced it to something that wouldn't surprise you.

The case about the archdiocese being sued instead of the volunteer? Respondeat Superior is a legal principle that assigns liability to the employer - and it's old enough to have a Latin term.

Nothing new here. People blaming lawyers like they did in colonial Massachusetts.

Because People in power are Stupid: It's never the plainiff's (or the defendant's) fault. No, it's the middlemen -the lawyer's fault.

Makes perfect sense.

Actually it DOES make sense, because the attorney is the one who determines if the plaintiff has a case against the defendant and makes it go forward, instead of telling the plaintiff to behave himself. The problem is the legal culture and the people it attracts now. Weasels, snakes and other vermin. Doubt me? I'm a 2nd year student. Not a guy who digs George Will, but he's right on the money in this article.

Change higher to hire :P

<b>TFA:</b> <i>Common sense is no more</i>

<img src="http://packphour.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/common-sense.jpg" width="576" height="729">

G.I.R.B.: "C", it's always "C".

Could someone please be original and maybe make the correct answer "B" or sumpin'?

/Sheesh

I have done that. And then it gets greenlit. and then all the lurkers come out of the woodwork and bash you for not following the meme. There is no winning.

/sheesh.

Craaaaaaaaaaaap.

Click the stupid HTML enabler thing.

TFA: Common sense is no more

Not much is worse than when your own attorney turns on you during a custody dispute.

/hired a new attorney

Not all lawyers are bad; I have a friend who just passed his bar exam and is heading to India to help fight against human trafficking and forced prostitution. Not only is this a worthy cause, but he won't even get paid living expenses by the organization he works with. He will be working with the international justice mission.

Scrubbing Bubble: Actually it DOES make sense, because the attorney is the one who determines if the plaintiff has a case against the defendant and makes it go forward, instead of telling the plaintiff to behave himself. The problem is the legal culture and the people it attracts now. Weasels, snakes and other vermin. Doubt me? I'm a 2nd year student. Not a guy who digs George Will, but he's right on the money in this article.



I have a brother who is a lawyer and he now regrets it after 20 years. (1) Most paralegals now make as much as first year lawyers, the good ones much more. (2) The people in the law suck. Everyone is just out trying to get a judge or a jury to make them rich, ala John Edwards. (3) He would no recommend anyone be a lawyer. The only people who win are the law schools and their professors.

This hasn't stopped the Activist Trial Lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund or Liberty Institute from filing frivolous lawsuits to force everyone to be Christian.

Because People in power are Stupid: It's never the plainiff's (or the defendant's) fault. No, it's the middlemen -the lawyer's fault.

Makes perfect sense.


It's not about the externalities, it's about the transaction costs.

ecmoRandomNumbers: My NEA membership comes with a $1,000,000 legal insurance policy.

Never EVER be alone with a student. EVER.

This is absolutely ridiculous, and simple enough for state legislatures to take care of by rewriting state employee immunity statutes.

WFern: You still need a doctorate, correct? A JD? Eight years of school doesn't sound like a walk in the park.

Technically seven years (minimum) - four for a bachelor's degree, plus three more of law school, then the bar exam. And the only reason it's called a J.D. (juris doctor) is because it sounds more prestigious than what the degree was called before (LL.B. - bachelor of laws).

There is a reason I have this quote in my profile:

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

"There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief -- resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Notes for a Law Lecture (1850)

/2L
//Hopefully will be one of the honest lawyers

Cranialsodomy: A lot of the cases of the type quoted by George Will in TFA are often ripped from the headlines, but are out of context, reversed on appeal or isolated incidents.

I can tell you about a Utah jury that awarded 20 million in punitive damages to an insurance company, and not tell you about the reverse on appeal that reduced it to something that wouldn't surprise you.

The case about the archdiocese being sued instead of the volunteer? Respondeat Superior is a legal principle that assigns liability to the employer - and it's old enough to have a Latin term.

Nothing new here. People blaming lawyers like they did in colonial Massachusetts.

And there you have it, lawyers claiming all these excessive lawsuits are ok because they might be turned around on appeal (and thus creating more business for the assholes). As for the archdiocese case, this guy can't even see whats wrong with the case, so how do you even argue with him ?

Time was, rights were defensive. They were to prevent government from doing things to you. Today, rights increasingly are offensive weapons wielded to inflict demands on other people, using state power for private aggrandizement.

That is why I don't believe in "rights" anymore. Nor "equality."

MasterThief

Wow, of all the things to make my day, someone comes along and quotes Lincoln on honesty. With the name MasterThief. Well, that just about says it all right there. Quoting Lincoln on honesty is like quoting Paris Hilton on virginity.

A volunteer for a Catholic charity in Milwaukee ran a red light and seriously injured another person. Because the volunteer did not have deep pockets, the injured person sued the archdiocese -- successfully, for $17 million.

There is a limit on liability of charitable organizations in Massachusetts. I think it's $20,000 per incident. Lawyers hate it. Judges don't seem to like it much either.

The Problem is not that lawyers exist, it is that the court system is publicly financed.

If the Bar association had to foot the bill they would file far fewer frivolous lawsuits.

You should also be allowed to challenge an attorney to a duel.

I'm tempted to think that most of these types of lawsuits are the anomolies of the system, not the kind of thing that goes on everyday. Also, how many of these types of suits are class action, where that hefty settlement is going to be split amongst hundreds if not thousands of plaintiffs, meaning that each plaintiff, after legal fees, might get a few thousand out of the whole deal.

And yes, sometimes lawsuits are justified. My parents are currently in a suit with thier insurance company. A pipe burst in thier house, partially flooding it. Nothing horribly bad, but it did ruin alot of carpet and tile work, and ruined some of the sheet rock. It required a cleanup company to come out and suck up all the water, to prevent further damage (at the behest of the insurance company no less). and the contracted work to repair the floors and walls as well. Grand total for everything together is about $15,000. The insurance company cuts two checks that total about $8,000. My parents try to get them to cover the whole thing, they won't. They have to borrow 15,000 out of my dad's retirement to cover the expenses. My parents consult a full copy of thier homeowners policy (which they have paid faithfully for over 20 years), and won't you know it, there is absolutely no upper limit on water damage, nor any special stipulations regarding what sort of water damage the policy covers. So, in other words, there is no reason, other than just obstinance and greed, that the insurance company should not pay my parents for the full amount of repairing the damages. But the company won't budge, and keep giving my parents the run around. So, now they're suing, for $45,000. Why so much? Well, apart from the actual damages, the insurance company made no offer to give them money for having to live at other places while the house was being repaired (thank god we had relatives that would let them stay for free and they didn't have to try to rent). Also, there is the lawyers fee. Also, part of it is just the fact that my parents are pissed off and had to go to all this trouble to get the money that they should have been given at the out set. If the insurance company had just coughed up the fifteen grand at the beginning, my parents would have been satisfied and left it at that. So part of that $45,000 is a 'because you farkers pissed us off' fee, if you will. So sometimes lawsuits are useful tools to make sure that a company does what the fark it ought to be doing in the first place. I'm sure that if my parents that were that type of people, they probably could have sued for quite a bit more and got it no problem. But they're not and know when to get while the getting is good.

kmmontandon
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one ...

And then they hate them even more.