How Low Will The Lawyers Go?

[Growltigger]

Well Geo old chap, I am slightly incorrect in my statement that 90% of the world's lawyers are American. In fact, I believe the figure is closer to 92%.

I would not have the temerity to say that practically all of the objectionable offences commited by lawyers are done so by American lawyers, as that would be arrogance, and would not take into account that the other legal systems of the World do have their own right royal cock-ups. Human rights cases in quite a lot of the Eastern hemisphere spring to mind.

That being said, the matters being complained of here, eg sueing the fast food industry for making people fat, sueing the video game industry for causing people to be violent (a nice one in a country that let's people freely have automatic and assualt weaponry!!), are particular to the US legal system.

But, this is not a pure American forum. So any generic statement that lawyers are the scum of the earth and the lowest of the low, by its very necessity is a remark which equally applies to lawyers from all the other countries represented here on the forum, England, Germany, Australia etc., and that is what I dislike.

I am fed up with being tarred with the same brush which is applied to what I can only describe as misconceived spurious money grabbing claims brought by profiteering types which unfortunately, make regular headlines in the US.

Let's look at what the majority of lawyers throughout the world do. You can split them into two generic types, corporate lawyers and private lawyers. This is further split into contentious and non-contentious work.

Non contentious Corporate lawyers deal with companies, whether it be employment, pensions, corporate, mergers and acquisition advice or whatever. We deal with corporates, we act for corporates in doing things that corporates do. I am not aware of too many headline cases where non contentious corporate lawyers have shocked the world with the daftness of what they are doing.

Non contentious private lawyers deal with people. When you buy your house, when you get divorced, when you want to make a will etc basically, when you have problems, you turn to these people to help you. Keep in mind that for most people, they only deal with lawyers when there are problems in their lives, so it is fair to say (and I accept) that we get tarnished with being only around when the fecal matter hits the rotary air impeller.

Now, we turn to contentious lawyers. These are the litigators, which make up a sizable chunk of the American legal fraternity (I believe more as a percentage than other jurisdictions). These are your contingent fee chappies, these are the people who sue McDonalds cos their food makes you fat, these are the people who sue hospitals cos they didnt test you for Growltigga's dribbling backside syndrome.

Contentious lawyers are everywhere, but the cases which make the headlines are those in the US. And this is not because the US has more legal cases per capita than anywhere else, it doesnt. They make the headlines for 2 reasons - (1) the US legal system allows claims like this, which pretty much any other jurisdiction would chuck out for abuse of process and (2) the jury based system of damages means the awards granted in US courts are, by comparison with the rest of the world, absolutely unbeleivable (I remember one case where a neighbour reversed his car over the foot of his neighbour, and broke two of his toes - that neighbour was awarded $950,000 in damages - where the hell is the justification in that, how do you prove that injury is worth that amount?)

I resent being associated with that.

Fine, in your opinion I may be being unduly sensitive, but I dont think so. Perhaps Atrocites should have entitled this thread "How low will lawyers in the US go" - that would be more accurate.

The same would apply if I started a post saying "are all people employed in IT a bunch of dreming overpaid tosspots?" - I would be insulting everybody in the industry, and not just the people say on the help desk at Microsoft who I really meant. A defence of saying "Hey, we are mainly Americans so therefore we only mean America is a bit egocentrical" in my opinion, unless this thread is only meant to be for Americans and the rest of us dont have an invite.

I do beleive in reasonableness, and yes, it can strongly be argued that since Atrocities is a US citizen, he is only talking about US lawyers, but it is dangerous to leverage generic statements such as "lawyers are scumbags" on the back of that interpretation.

Finally, I wouldn't dream comment on whether or not the majority of Americans are basically uneducated about life and circumstances out the US. I haven't really met enough to know whether this is a fair statement or not. Some certainly are, but then so are a lot of British who wont go abroad because of the greasy food, funny people and heathen language. I do not think America has a monopoly on introverted types.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
A defence of saying "Hey, we are mainly Americans so therefore we only mean America is a bit egocentrical" in my opinion, unless this thread is only meant to be for Americans and the rest of us dont have an invite.

On the contrary, I would never hold such an uncooth and jingoistic opinion. One of the values of this forum is that it exposes us to varying opinons and cultures. I totally respect all the differing points of view here and invite all to participate. I am merely of the opinon that trying to be overly careful about every single word doesn't really help the flow of ideas all that much. Perhaps in areas where it is reasonable that someone could misunderstand. But since he specifically mentioned the cases he takes offense at, i.e. the recent slew of big ticket product liability class action lawsuits, I don't think your case for taking offense is all that strong. I don't think a reasonable person would think Atrocities is in any way besmirtching the reputation of your esteemed collegue in Bangladesh drawing up real estate contracts. He's doing a bang up job, we are all sure.

Besides, "How low will the contentious private US lawyers go?" as a thread topic may be more precise and a tad less offensive, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tounge, wot?

[rdouglass]

Just 2 cents....

The truth (as usual) is somewhere there in the middle. Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely. However there is almost a "circle" of people that set up the legal system to begin with. When you can't do ANYTHING in court without a lawyer, it almost seems like a legalized form of racketeering (at least to us common folk who don't know the legal system).

So please don't try to argue that lawyers are the upstanding citizens that are wrongly persecuted when in fact the whole legal system in general very close to an "exclusive club". Remember the legal system dictates how virtually every other entity (private citizen, company, etc.) conducts its affairs.

This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....

And yes, I did IT work for a Supreme COurt system and I do understand how judges and lawyers (and others in the system) are socially connected as well as professionally.

[ January 28, 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: rdouglass ]

[Growltigger]

"Bang Up" job? hmmmm, I believe this is one of the cases where we prove that Americans and British are divided by a common language (as well as dietary habits, big hair on women, dodgy TV and flatulence) - I am not sure what that phrase means in the US, but I would not repeat in polite company (and here I am giving you all the benefit of the doubt)what it means in England, or at least my part of it.

Geo, we are not merely in the situation where one is trying to be overly careful about every single word to avoid any suppression of the flow of ideas, we are talking about the rightness or wrongness of making generic statements, expecially when they post up as topic titles on threads.

My case for taking offense is this, I am a lawyer, I saw that thread title and post, I was offended. Be thankful I am not reaching for my attorneys there in the USA and demanding they bring a claim for $10million against Atrocities (and vicariously you as moderator and Shrapnel as forum host) for libel!

The only reason I am not doing that if cos I dont think you lot are good for the cash

As moderator, I demand you change the thread title to "How long will litigious and unscrupulous American qualified attorneys practicing both contentious Federal and State law go" immediately.

I also demand you formally reprimand Atrocities in writing and in triplicate for his willful and hurtful attack on the worldwide legal community.

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by Growltigger:

Finally, I wouldn't dream comment on whether or not the majority of Americans are basically uneducated about life and circumstances out the US. I haven't really met enough to know whether this is a fair statement or not. Some certainly are, but then so are a lot of British who wont go abroad because of the greasy food, funny people and heathen language. I do not think America has a monopoly on introverted types.

I spent a weekend in England in 1994. Won a radio contest, and went to the Reading Festival, which is a musical festival starring a whole bunch of bands. I'll admit, even though I was kind of tempted, I just stuck to eating foods I was familiar with. Ate at the McDonalds and a couple of other American fast foods joints over there in London. Took getting used to warm tea. I like my tea cold. Don't drink, so I can't comment on warm beer. I won't say it was a complete culture shock. My ancestry is British, and I do like watching some of the british shows on PBS. But it was definitely different than what I was used to. I did love the Underground. First time on a subway. I wish I could have stayed longer. I really enjoyed my stay over there.

[Karibu]

I am no lawyer, but an engineer with (hopefully) some general sence. The main difference in US courts and other countries courts is propably this: In US the huge monetary payment is considered as punishment in general. In many other countries (like here in Finland) the punishment and reparation of the damage are separate things.

For example: You burn a car of your annoying neighbour. In Finland, you get into jail (punishment) for 30 days for it and you pay the prize of a car for victim (reparation). It is not possible to have 1M euros as reparation if the car was not worth it.

However, this does not prevent people to sue other people for these ridiculous claims, but luckily this "american way" has not spread here yet. Also, I do not say the our legal system is better than in US, just that some aspects are better so that people can not take advantage of it in the expense of other people. Also I think that legal systems in US and Finland are so different that it would be difficult to compare. With respect to everyone, Karibu.

[edit]: I hope that no consultant will sue me for my sig

[ January 28, 2004, 15:58: Message edited by: Karibu ]

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Wardad:

Q: Who in the (USA) is responsible... Golfer, Golf Course, or County?

A (USA) golfer hits a ball over a high fence and it hits a car and that car causes an accident (In the country of the first part).

The golf course claims grandfather rights of operation. They were here first and had plenty of buffer land, until the county condemed a corner of it and placed the 4 lane there. Further more, they have complied with the law by building the fence at great expense.

The county claims it is not responsible for the actions of other people or for foriegn objects entering the roadway. Also, the fence is areasonable precaution required by the law.

well...

The (USA contingency) lawyers think about...
they investigate a little deeper...
and sue the one with the deepest pockets.


EDIT: Added ( ) bold comments, OK GT?

[Growltigger]

Originally posted by rdouglass:
Just 2 cents....

The truth (as usual) is somewhere there in the middle. Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely.

I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, and in fact, just about anybody who has a service or skill which you personally dont possess. I know that my plumber for example makes me look cheap!

Originally posted by rdouglass:
However there is almost a "circle" of people that set up the legal system to begin with. When you can't do ANYTHING in court without a lawyer, it almost seems like a legalized form of racketeering (at least to us common folk who don't know the legal system).

That is not correct. The legal system of pretty much every country in the World has developed over the past centuries from either the common law (based on Mediaval dicta) or the civil law (based on Napoleon) systems. In almost all other cases, a countries legal system has been borrowed from a colonial power. Laws have developed, not been established by a bunch of blokes saying, hey ho, we want lots of cash, let's do something to give us a job for life.

You can go to court without a lawyer. You can bring your own action, you can defend yourself. You simply need to get a textbook and understand the court procedural rules.In the US, you have the equivalent of our small claims court where you are encouraged, not to use lawyers. This applies from every court from your local town court, to the Supreme Court.

You dont need lawyers to go to court. That is your right. Lawyers are there if you want assistance in going to court.

As for legalised form of racketeering, anyone can be a lawyer if they take the exams, just as anyone can be a plumber if they do the course.

Originally posted by rdouglass:
So please don't try to argue that lawyers are the upstanding citizens that are wrongly persecuted when in fact the whole legal system in general very close to an "exclusive club". Remember the legal system dictates how virtually every other entity (private citizen, company, etc.) conducts its affairs.

Rdouglass, this really is a hugely generic statement. My argument certianly was not that lawyers are upstanding citizens that are wrongly accused, but that it is unfair to generically criticize all lawyers whereever they may be for the faults of one particular type of lawyer in one particular country.

As for the legal system being an "exclusive club", I just dont see that.

Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....

And yes, I did IT work for a Supreme COurt system and I do understand how judges and lawyers (and others in the system) are socially connected as well as professionally.

I am not privy to the art of IT, I do not understand plumbing, I am not a very good electrician, in order to obtain these services, I need to go through the appropriately ualified person, and utilise the resources at their disposal. Why should lawyers be any different. We are specialists in our respective fields, and it is that expertise that is the one commodity that we have to sell. What you appear to be suggesting is a denial of my right to make a living as a lawyer.

As to the remark on social connections, it may be different in the US but the old boys network is not exclusive to the legal community, and applies at all levels of business. I think it is unfair to say that we have some private club going, it is just not the case.

Just my 3.2 cents worth

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
The only reason I am not doing that if cos I dont think you lot are good for the cash

Of that Gt you are most definetly correct.

Originally posted by Growltigger:
I also demand you formally reprimand Atrocities in writing and in triplicate for his willful and hurtful attack on the worldwide legal community.

How about as a compromise we just cane him.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rdouglass:
Yes lawyers help us (common citizens) out of many legal issues that we are not capable or trained to deal with. And of that we pay you handsomely.
Originally posted by Growltigger:
I believe the same applies to pretty much every trade or profession. I could say the same about plumbers, boiler repairmen, carpenters, electricians, surveyors, and in fact, just about anybody who has a service or skill which you personally dont possess. I know that my plumber for example makes me look cheap!

Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is just my opinion but also please remember that the majority of folks are NOT lawyers; American or otherwise and so we're not privy to all of the resources at YOUR disposal. To get at those we MUST go through you....
Originally posted by Growltigger:
I am not privy to the art of IT, I do not understand plumbing, I am not a very good electrician, in order to obtain these services, I need to go through the appropriately ualified person, and utilise the resources at their disposal. Why should lawyers be any different. We are specialists in our respective fields, and it is that expertise that is the one commodity that we have to sell. What you appear to be suggesting is a denial of my right to make a living as a lawyer.

That is a rational argument Gt, however there is a difference. At least a perceived difference, whether it is valid or not I will not attmept to say.

Like the plumber, electrician, IT person, etc. the lawyer is providing a skilled service. The percieved difference however is that the service the layers provide is only required because of the exsistance of other lawyers.

I need a plumber because I want running water to my loo and don't wish to freeze my bum going to the trees behind my house in at 6 in the morning.

The cynical view of lawyers on the other hand is that their purpose for exsistance can be boiled down to two basic purposes. To get something for myself that belongs to someone else, and to keep something of my own that someone elses lawyer is trying to get for him.

You could say that lawyers would be unneccesary if I would simply be happy with what is mine, and if everybody else were happy with what is theirs. On the other hand, there is no malicious intent behind my pipes freezing on a cold day. And if I don't have the skill to repair them myself, I need someone who does. I can't eliminate my need for a plumber by convincing everyone else they don't need a plumber.

I realize that lawyers believe they serve an important function in defense of the powerless against the powerful. But the cynic will reply that the powerful only allow the laywers to do what they allow them to do. That the defense the lawyer provides is merely an illusion the powerful allows the powerless to enjoy. The only thing the powerful really fears is that the powerless will lose the illusion that there really is anything protecting them other then the powerful's promise to "follow the rule of law". Because losing that illusion results in anarchy, and anarchy is the only thing that can truely cause the powerful to lose his power. He needs to maintain order, and to do that the powerless must be allowed either hope or fear. And while fear is effective for a time, it is inefficent and a poor motivator for the long term.

Of course, that's just the cynical view.