For Lawyers??????

[Arvon]

Fear of Lawyers: The Dollywood amusement park in Tennessee announced the end of free passes for the blind and the crippled after someone complained of discrimination against people with other disabilities, who still had to pay (October). And the town of Mosgiel, New Zealand, barred children from sitting on Santa's knee this year because of the risk of future molestation complaints. And the Royal British Legion announced it will no longer give out poppy pins to donors on Remembrance Day (for military veterans) because of fear that people might stick themselves and sue. (November). [Knoxville News-Sentinel-AP, 10-30-03] [Agence France-Presse, 11-28-03] [Daily Telegraph (London), 11-2-03]

[Dron_Cah]

This is a bit off topic, but your sig is something a friend of mine is always complaining about! In our Calculus and/or Physics class he is constantly annoyed by the argument that some arbitrary number is actually the next higher whole number. Also, your post highlights what I think is the degradation of our society, but that's just my opinion. Well, later.

[Seraph]

Originally posted by Dron_Cah: In our Calculus and/or Physics class he is constantly annoyed by the argument that some arbitrary number is actually the next higher whole number.

Would that be the argument the 0.9_ = 1 (where 0.9_ is zero point nine repeating) argument?
Because it is easy to prove.

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, it is sad but we have a litigous society. Rent and drive a Mercedes around for a day and just see how many people jump in front of you hoping to win the lottery. It's deplorable.

[pritchke]

While it is easy to place the blame on lawyers for the degradation of society I think it is people you should fear or lawyers clients, and lawyers who take ridiculous cases to make a quick buck oof an idiot making those cases. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

[ 12-18-2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Lawyers are held to a higher standard. In every state, and at the federal level, and among most agency courts (e.g. the SEC) we face rules on the standards of conduct. We have rules on how we can advertise, what we must keep secret, how to handle conflicts of interest, how to safekeep client's property, how to handle retainer fees, how we can't quit cases in many instances. We have rules of duties to the tribunal: we can't bring specious claims, we can't elicit false testimony, we cannot lie to the tribunal.

However, there is this notion of zealous representation. Since our legal system is modelled on the joust theory (each side has its champion competing in the tilt), we feel we must present every argument that may win for our client -- zealous representation. However, "zealous representation" is, interestingly, NOT in our cannons of ethics (in most states -- and it was once in some ethical rules but was removed years ago) -- we are technically not required to do that.

The first place I worked made specious claims and just said shit to get money. I left as quick as possible (fearing for my own practice), and have been fortunate enough to NOT be around such a practice again. What scares me as much as anything is credibility. With most judges, these stupid arguments like "McDonalds is to blame for my kid being a porker" will get you a horrible reputation, as the judge looks down his nose at you and asks, "Are you seriously implying, counsel, that X,Y, and Z?" Most of us don't like to be looked at as stupid or silly, so the amount of silly claims are really few and far between.

These days my practice is aimed at keeping people OUT of court.

Oh well, someone looking to have her kid consoled for being a porker by suing McDonald's WILL find a lawyer eventually -- if she's willing to look long enough. It's not that we're bad eggs, it's just that only the bad ones get found.
____________________________________
But, hey, I'd like to point out that this is a problem for all professions these days. Been to a car mechanic lately? How many things on his list were REALLY needed for your car? Drive thru -- "Supersize that, sir... and would you like a smoothie?" (upsell, upsell). Try getting electronics components fixed -- often times they simply tell you to throw it out and buy a new one. Hired a plumber or exterminator lately? Did you understand your bill from them?

Hidden charges, silly products/services, and money pits abound these days. You need this pill to lose weight, this book to learn how to take the pill, this pill to help your eyes because you read the book, and oh here some prilosec because all those pills will give you acid reflux. Oh, and while we're at it, have some prozac because you're going to feel depressed for being bound to pills for life.

Now, let's move on to homeopathy. You need some aromatherapy, a massage therapist, and here are some crystals and rocks and wood -- along with a feng shui consultant to get your life centered and your chakra balanced.

Now that you feel good, let's move on to looking good. Our haircuts are only $60, $220 with color, you'll definately need a quick tummy-tuck and brow lift (we can expedite those). Oh, and you've got some unsightly facial hair -- a mere $3000 and we can have that gone inside of 6 months, never to return. You'll need a personal trainer and a gym membership, which takes commitment, but it's so worth it and such a bargain at $99/month. You'll need these face, hair, and body care products to use at home, and oh don't forget the most recent (MORE) supplements, from the professional trainer of course.

It is all a bit silly isn't it? I mean who else is fed up and put out with being drugged up, let down, stepped on, and lied to by our hyper-consumer buy this, eat that, wear this, now change it all society????

Well, me, for one.

But, trust me, it ain't just the lawyers that've gone off the deep end.

[ 12-18-2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[pritchke]

When I worked as an engineer(EIT), I was asked to raise the PSV on a tank that was not designed to go to that pressure by a senior engineer. While it was likely to never cause a serious problem it was a safety issue that something could have happened. I refused, fought tooth, and nail not to do this. I won but this was all about money because the only other option was to replace the tank which was expensive for the client. The client was willing to pay for the new tank but this guy just wanted to look really good by saving the client a ton of money yet jeopardizing safety of the original design. I quit as the senior engineer made life for me very difficult after that because I embarrassed him and work became very political and I hate having to suck up. I went into programming after that, much less stress.

I am sure a case could be made for doctors as well. Engineers actually have a duty to blow the whistle on clients who may endanger the public. Most never do for fear of backlash from the corporate world.

I wasn't saying that lawyers were not held to a high standard just that it would nice if it was higher. Such as toss in the point covering "zealous representation" again as currently having it removed seems to be a loophole that certain lawyers can work their ethics around, and does not do anything good for society or the reputation of the profession.

[ 12-18-2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[LordKathen]

I am annoyed with a local firm here. They "specialise" in DUI issues. They have many adds on radio claiming how much help they can be to those in "trouble" with their DUI case. They make it sound like your the victom and they are there to help you. It makes it sound so petty. You get in a car drunk, I think you should loose your license for a year automaticaly, pay 10 grand, and 30 days in jail. It is one of the biggest killers out there.
This firm is the utmost of what you guys are talking about in my opinion.


[ 12-18-2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Lord K, I disagree. I have a friend who, through happenstance, happens to specialize in DUI more than anything else. I know people who've gotten DUI's. They never intended to endanger anyone, but two beers at an office party, and the next thing they know, they're driving with a .10 BAC in a .08 jurisdiction and get popped. These are, btw, the VAST majority of DUI cases.

There are a few problems with DUI's caused by the asshole MADD group and its zero-tolerance-push-the-BAC-into-ridiculous-levels politics. Most states are now .08 jurisdictions. That's ab-frikkin-surd. That's literally one drink in 1 to 2 hours for most people. In translation, .08 BAC = if you drive you CANNOT HAVE ANY DRINKS. This is too much. Balance, people, balance. Going from one extreme to the other is silly. .10 BAC was closer to fair.

Note that for kids a .02 BAC kills their future, if not careful.

Yes, it is horrible and irresponsible to drive drunk. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. But, is .08 BAC significantly impaired?

Moreover, many people screw up once. I'm not saying it's excusable, I'm just saying 3 glasses of wine at an office party, you feel fine, and next thing you know you spend the night in jail. Because of the way alcohol impairs your judgment, it is not unreasonable that you will climb in a car over the limit not knowing it. In fact, a breathalizer station outside a club in Schaumburg, IL was shown on the news the other night. Fully 75% of the people who felt okay to drive ended up not climbing in their cars after they saw their BAC. They didn't INTEND to be irresponsible, but were about to make a mistake.

This lawyer you detest serves his customers, and it is a needed service. In many states, your first DUI is a REQUIRED conviction, even if a first offense -- no plea. So, you're in for a conviction at least, and you need a lawyer to help you navigate the jungle so your one mistake doesn't f**k your whole life. Also, help is needed in returning the license. The FIRST, the VERY FIRST, DUI is an immediate loss of license in almost all states for at least a 60-day period. Suffering through that period is hard enough, but then you got to do legal gyrations and file papers to get your license back. It's hard, and can result in collateral damage -- like the loss of a job (imagine if this happened to you, Lord K, a cabbie, for instance).

So, the fine and punishment you suggest for your first DUI are ludicrous, absurd, and silly in most instances.

Note that a higher DWI (higher BAC) is usually a felony, punishable by more than $1000 and/or more than 1 year in jail. The same is true for multiple DUI's.

[LordKathen]

There is no way the police have the time or resourse to be able to tell who is ok to drive at .08 and who is not. There are those people out there who have a low tolerance and may not have the needed reflexes to avoid hitting a child on a bike at night on the side of the road when they have only had those 2 glasses of wine at that office party. There is way to much gray area to determine. So, therefore we have a limit. That limit is way to high as far as I am concerened. I am all for ZERO tolerance. It kills way to many people and specificaly kids. As you pointed out with the club anylizer, people are to stupid to make the judgment themselves when they have been drinking. Only the realisation of being actually legally impaired, did they make the right choice. Well, personaly, the LAW, and stats on how many people DIE every year from this "mistake", is enough realisation for me. JUST DONT DO IT! Period.

As far as the lawyers go, I have no problem with them dealing with the cases. What my point was, is the way they present themselves to the public in their ad. They really make it sound like the law is out to get you and they are there to protect you. You would have to hear the ad. I suppose.