OT Two things

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

Jeff Miller wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

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

... it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

chuckling is good, but you probably should re-read our "OT" thread
before you resort to more misplaced hyperbole. initially, i responded
to your posted question (and to its implicit comment)...not the "rumored
newspaper blurb" - though, i'm sure i've probably heard/read similar
stuff before. ...and, as you know, there's always a price paid.

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:



It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

"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

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

... If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

... 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. ...

Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

An objective observer might have cause to wonder why some lawyers are so
sensitive and defensive.

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

Yeah, but there's something to be said for a good tirade, hope you
enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

actually, i did that intentionally, in preparation for the unveiling of
my new internet persona, "really serious and self-important lawyer guy".
after all, some people clearly enjoy the dr.jeckyll/mr.hyde syndrome.

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

yfitons
a. wayne harrison, attorney at law.