Lawyers Evil or Saints?

[LeFlaneur]

What an odd thread.

How about debating whether oxygen is good or bad. It sure can kill you. I have read stores about divers dying from oxygen toxicity. Never once have I read a story that said "man breathes oxygen and doesn't die." So it must usually be fatal.

You'd think we'd be comfortable with the concept of duality.

 

[adder70]

Well, I can't argue the law there, but if I may mention some personal experiences...

I used to work the oilfield as a diver, and as you might know, there are a number of injuries that take place off shore.

Now, being in that situation, you start to realize that you may need a lawyer eventually. So you start asking arround, quietly. When people realize you're not trying to root out anything forthe company, they'll start to give you the whole run down on lawyers in the area who deal with offshore and oilfield injuries. There are quite a few, but there are a couple who start to climb to the top. One lawyer in particular in the Lafayette, LA area was known for two things.

1. He always won, or so I was told.
2. He had a habit of often leaving his clients bankrupt.

Now, I thought both sounded suspicious, until such time as I was injured. It was a minor injury, and one I quickly healed from, but it was clearly the fault of the company I worked for, and the company we were working for. My wife at the time convinced me to go talk to this lawyer, and seek his advice. So quietly, I did.

He told me I had a great case, but that if I felt that I was to badly injured, I should stop working immediately. I told him I was fine, and that I was ready to go back to work. He then proceeded to tell me that it was no problem if I was worried about the loss of income, because He could arrange to make up the loss. This bothered me. Before I more or less ran screaming from his office, he had me try and perform some bending that anyone who had not practice Yoga would not have managed. I had practiced Yoga. He said that my ability to do these things showed that there might be some long term dammage that I should see his doctor about.

I didn't sue, maybe I could have, but I was not raised that way.

I am certain he broke a few laws in what he was doing, but I am also certain that no one would have ever called him on it.

Now, I am sure there are some honerable saintly lawyers out there, but I wonder, Why have I never met one?

I do have issues with lawyers, but it sounds like you may be exacerbating the problem yourself. Have you ever the statement that if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem?

You clearly felt the lawyer was behaving in an unethical and possibly illegal manner. So, to whom did you report this incident? How can the bar associations enforce rules when people who claim to have ethics refuse to report incidents of misconduct to which they are witness?

If you refuse to do your civic duty to stop them, how can you complain so vociferously about their misdeeds?

 

[adder70]

Now, how do we sue if there are no lawyers? How about we go back to the old system where people represented themselves? I know, it seems like a grade school view of the law, but think about it, the one area of our everyday lives that is not dumbed down to a third grade level is the law. Is this an accident? Or, are we not supposed to understand it?

The law is by necessity complicated to account for many situations. Take tax law, for instance. It could be simple flat rate, or it could be a simple rate based on income. BUt then people wnat to deduct for basic expenses like food. Then people want to deduct for education expenses so schooling is more accessible. Then the freedom of owning a home is an important part of the american dream, so we should make mortgage interest deductible. But wait, the really rich shouldn't be able to hire lawyers to find special deductions and end up with almost no taxable expense, so we need a bare minimum with no deductions as a baseline for certain people. Then you want to provide relief for... Plain and simple, right?

One of my coworkers worked with a grant program for a while. First they wrote a simple grant for a certain type of research. Then they had consultants come in and try to find the loopholes and wrote provisions to close the loopholes. This often doubled the size of the documents. Then they had the first grant cycle and gave away a significant portion to people who did practically unrelated or NO research, and the following cycle the documents were once again more than doubled in size. He gave up giving explanations fairly quickly when asked by appicants why the documents and requirements were so "needlessly" complex.

 

[Seabear70]

I do have issues with lawyers, but it sounds like you may be exacerbating the problem yourself. Have you ever the statement that if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem?

You clearly felt the lawyer was behaving in an unethical and possibly illegal manner. So, to whom did you report this incident? How can the bar associations enforce rules when people who claim to have ethics refuse to report incidents of misconduct to which they are witness?

If you refuse to do your civic duty to stop them, how can you complain so vociferously about their misdeeds?

You've never lived in Louisiana, I can tell.

 

[adder70]

Back in the 80's when computers were first put on cars, a good friend and fellow shop owner called me over for a consult. He had this car in his shop for over a week and could not isolate an intermitent stall. His customer's patience had snapped and tempers were boiling over. The mechanic had done his level best to resolve the problem, but the customer just "knew" he was being dishonest.

I was sitting in his office looking over a diagnostic tree he and I were about to attempt, when the customer called. I sat there for quite a long while listening to my colleague trying to be cordial, diplomatic and such, and also hearing the guy on the other end YELLING on the phone.

At one point, I heard Kevin say without any hesitation or hint of sarcasm... "Oh please! Feel free to call your lawyer, but I don't think he can fix it either!" I was litterally rolling on the floor with laughter, and that started Kevin giggling too. The voice coming through that ear piece got even louder as did our laughter. In desperation Kev hung up the phone as we tried to recover.

Throughout the next few hours, whenever we found the diagnostic tree a bit obtuse, one of us would suggest that the other call a lawyer to figure it out. It was a long afternoon and my stomach hurt from all of the laughter.

The resolution? A motor mount. We found it shortly after filing the diagnostic tree in the round file. When you reved the engine in gear the engine would rock and dump a ton of gas down the E2SE carburetor. Kevin did not charge his customer a dime of diagnostic time. Only for the part and the labor. He also asked that the gentleman find a new mechanic. A month or so later, I asked the same gentleman to please ask some one other than me. It really wasn't his lawyer's fault now was it?

My car recently returned from a mech after an intermittent stall problem. First, the "mom and pop" mech I normally take it to ticked me off by doing the pick up the phone and leave it off the hook trick, only they picked it up while ringing and hung up as they did that. So, to my detriment, I decided to find someplace else. There was a Firestone MasterCare center across the street from work, so I took it there. They wanted a $100 diagnostic fee, abut I figured I could live with that if they found the problem. It was only as I was leaving that I asked the question about the cost of repair being reduced by that amount and they said that it would $100 PLUS any additional. I figure $100 was annoying but they were open weekends and Ireally needed my car. I took it home that night and brought it in the following day. Just before the end of their second day looking, when I was going to insist that they couldn't find the problem and to refund my money, they came up with a diagnosis costing $600 plus. I decided to wait for more frequent problems. WHen it happened again, I went to the same mom and pop place and they fixed the problem for $200, NOT INCLUDING the parts that the Firestone "MasterCare" technicians said were malfunctioning. Since the car starts fine now, they must have been wrong, and I will bet they just came up with an expensive problem so they could take my $100 and not be responsible for the "fix" that would then not work.

If I wasn't working long weeks (except for an afternoon or two off to catch up on house stuff) I would have already gone back to confront them (in the morning as people arrive with cars on their busiest day, of course).

Lawyers are like mechanics. You learn by getting taken and avoiding the takers in the future. Unfortunately we don't have communities small enough that the takers are put out of business by bad word of mouth anymore.

I think Michelins will look awfully good on my car, don't you? Maybe some Goodyears... (Of course, I need to see who besides Bridgestone is affiliated with Firestone.)

 

[Scubaguy62]

You've never lived in Louisiana, I can tell.

I'm sure you probably already know this Seabear70, but Louisiana follows a totally different code of laws than the remaining 49 states, who follow the basis of English common law. Louisiana follows the French code...maybe therein lies the difference.

 

[adder70]

You've never lived in Louisiana, I can tell.

If you are referring to my vocabulary, I did spend several years in a one stoplight Florida town. I've been out mudding more than once, and took my new sport ute out mudding with less than 100 miles on it and been called out of the water until the adults shot the gator. (At 7 feet, it was big enough to cause concern, unlike the little 4 footers, and yes, we went back in 10 minutes later.) So I do know how to speak "Foxworthy" as well as "white tower".

If you are referring to being blackballed by bringing to light the sins of those around you, I can't say much. You can either try to change your surroundings to a more Utopian situation, or you can accept that it isn't a Utopian society and you won't get ethics. If you aren't willing to stand up and fight for your beliefs, how can expect change?

 

[Seabear70]

The law is by necessity complicated to account for many situations. Take tax law, for instance. It could be simple flat rate, or it could be a simple rate based on income. BUt then people wnat to deduct for basic expenses like food. Then people want to deduct for education expenses so schooling is more accessible. Then the freedom of owning a home is an important part of the american dream, so we should make mortgage interest deductible. But wait, the really rich shouldn't be able to hire lawyers to find special deductions and end up with almost no taxable expense, so we need a bare minimum with no deductions as a baseline for certain people. Then you want to provide relief for... Plain and simple, right?

One of my coworkers worked with a grant program for a while. First they wrote a simple grant for a certain type of research. Then they had consultants come in and try to find the loopholes and wrote provisions to close the loopholes. This often doubled the size of the documents. Then they had the first grant cycle and gave away a significant portion to people who did practically unrelated or NO research, and the following cycle the documents were once again more than doubled in size. He gave up giving explanations fairly quickly when asked by appicants why the documents and requirements were so "needlessly" complex.

Here's a solution for the grant problem... If you feel that people are trying to beat the system, don't give them the grant. Simple.

The law could and should be simple. It is only when people refuse to stand up for what is right that it becomes complicated. Take for example the good samaritan laws. There was a time when people helped each other. It was in the nature of human beings to help others, we were all raised that way. Then one day, a person was helped by someone, and despite the best help that the person could give, the person was still injured. This had always happened from time to time, and most people took it as **** happens. But this time had a difference. This time a Lawyer got involved. The lawyer said, yes, the person should have done a better job of helping you, and they must be made to pay for the damage they did not prevent happening to you. And they went to a judge (who was obviously out of his freaking mind) And the judge allowed the case to be tried. And then the person who tried to help went to court and his only defense was that he did the best he could. But the court found against him.

What they started out with was a good person who tried to help people. What they ended with was a bad person who never wanted to help anyone. What made that person bad? Fear, fear that everything he had would be taken away from him again. And all his friends were afraid to help anyone either.

Soon, this fear spread from friend to friend, until no one anywhere was willing to help anyone else for fear of losing everything to the person they helped.

Then a lawyer realized that this was a bad thing. Because if no one helped anyone else, then who would he sue? Where would he make his living. So, he went to congress and asked them to pass a law. The law said that if a person acted in good faith to help another person, then they could not be held responsible for any damages. Congress, being made up mostly of lawyers agreed, this was a good law, because then people would continue to help each other not realizing that the law would not protect them really, and so they passed this law.

And all was good because then a man passed a car wrech and remembered the "Good Samaritan Act" and remembered that it was alright again to help other people.

So, he stopped his car and ran back to the car and pulled an old man from the flaming wreckage. And he felt very good about himself.

Untill a few weeks later, he recieved a summons!!!

The sumons said that he had not done a good enough job helping the old man escape from the wreckage of his burning car, and as a result the old man wanted everything that the helpful man had.

Now, he knew that he was protected, why? Because he had been acting in good faith to help that old man. THe good Samaritan Act said that was a good thing. But the lawyers knew that just accepting that **** happens would mean the end of ambulance chasing and they'd have to actually get real jobs. So they insisted that the man come in and prove that he did the best he could and that he had not intentionally caused further injury to the man.

After all, it was not as if the lawyers were at the wreck. They had not started the problem. Realistically they were not even suing each other. They were just Facilitators.

Can you say Facilitators boys and girls, I knew you could.

So, what happened when the helpful man went to court? First he had to get his own lawyer and pay him thousnads of dollars to speak for him. His lawyer proved that he was not to blame for what happened to the old man.

The old man was upset because he was still hurt and had to spend several thousand dollars to gain nothing. The helpful man was upset because he had to spend several thousand dollars because he did his very best to help someone. The helpful man swore he would never again try to help anyone.

But the lawyers were happy, they had both made thousands of dollars because they had helped teach others that you should not help others. And no one could blame the lawyers because they never sued anyone.

I know that was the Mister Rogers explaniation of the Good Samaritan Act. I know it was simplified to the point of stupidity. But, it was acurate. Read it to a first grader, and ask them what they think. We are reading it to them on a daily basis wether we know it or not. They pick up pieces of it from the news and from their parents, and they are smart enough to put the pieces together.

What is the Moral of this story? I'm not even sure the word Moral can be used properly in telling this story.

 

[Seabear70]

I'm sure you probably already know this Seabear70, but Louisiana follows a totally different code of laws than the remaining 49 states, who follow the basis of English common law. Louisiana follows the French code...maybe therein lies the difference.

You're refering to the differences between the Post Magna Carta laws which can be difined by saying that No man shall be deprived of rights without the due process of law.

And the Napoleonic Code which can be described as Criminals have no rights.

But, there are some similarities. The biggest problem as I see it is the views of the people living under those laws which is somethin you'd have to experience to realy understand.

 

[Seabear70]

If you are referring to my vocabulary, I did spend several years in a one stoplight Florida town. I've been out mudding more than once, and took my new sport ute out mudding with less than 100 miles on it and been called out of the water until the adults shot the gator. (At 7 feet, it was big enough to cause concern, unlike the little 4 footers, and yes, we went back in 10 minutes later.) So I do know how to speak "Foxworthy" as well as "white tower".

If you are referring to being blackballed by bringing to light the sins of those around you, I can't say much. You can either try to change your surroundings to a more Utopian situation, or you can accept that it isn't a Utopian society and you won't get ethics. If you aren't willing to stand up and fight for your beliefs, how can expect change?

Trust me, until you've lived in Louisiana, you would not understand.

I think it can be described, though not completely with this quote, "Dey bin Lookin Fa Jon Laffite treasure Nigh two hunret yeas, I don tink they be looking fa yous neah that lon."