OT Two things

"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

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.

Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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.

That's not an analogy. ...

EOT for me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Jonathan Cook wrote:



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.

fair enough...


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!)

actually, the trend since the 70s has been away from "legalese" in
contracts, legal writing, and court matters - thanks mainly to sensible
folks who also happened to be lawyers and law profs. still, there are
some concepts, rules, etc. rooted in the common law we brought over from
merry old england that persist in the jurisprudence, but they are rare.
i'm unsure what you mean by "legal mumbo jumbo". i suspect you are
basing this opinion on fiction novels or tv programs, but your state's
system may be geared to old, settled practices rooted in legalese. i
can only say it is not the case in nc. a lawyer would look and sound and
be regarded as foolish if he or she used the archaic latin terms or
legalese in any trial before a jury or judge.

with regard to your other complaint, i'm not sure "legalese" is what you
mean. i think a relatively smart person can handle their own court
proceedings. many do. your real complaint seems aimed at the fact that
there are rules and procedures and institutional knowledge that apply to
court proceedings which limit the ability of those ignorant of the
rules/procedures etc. to represent themselves. but, isn't that true
with regard to the work of all professionals? accountants? engineers?
doctors? dentists? architects? race car mechanics? the rules and
procedures generally have a common sense purpose to assure stability,
reliability, uniformity, etc in court matters. most aren't complicated
to understand or apply. but they don't come imprinted in a 2 page
do-it-yourself brochure either.

it is far from unusual for a judge to be helpful to an unrepresented
party in court. it's a daily event in my county.



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".

agreed. it's a troubling issue to any lawyer who deeply cares about the
ideals and image of his/her profession - and there are more of us than
you probably think. i believe such lawyer advertising was and is
resisted by a majority of lawyers. we were/are criticized for that
resistance; now we're criticized and suffering for what the "free
speech" has wrought. it's certainly not pretty. it originated from a
greedy few wielding a valid constitutional argument; it is still the
province of what i consider a greedy few. i despise any type of direct,
mail, television, or radio solicitation... i've never thought of clients
as "customers". most organized state bars and attorneys continue in
their attempts to control unseemly and deceptive ads. the first
amendment prevents most broad regulatory attempts.

still, i'm also troubled that you and others i consider thinking people
are content to accept such tv or radio content as defining the character
of an entire profession. kinda like saying osama defines the muslim
population. i'd wager the tv and radio characters comprise less than 10%
of the licensed attorneys. certainly there are lawyers in your community
who serve without pay in numerous civic, government, community, and
charitable organizations? certainly, there are lawyers in your community
whose reputation grew from ability and their hard, honest work on behalf
of clients or governments, and not from some smarmy tv ad?


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.


the term "sue-happy" is one of those words generously used by critics of
the civil justice system. i don't believe it is an accurate claim based
on facts. i think the data actually shows the opposite of your belief.
the number of lawsuits per capita has remained at about the same level,
if not declined, over the past 10 or more years.

the statistics on litigation indicate that overall personal injury
litigation has been decreasing in this country. "Tort lawsuit filings
decreased 9% since 1992, according to the country's most accurate and
comprehensive overview of state court litigation statistics. (Examining
the Work of State Courts, 2002, a joint project of the Conference of
State Court Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the
National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics projects.)"

data reported by the Rand Institute in 1991 indicated each year one in
six Americans sustained an injury serious enough to cause some economic
loss. Yet for the typical injury, the injured person does not even
consider the notion of seeking compensation from some other person or
entity. Only 10 percent ever file a claim,which includes informal
demands and insurance claims. Only two percent file a lawsuit. The study
concludes that these statistics are at odds with any notion that we live
in an overly litigious society. See, Compensation for Accidental
Injuries in the United States,Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1991).

http://www.newsaic.com/mwcivil.html

(the link has supporting cites - best i could do in a hurry)

but, no question, the fear and threat of lawsuits is a motivating force.
i hope you agree, some of that is a good thing to the extent it
motivates responsible, reasonable behavior.

we've developed on a foundation of principled personal freedoms and
responsibilities. if you intentionally or negligently hurt someone, what
is your responsibility to them? what is the value of your child? folks
seem to have no problem accepting a painting's value or a yacht's value
or a building's value at millions of dollars, and, if that stuff is
damaged, they have no problem with damage reimbursements at those
levels; but, for some reason, your mom or daughter deserve a lesser
consideration? is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to suggest to a judge or
jury that your mother or child is worth as much money as air force one?
how do we reconstruct your mom or child?

the insurance industry is among the wealthiest and most influential in
our country. it has done a remarkable public relations job carping
about a litigation or cost crisis, much of it through direct ads in
mailings, as well as in the print and tv media. it's just not so. the
industry rarely offers the full value they believe is reasonably due a
deserving claimant. it would be interesting to have the statistics on
the claim reserve vs. claim paid data for cases in your area. you should
read some of the trial testimony and facts in bad-faith cases brought
against insurance companies for denying valid claims for payment in
first-party cases (payments due their own insureds). in those cases, you
get to see the ugly innards of insurance decision-making.

what defines or demarcates a lawyer to you as an "unscrupulous money
chaser"? that's one of those ad hominem remarks that does little to
advance a constructive dialogue.

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.


it's the generalized, uninformed vitriol that ****es me off. you, and a
few others have offered *some* reasonable criticisms and comments ...
though most are directed at unique or abnormal circumstances. fees
aren't awarded...they are usually a product of a voluntarily executed
contract describing the terms of employment.

you also overlook the jury in your comments, and i think your
conclusions are generated from anecdotal or extremely limited instances.
most data-based studies seem to reach a contrary conclusion.

here's an interesting article that seems balanced in its arguments...
supports some of your concerns, disputes others.

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/alu...2/lit.txt.html

punitive damages are intended as punishment for egregious, wanton
misconduct. they are extremely rare and difficult in proof. some state
laws do provide for payment of the punitives to the state or charitable
agencies. there are constitutional limits on punitive damages, and many
states impose caps. nc limits punitives to 3 times the compensatory
damages or 250,000, whichever is greater... still, i think there is a
problem with the state taking or diverting all of an individual's
property, i.e., the punitive damage award, without sharing in the risk
and cost of the recovery of those damages.

thanks for taking the time to express your personal views in a rational
way. though i disagree with many of your statements, i appreciate and
respect your comments. i think if you spent some time investigating your
state's organized bar (the regulatory/licensing agency, and the
voluntary bar association), you would find them discussing in a
positive, constructive manner many of the issues you raise. you would
also find a lot of genuinely good, honest, idealistic, dedicated people.
i'm sure there will be some assholes too.

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

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.


That's not an analogy. ...


EOT for me.

I've always thought it's funny when someone has to announce his
departure, obviously in a snit. Why not just stop posting to the thread?
Is it like anyone else cares? I've done it once or twice, and felt
rather silly afterward.

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

Jeff Miller wrote:

punitive damages are intended as punishment for egregious, wanton
misconduct. they are extremely rare and difficult in proof. some state
laws do provide for payment of the punitives to the state or charitable
agencies. there are constitutional limits on punitive damages, and many
states impose caps. nc limits punitives to 3 times the compensatory
damages or 250,000, whichever is greater... still, i think there is a
problem with the state taking or diverting all of an individual's
property, i.e., the punitive damage award, without sharing in the risk
and cost of the recovery of those damages.

The right-wing cause of "tort reform" is an attempt to make real damages
just a part of doing business (as usual).

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

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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.

That's not an analogy. ...

EOT for me.

Buh bye!

Wolfgang

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:eq%fc.25518$XP2.23164@lakeread06...


...thanks for taking the time to express your personal views in a rational
way. though i disagree with many of your statements, i appreciate and
respect your comments. i think if you spent some time investigating your
state's organized bar (the regulatory/licensing agency, and the
voluntary bar association), you would find them discussing in a
positive, constructive manner many of the issues you raise. you would
also find a lot of genuinely good, honest, idealistic, dedicated people.
i'm sure there will be some assholes too.

remainder snipped in the interest of brevity

Good stuff, Jeff. You should do this for a living.

Nevertheless, a bit of perspective from the other side of the bar.......as
it were.

First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected. If their
advertising is representative of their professional skills (by no means a
certainty, but there it is, right out there in front of God and everybody)
one can simply eliminate the vast majority of those who choose to make fools
of themselves publicly (and who are a minuscule minority of practicing
attorneys, judging by the listings in the yellow pages) can simply be
eliminated from consideration by anyone needing legal assistance. Of
course, one could argue that the ads are produced by someone else but,
obviously, they will never be aired unless approved and paid for by the
customer. Bottom line is that the educated consumer's choices are made
easier.

Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound. Linguistic forms that are obscure and
confusing to many today were quite clear to those literate persons who
depended on them a few decades to a couple of centuries ago. The robber
barons (many of them with only minimal formal education) would never have
become what they were without a fundamental grasp of the legal issues facing
them......and how to work them to their own advantage. If the legal system
as a whole is guilty of anything here.....and it is.....it is simply a
failure to reform its language into a modern idiom, a fault shared by
virtually every entrenched bureaucracy. At any rate, anyone who didn't
entirely waste the taxpayers money from first grade through high school
should be able to deal with most of what comes his or her way without
assistance. To be sure, there are numerous examples of egregious
obfuscation (financial institutions in general are especially culpable), but
the blame for this can hardly be laid entirely at the feet of the legal
system as a whole.

Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest of
us. They appear to be no more or less forthcoming about their personal
finances than most other people. We had a couple of plumbers here at the
house for about three hours a couple of weeks ago. They left us with a
clear kitchen drain. All it took was jamming $500 dollars through it.
Handing over $500 dollars and not having something shiny, new and fun to
show for it sucks. At the remove of a couple of weeks it is possible, if
not necessarily pleasant, to state that a sink full of slimy ****....and the
prospect of such being a permanent condition....sucks worse. In a similar
vein, I've recently had occasion to solicit the services of an attorney in
order to avoid payment of over $8,000 resulting from a bureaucratic
cluster****.....a sum for which I am not legitimately responsible but would
have found extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid for reasons that
I won't go into here. Suffice to say that the average citizen is more or
less powerless in dealing by telephone with faceless and unsympathetic
bureaucrats whose sole function is to get the money. An attorney, on the
other hand, gets their immediate and undivided attention. Assuming that
his efforts are successful (and I have good reason to have faith in him),
his services are worth a lot to me. ****, I'd much rather give him the
entire amount than pay it to the *******s trying to gouge it out of me.

Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about. When push comes to shove, any
****wit who wants to can bring a knife to a gunfight.

And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....it
makes no difference whatsoever how the books are shuffled. People become
millionaires as a result of losing a loved one or a limb or two? Good! The
only reform needed is to take the money directly from the pockets of the
millionaires and billionaires who control the machinery whereby such
incidents occur and do so without a shred of personal legal responsibility
for their actions. The U.S. government's recent milking of the cash cow
that is the cigarette industry was as disgusting as it was predictable.
About the only thing that could have mitigated this vomitous charade would
be setting aside enough funds to ensure the execution of top tobacco
industry executives (as many as it might take, and for as long as necessary)
to get the rest to see the light. It should not be necessary to add that
there are many other legitimate candidates in virtually every industry.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:



First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected.

my objection: 1) it's rarely necessary for a competent professional to
advertise his/her services; 2) the advertising is generally not
representative of competency or ability; 3) it actually serves to delude
and misinform almost as much if not more than it serves to provide
useful information for consumers of legal services; 4) it reduces or
detracts from the genuine ideals of a great profession by focusing
energy and thought on commercialism; 5) it marginalizes lawyers, making
them seek ever better and more competitive ads for the sole purpose of
increasing caseloads instead of being better professionals; 6) it allows
the inexperienced and incompetent to gain footholds they neither deserve
nor ought to occupy; 7) it's about GREED!! pure and simple, not about
helping educate or serve or rendering assistance. There's more, but you
get my drift.

i don't advertise beyond having my name in the phone book with a small
(very small) yellow page descriptor of my areas of practice. i worked a
lot of years learning my profession and discovering what i believe to be
its true value. i'll never be rich, i make a decent living, but nothing
extraordinary and probably less than many of the non-lawyers here. i
think i'm typical of the mainstream of private lawyers.



Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound.

you've said it better than i...


Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest of
us.

most make a decent living; but, probably not what many in the public
assume. i'd venture many insurance agents have larger incomes than the
typical attorney's income after operating expenses.


Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about.

also, abused and neglected children receive their own appointed counsel
in nc.


And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....

jon's argument seemed rooted in notions of a human being's worth or
value, unscrupulous money-grabbing, as well as the popular complaint
about the shifting & absorption of costs because of civil litigation.
it's interesting that many trust juries to make correct decisions about
whether a life should be snuffed out, but on the other hand don't trust
them to assess the value of a human life or the issues in a civil case
where only money is at issue.

anyway...off to work for a while, then heading east to see if i can have
a talk with a few puppy drum...

jeff

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:ib9gc.25630$XP2.8290@lakeread06...


Wolfgang wrote:



First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys
advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a
few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected.

my objection: ....There's more, but you
get my drift.

Sure. But all this does is confirm that your profession is subject to the
same natural laws as any other. If advertising legal services highlights
the shortcomings of some of the practioners, then we can only hope that
physicians, airline pilots, power plant operators, chemical engineers, etc.,
will follow suit.......so to speak.

i don't advertise beyond having my name in the phone book with a small
(very small) yellow page descriptor of my areas of practice. i worked a
lot of years learning my profession and discovering what i believe to be
its true value. i'll never be rich, i make a decent living, but nothing
extraordinary and probably less than many of the non-lawyers here. i
think i'm typical of the mainstream of private lawyers.

Well, having fished, walked, talked and drunk beer with you, I'd aver that
your last assertion above is preposterous. As to the rest of it, I'm in no
position to offer an opinion of legitimate interest to any thinking human
being.

Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound.

you've said it better than i...

Only because I did and you didn't.

Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest
of
us.

most make a decent living; but, probably not what many in the public
assume. i'd venture many insurance agents have larger incomes than the
typical attorney's income after operating expenses.

Oddly enough, I once worked as an insurance agent......for Mutual of Omaha.
One can only hope that North Carolina has a liberal food stamp program.


Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in
this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm
no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only
happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about.

also, abused and neglected children receive their own appointed counsel
in nc.

Of course. Good point. I hadn't thought of minors. I'm not sure what the
law says about legal representation for them here in WI, but I suspect they
have little say in the matter.

And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....

jon's argument seemed rooted in notions of a human being's worth or
value, unscrupulous money-grabbing, as well as the popular complaint
about the shifting & absorption of costs because of civil litigation.

Again, of course. And we all know that in a general sense a human being's
worth is incalculable. However, I suspect even Jon knows that no two
individual human lives are necessarily of equal worth. In fact, no one but
an abject fool can be unaware that valuation begins somewhere around that of
half a jar of cold **** and ranges upward. Feigned (or worse yet, REAL)
allegiance to various philosophical and religious absurdities
notwithstanding, no one but a congenital idiot really believes that that
life of a child and that of say.......oh......a serial rapist or the chief
executive officer of a major mutinational corporation......are of equal
value. Money grabbing? Puhlease!


it's interesting that many trust juries to make correct decisions about
whether a life should be snuffed out, but on the other hand don't trust
them to assess the value of a human life or the issues in a civil case
where only money is at issue.

Interesting? You've got a gift for understatement, my friend. The absolute
refusal to think is always FASCINATING.

anyway...off to work for a while, then heading east to see if i can have
a talk with a few puppy drum...

Well then, by the time you read this you will doubtless have earned
congratulations on a day well spent.......or condolences......for something
or other. In either case, I offer mine.

Wolfgang
who planted raspberries today!