Lawyers Evil or Saints?

[Seabear70]

Let me ask you a question, how do you value life? Consider this scenario; my neighbor doesn't grow his own vegetables, so I need to purchase them from my local grocery store. In the course of growing them the farmer negligently uses too much pesticide; the grocery store doesn't check for it, so they sell me a batch of poison. I reasonably rely on the grocery store to sell me fresh and healthy produce, don't you? So what happens if one of my kids ends up with some sort of debilitating disease due to the negligence of the farmer and the grocery store, should I alone be made to carry the burden of seeing my child be incapacitated for the rest of her life? or worse yet, die as a result? Should my medical insurance?

Evolving, or as you put it, "moving to a higher state of existance" does not negate the fact that there is evil in the world. Moving to a higher state of existence also involves accepting the risks involved with such move.

First of all, you have hit upon a case where you should sue, and I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

Second, how exactly is a guy trying to help you like a grocerystore selling poisoned food?

You are trying to compare two extreemes, and it does not work.

 

[Scubaguy62]

First of all, you have hit upon a case where you should sue, and I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

Second, how exactly is a guy trying to help you like a grocerystore selling poisoned food?

You are trying to compare two extreemes, and it does not work.

Yes it is, and you're right; hardly anyone would disagree with it.

I think you misunderstood my grocery store example, but that's ok. Regarding the two extremes, here's a quote from your first post...

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. - William Shakespeare

I've got an Idea...

Before providing help, check to see if they are carrying a Bar assn. Card in their wallet, or anything which says no to perform CPR. If they have either one, go help someone else.

So I ask you, how can I sue if a- we kill all the lawyers, or b- if we go help someone else instead?

A common lawyers joke says that 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean is called a good start. I submit to you that 10% of that number of politicians would be even a better start.

 

[Seabear70]

Yes it is, and you're right; hardly anyone would disagree with it.

I think you misunderstood my grocery store example, but that's ok. Regarding the two extremes, here's a quote from your first post...
So I ask you, how can I sue if a- we kill all the lawyers, or b- if we go help someone else instead?

A common lawyers joke says that 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean is called a good start. I submit to you that 10% of that number of politicians would be even a better start, and they can start with GWB.

Ok, I'm not going to get into politics here... edited...

But that quote from Shakespeare if I remember correctly, was intended by him to be comic relief.

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?

 

[outlawaggie]

I do have a personal stake in it. but (surprise!) so do you... you have your beliefs about lawyers at stake, and your beliefs are pretty darn personal... so you too have a personal stake

Andy,
The problem is most people never have any experiences with a "real" lawyer. They make up their minds based on the media. Unfortunately, it is the unscroupolous minority of attorneys who file absolutely absurd lawsuits and win.

Seabear,
you are leaving out one major point in all of your examples. The lawyer only brought the suit it was a JURY that awarded the absurd settlements in these cases. If juries didn't award STUPID awards lawyers wouldn't file the suits. Ever heard the saying that a jury is made up of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty???

All,
I am in no way defending the absurd examples that we all see in the media. They are truely ridiculous and are an embarrasment to our legal system but to classify all attorneys by the actions of a few is wrong as well.

..edited...

 

[mstudley]

Everyone hates lawyers until they actually need them for prosecution/defense. Not sure why this is.

There are jerks in every field, law is no different.

 

[Scubaguy62]

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?

...EDITED...

If we went back to the system when people represented themselves, who would judge them? people who were illiterate on the law?

You're wrong..the law is dumbed down to less than a third grade level; it's simple...you break it, you're either going to jail, or will have to pay a lot of money. It doesn't get more elementary than that. What we have to accept is that, like politics, medicine, and religion, there are significantly different levels of knowledge of the law, which is why we have lawyers and legal professionals who have studied it and can advise people who do not know it. A verse in the bible says (forgive me, I don't know the cite off the top of my head) "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Isn't that the truth? And we want to go about the law without those who know it? That's not evolving into a greater standard of life; it's going back to the stone age, and it's not the way I'd like to go.

 

[Seabear70]

Andy,
The problem is most people never have any experiences with a "real" lawyer. They make up their minds based on the media. Unfortunately, it is the unscroupolous minority of attorneys who file absolutely absurd lawsuits and win.

Seabear, you are leaving out one major point in all of your examples. The lawyer only brought the suit it was a JURY that awarded the absurd settlements in these cases. If juries didn't award STUPID awards lawyers wouldn't file the suits. Ever heard the saying that a jury is made up of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty???

All, I am in no way defending the absurd examples that we all see in the media. They are truely ridiculous and are an embarrasment to our legal system but to classify all attorneys by the actions of a few is wrong as well.

I have had experience with a lot of lawyers. I worked for several of them in various capacities that I am not prepared to discuss.

That being said, there is something about history that should be noted.

It used to be that the final test of a law was wether it could be enforced in a court. Let me give you an example. Let's say I was caught speeding, I then went to traffic court and demanded a jury trial. At the Jury trial, I amditted that I was speeding, but then went on to show to the Jury that the law was stupid, and should not be enforced. If I could make a solid enough case, then the jury would find me innocent.

Now, it seems that the Jury is instructed that despite their individual feelings about the law, that they must make their findings based on the law. As a result, the public's control of the law has been taken away. Sure, we can elect other politicians, but when was the last time a politician took the time to get a law removed from the books? There are places wher it is still illegal to leave a car unhitched when not occupied. Sure, I doubt that law is ever enforced, but if it is, and the jury is instructed that they must make their decision based on that law, Then how are they to find a person ticketed for failing to hitch their car when there is no hitching post and no reason to hitch the car in the first place without feeling that they've broken the law themselves?

Andy says that these lawyers make a mockery of the justice system, he's right. But at the same time he insists that the only way to deal with any kind of problem is to hire a lawyer. What exactly does this say?

The good Samaritan Laws have been brought up, Most people seem to think that eliminates the possibility of any legal hassles, but it does not. The good samaritan acts are legal defenses. While they were new and popular with the press, some DA's took the time to defend people based on those laws. It was good press for a person wanting to climb in politics. Now, you will pay thousands of dollars to "try" to prove that you are exempt do to the good samaritan laws. I'm not certain about the laws in this, but I seriously doubt that there is any practical way to recoup this loss.

 

[Seabear70]

You're wrong..the law is dumbed down to less than a third grade level; it's simple...you break it, you're either going to jail, or will have to pay a lot of money. It doesn't get more elementary than that. What we have to accept is that, like politics, medicine, and religion, there are significantly different levels of knowledge of the law, which is why we have lawyers and legal professionals who have studied it and can advise people who do not know it. A verse in the bible says (forgive me, I don't know the cite off the top of my head) "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Isn't that the truth? And we want to go about the law without those who know it? That's not evolving into a greater standard of life; it's going back to the stone age, and it's not the way I'd like to go.

Ok, what is the law?

Shouldn't it be a simple measure of responsibility and right and wrong?

 

[outlawaggie]

Seabear,
I don't disagree with your examples I fully agree that there are many absolutely STUPID lawsuits but I'm just saying you can't lump all lawyers into that category. ...edited...

 

[AevnsGrandpa]

I have not read through every post in this thread but enough to get the "Feel" of what is being said.

I deal with laywers everyday as my job is their IT support (I work with corporate laywers) and at least most of the 200+ I deal with are good guys. Please note that I don't sit down and discuss the cases they are working on or how are they try to "win" it, but they are regular folks non the less.

As to the title of my post, I firmly believe that the blame of our "sue happy" litigation system is because of the JUDGES that even allow some of these type of cases and class actions to even be heard.

We would not have heard about the lady who burned herself on hot coffee from Mac's if the judge on the case read or heard the first argument and said "This is crazy and there is no basis for any law suit."

Somehow we have elected a bunch of judges out there who think individuals are not responsibile for there own actions and others should pay for their mistakes and stupidness.

If laywers knew that the judges where not going to allow frivious litigation they would not bring so many or as many stupid law suits into the court system.

"now getting off the soap box" (I should watch it though, I could trip and fall off my soap box and then sue the makers of the box stating it should have been made for people to stand on and safely get off of!!!!)

Jeff