OT Two things

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

Jonathan Cook wrote:

...Ok, I'll try...
cogent analysis snipped
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.

Excellent summary to which I would add;

4. The perception that if you have enough money you can get away with
murder. Literally. It's not that our system of jurisprudence is for sale
exactly, it's that it costs lots of money, much more than John Q. Public
could ever hope to muster, to have a chance of a level playing field in
our courts. Expensive lawyering beats cheap, or free, lawyering most of
the time and while that's why good lawyers become expensive lawyers it
is a terrible indictment against our legal system.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in
message ...
...Expensive lawyering beats cheap, or free, lawyering most of
the time and while that's why good lawyers become expensive lawyers
it
is a terrible indictment against our legal system.

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

As Adam Gopnik noted, being smarter than you sound is usually better
than sounding smarter than you are. He could have added that it's
also better than trying to convince yourself that you have a reason to
live by deliberately ****ing off what few friends you have left via a
haphazard jumble of trite banalities and pretending that it's the
result of a nonexistent point of view.

If you are serious about making a living by writing and, more
importantly, expect to be taken seriously, then you should understand
something. It probably doesn't make much difference what it
is......but something. Then, write about that.

Wolfgang
who, frankly, doesn't hold out much hope for someone who aspires to be
an asshole but can't manage any more than ass.

Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

That's a stupid analogy. It's not reasonable for the rich to expect
better treatment from the courts than the poor.

As Adam Gopnik noted, being smarter than you sound is usually better
than sounding smarter than you are. He could have added that it's
also better than trying to convince yourself that you have a reason to
live by deliberately ****ing off what few friends you have left via a
haphazard jumble of trite banalities and pretending that it's the
result of a nonexistent point of view.

And THAT is just plain stupid. I realize you rarely read the nonsense
you spew here but when you spout spurious accusations about someone
else's "reason to live" you've crossed the line between manikin
nuisance and offensive jerk.


If you are serious about making a living by writing and, more
importantly, expect to be taken seriously, then you should understand
something. It probably doesn't make much difference what it
is......but something. Then, write about that.

I understand this, no student of human nature unfortunate enough
to have read your self-aggrandizing, masturbatory screeds here would
be the least bit surprised to discover that you stand about 5 foot nil.
Your particular pathology is so transparent and predictable it's been
given a syndrome name in the vernacular.

Although, to be fair, I must admit I have never actually seen you
stick your right hand into your vest.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article .net, rw56
says...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)



Of course it's rather like watching a battle to the death between
Hitler and SH. It's fun to watch, but how can you root for one
over the other?

- Ken

From: Greg Pavlov

(George Adams)
wrote:

Basically because the mechanic usually does'nt know the extent of the
problem
when you first bring the car in. ...

Compared to the uncertainty of what a defendant, a jury,
a judge, or even the plaintiff may do, and the uncertainty
of what the evidence may show once every one has dug into
it...

Exactly. And that is precisely why legal fees can escalate very quickly, and it
is very difficult to estimate them at the start.


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

wrote in message
...
In article .net, rw56
says...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)



Of course it's rather like watching a battle to the death between
Hitler and SH. It's fun to watch, but how can you root for one
over the other?

Ah, life as a spectator!

Some people aspire to more.......but don't you worry about it.

Wolfgang
who realizes that letting one's reach exceed one's grasp is not for
everybody.

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)

That's because you're stupid. Don't worry about it.

Wolfgang