OT Two things

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

funny


The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

easy answer in nc... the father.

but here's one for you. case is in north carolina. father makes the
decision to employ lawyer on the typical contingency fee contract - 33%
of recovery, plus reimbursement of costs. say it's a difficult case.
say it goes to trial. lawyer has advanced costs in excess of $50,000 for
appropriate experts, depositions, investigation, etc..., and spent more
than 1000 hours of professional and office staff time in preparing for
trial and in the trial of the case... and, say, the verdict in North
Carolina is that the defendant was negligent, but that the boy (over 12)
was 10% at fault in causing the event and his death, so the jury says
the boy is contributorily negligent. so, there is no recovery at all in
north carolina. so...since you were talking shares of money, who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

jeff

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

Jeff M notes:
who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:

Jeff M notes:

who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?


yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. it's the lemming-like generalizations that
**** me off. if anyone wants to say a specific lawyer is a thief or
charges too much or is an idiot, fine. state the name, let's get the
facts, and maybe i'll agree. i might even know the person named. same
with doctors, dentists, barbers, engineers, biologists, newspaper
reporters, politicians, bankers, programmers, electricians, college
profs, trout guides, lab scientists, mayors, generals, mechanics,
architects, hooters waitresses... if there is a particular professional
practice that offends someone's sense of right, ok, name it. you might
be surprised at how many lawyers might agree... but to make crass
general statements about all lawyers, or to make assumptions about a
particular lawyer based on those generalizations, particularly in this
venue, is simply a sign of a weak mind. ...

jeff

Jeff Miller wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when
you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. ...

That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here. When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to. What's your point ?

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. ...

Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to.

damn... i'd never have thought that was a job you had to hire out...


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession.

oh jeezus... almost as funny as a freelance weenie's tirades in defense
of what i consider less worthy issues. it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

perhaps, but i doubt many will accept this assertion, given the
compulsive nature of your tirades and accusations against top posters
and spammers - a worthy effort indeed - not to mention your endearing
method of communicating with those you label as rednecks or
eco-unfriendly.

jeff

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

i think that observation is truly ironic. while your adoption of an
indiscriminate attack on an entire profession in the face of your empirical
experience with at least two of its members that must have, in all fairness,
indicated to you that decent human beings, whose company you have apparently
enjoyed, do practice law, with an obvious effort to be true to their duties
and fair in matters economic, is in itself not surprising, given the modus
opperandum of your internet persona (we lawyers have a weakness for latin,
no matter how poorly spelled), and the possibility that this entire
confrontation finds its origin in simple boredom, an objective observer can
only wonder at how the paucity of passion that you feel for your own work
is revealed by your suggestion that a similar attack on your endeavors would
fail to elicit a defensive response. that portrays you as a poorer man than
i had imagined you to be. my opinion is that we are not, as someone
famously said, "what we eat"; we are what we do for a living.

oh, well, i suppose i could have just said "**** you, forty", and had
about the same effect upon your thought processes.

syfitons
wayno

Ken feels compelled:
That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here.

oh c'mon, it hardly comes close. My point, that you seem to miss, is that
personal injury lawyers are merely specialized professionals, doing their job.
It is amazing that they receive group criticism from people outside the
profession who haven't a ****ing clue what/how they operate.
Tom

Jeff Miller wrote in message news:iSEfc.21421$XP2.8627@lakeread06...

**** me off. if anyone wants to say a specific lawyer is a thief or
charges too much or is an idiot, fine.
....
if there is a particular professional
practice that offends someone's sense of right, ok, name it. you might
be surprised at how many lawyers might agree...

....Ok, I'll try...but first, let me say I've known many fine
lawyers (just had Easter dinner at one's in-laws that we're
friends with), and when my wife and I almost made some life
changes (that would have involved moving) two years ago, my
plan was to go to law school...(for anyone work-related to me,
I'm very happy we stayed!)

Of course, what is below is an outsider's view. I've never
personally hired a lawyer, been in court, been on a jury, etc.
I freely admit my perceptions can be wrong.

0. Legalese. It seems like half of what lawyers get paid to do
is to translate the client's needs into the correct legal mumbo
jumbo. From an outsider's perspective, this amounts to simply
"protecting one's profession". A relatively smart person should
be able to handle most of their own court proceedings themselves,
and should certainly be able to understand the rest without a
lawyer. (actually, I enjoyed hearing the NPR and other news stories
about the trial of Zacharias Moussoui (whatever the spelling)
because it was clear the the judge wanted to help him in every
way possible to defend himself, which is what he chose to do.
That gives me hope!)

1. "ambulance chasers". I can't watch TV without hearing ads for
"hurt in a car wreck? Call the STRONGARM! We'll get you the money
you deserve!" Of course, he's in heavy competition with the
"DYNAMIC DUO". Anyways, for most of us out here, the public face
of lawyering that we see is 99% these asinine radio and car ads.
So forgive us if that's what comes to our mind when we hear the
word "lawyer".

2. Our whole sue-happy society. Our system
has gotten to the point that no one can be human, make an honest
mistake, without at least fearing the impending lawsuit. And
insurance companies seem to feel this too as they are quite
willing to pay immediate settlements as long as you'll waive any
right to any further claims. My mom was once in a fender bender
and the other's insurance company offered her $2K without her
even asking! Since when was life supposed to work perfectly?
And since when are we supposed to hit the lottery just because
it didn't? Of course, all of the above is a statement about
society in general. However, from my perspective the whole
problem stems from the way the judicial and lawyering system is
set up, and it doesn't appear that lawyers have any notion to
try to change it. If the unscrupulous money chasers are a small
percentage of the profession, then why don't we hear the majority
calling for changes in our system? Rather, what I see is that
they defend it, while the rest of the world shakes their heads
at our system.

3. Mega-damage awards, and the corresponding fees awarded to
the lawyers. This is all absolutely ridiculous, as any person
with common sense can see. NO ONE "deserves" $150M for a wrongful
death of a daughter, or whatever! Now before you say that all I
want to do is let companies off the hook, I am NOT against
punitive damages. I'm just against giving them to the plaintiff
and their lawyer. Neither deserve to suddenly "hit the jackpot".
Reward good honest work? Absolutely, let's give the lawyers two,
maybe three times their hourly rate. Reward the plaintiff for
bringing the case? Ok, give them two, maybe three times a middle
class income for their time. Give them enough support if they
have some long-term disability to live with. But make them
sudden millionaires? That I can live without. Same for the
lawyers. If they can't win half their cases (which would let
them average a good wage if they're getting 2x for every winning
case), then maybe they are taking too many frivolous cases, or
just should find other work.

So where would punitive damages go? To the public coffers.
Probably into some special funds to help mitigate the "public"
damage, or to help oversee the industry better that just "lost",
or whatever.

But the way our system is now, the public face of lawyering that
most of us see is a system that wastes tremendous amounts of
money, channels that money to the wrong receipients, and as far
as we can tell is not interested in trying to reform itself. And
all this money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from each of us
through our insurance premiums, costs of goods, etc., and so it
shouldn't be a surprise that we do get cynical.

Jon.

From: Greg Pavlov

On 15 Apr 2004 14:50:02 -0700, (BJ Conner)
wrote:

The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.

That is usually true of the barber, somewhat true
of the mortgage holder, and often untrue of the
mechanic.

Basically because the mechanic usually does'nt know the extent of the problem
when you first bring the car in. In MA, they are required to give an estimate
after diagnosis, and must not exceed the estimate by more than 10% without the
express permission of the customer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had a
problem with a mechanic in many years.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller