Lawyers - Why Do People Hate Them?
Lowell
lawyers." Thoughts?
Steve
> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
> lawyers." Thoughts?
>
hid that connection from us and were trying to insidiously find stuff
out. There's your answer.
--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. '05, M.S. (Transportation) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads
B Line fi blow speaker box
> Lowell wrote:
>> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>> lawyers." Thoughts?
>>
> Lawdog. Let's see, that means you're probably a lawyer. See, you just
> hid that connection from us and were trying to insidiously find stuff
> out. There's your answer.
>
Lawyers are politicians in larval form.
--
Comrade Mister Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
this just in:
http://mryamamoto.topcities.com/us1-sb-to-md/mash-up-session.htm
Remember, buy Whizzo butter and go to HEAVEN!
Douglas Kerr
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136422604.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
> lawyers." Thoughts?
>
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
David Jensen
B Line fi blow speaker box <m...@sh-up-de-session.au> wrote in
<Qs_uf.25527$SH2....@fe12.lga>:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> Lowell wrote:
>>> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>>> lawyers." Thoughts?
>>>
>> Lawdog. Let's see, that means you're probably a lawyer. See, you just
>> hid that connection from us and were trying to insidiously find stuff
>> out. There's your answer.
>>
>Lawyers are politicians in larval form.
Not all lawyers are larval politicians, but it does seem that larval
politicians seem to think they need to be lawyers these days. This is a
bad thing for politics ... and for the law.
Concrete Bob
Lowell wrote:
> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
> lawyers." Thoughts?
Reminds me of a joke I heard about 20 years ago:
A dad was explaining the facts of life to his adolescent son. He asked
his son if he had any questions.
The son asked, "Dad, can a woman get pregnant from having anal sex with
a man?"
The father replied, "Why of course, son. Where do you think lawyers
come from?"
Rich Piehl
> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
> lawyers." Thoughts?
>
They've driving up the cost of everything in this country by encouraging
people to file frivolous lawsuits.
They've furthered the mindset of many people that they are not
responsible for their own actions. And no matter how much stupidity
they exhibit in those actions when something ill befalls those people
they are owed money.
That, when class-action lawsuits are filed, it's not the class that
recover the damages. The class gets very little and the lawyers get
wealthy.
From the Eagles song 'Get Over it.'
"You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash.
But you might feel better if they gave you some cash."
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Some people are like slinkies; not really good for anything,
but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them
down a flight of stairs.
--Glenn Beck
Rich Piehl
Different joke, same target:
Q: What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?
A: One is a slimy, mud sucking bottom dweller...and the other is a fish.
B Line fi blow speaker box
Dude, it rilly r00ins a joke when you take it seriously. And you should
seriously consider taking anything written by a person signing himself as
"Comrade Mister Yamamoto" too seriously. Seriously, I mean it :|
David Jensen
Rich Piehl <rpiehl5R...@FORNOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in
<do0vf.307$dj3...@fe04.lga>:
>Lowell wrote:
>> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>> lawyers." Thoughts?
>>
>For starters...
>
>They've driving up the cost of everything in this country by encouraging
>people to file frivolous lawsuits.
That is a great bit of PR by the businesses who don't want to be held
accountable for their carelessness. Yes, there are the occasional
frivolous suits, but if the court finds them to be frivolous the
plaintiff can be forced to pay defence bills. It's not much of a
problem. The problem is that there is a lot of carelessness in business
and people get hurt because of it. 12 people died this week because a
mine company was careless. Unfortunately for their families, their
recovery is likely to be limited to the statutory workers comp maximum.
>They've furthered the mindset of many people that they are not
>responsible for their own actions. And no matter how much stupidity
>they exhibit in those actions when something ill befalls those people
>they are owed money.
A few people have that attitude, but the filings have not increased as
quickly as your comment would imply. They have not grown at the rate the
economy and population growth would have predicted.
>That, when class-action lawsuits are filed, it's not the class that
>recover the damages. The class gets very little and the lawyers get
>wealthy.
Class actions are problematic, and the settlements that get me a coupon
and millions to the lawyers are really grating. That's why we need a
government that actually cares about enforcing the law.
> From the Eagles song 'Get Over it.'
>
>"You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash.
>But you might feel better if they gave you some cash."
When the greed and callousness of businesses are universally condemned,
lawyers will have far less to do.
Rich Piehl
Just a guess...be honest...you're either a lawyer, the son of a lawyer,
or a law student. Am I right?
US 71
"Douglas Kerr" <doug...@HORMELgribblenation.netHORMEL> wrote in message
news:ZA%uf.70898$XC4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
I work at a Holiday Inn Express ;)
David Jensen
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:21:24 -0500, in misc.transport.road
>> B Line fi blow speaker box <m...@sh-up-de-session.au> wrote in
>> <Qs_uf.25527$SH2....@fe12.lga>:
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lowell wrote:
>>>>> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>>>>> lawyers." Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>> Lawdog. Let's see, that means you're probably a lawyer. See, you just
>>>> hid that connection from us and were trying to insidiously find stuff
>>>> out. There's your answer.
>>>>
>>>Lawyers are politicians in larval form.
>>
>> Not all lawyers are larval politicians, but it does seem that larval
>> politicians seem to think they need to be lawyers these days. This is a
>> bad thing for politics ... and for the law.
>
>Dude, it rilly r00ins a joke when you take it seriously. And you should
>seriously consider taking anything written by a person signing himself as
>"Comrade Mister Yamamoto" too seriously. Seriously, I mean it :|
I know. I was just winkling out the truth of your joke. Sorry.
David Jensen
Technically, you are incorrect, I have never practiced law, I am not
currently in law school, my father was a teacher.
Rich Piehl
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:56:22 -0600, in misc.transport.road
> Rich Piehl <rpiehl5R...@FORNOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in
> <KN0vf.315$dj3...@fe04.lga>:
>
>>David Jensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:29:09 -0600, in misc.transport.road
>>>Rich Piehl <rpiehl5R...@FORNOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in
>>><do0vf.307$dj3...@fe04.lga>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lowell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>>>>>lawyers." Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For starters...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From the Eagles song 'Get Over it.'
>>>
>>>>"You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash.
>>>>But you might feel better if they gave you some cash."
>>>
>>
>>Just a guess...be honest...you're either a lawyer, the son of a lawyer,
>>or a law student. Am I right?
>
>
> Technically, you are incorrect, I have never practiced law, I am not
> currently in law school, my father was a teacher.
Okay, well then, let's go through your points....
>>>>They've driving up the cost of everything in this country by
encouraging
>>>>people to file frivolous lawsuits.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is a great bit of PR by the businesses who don't want to be held
>>>accountable for their carelessness. Yes, there are the occasional
>>>frivolous suits, but if the court finds them to be frivolous the
>>>plaintiff can be forced to pay defense bills. It's not much of a
>>>problem. The problem is that there is a lot of carelessness in business
>>>and people get hurt because of it. 12 people died this week because a
>>>mine company was careless. Unfortunately for their families, their
>>>recovery is likely to be limited to the statutory workers comp maximum.
>>>
Look at the 'lawyer' section of any big city Yellow Pages. Watch
daytime television. Note the number of ads and commercials by lawyers
that say "have you been injured? We'll get you a settlement." Note
there is -NOTHING- in there about being hurt through negligence. Just
"have you been hurt?"
>>>
>>>
>>>>They've furthered the mindset of many people that they are not
>>>>responsible for their own actions. And no matter how much stupidity
>>>>they exhibit in those actions when something ill befalls those people
>>>>they are owed money.
>>>
>>>
>>>A few people have that attitude, but the filings have not increased as
>>>quickly as your comment would imply. They have not grown at the rate the
>>>economy and population growth would have predicted.
The courts are -CLOGGED- with lawsuits. File a lawsuit today and it
likely won't get heard for months. That is not what I would call swift
justice.
>>>>That, when class-action lawsuits are filed, it's not the class that
>>>>recover the damages. The class gets very little and the lawyers get
>>>>wealthy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Class actions are problematic, and the settlements that get me a coupon
>>>and millions to the lawyers are really grating. That's why we need a
>>>government that actually cares about enforcing the law.
Enforcing the law has nothing to do with government enforcement of the
laws. A class action lawsuit is just that - a suit to compensate an
injured class. Yet the class gets little or no compensation. The
lawyers get the money.
>>>
>>>When the greed and callousness of businesses are universally condemned,
>>>lawyers will have far less to do.
Shouldn't those same rules apply to law firms? That statement is an
oxymoron.
Concrete Bob
Texas around January 1991. To the right of Harry Hines Boulevard, I
saw a huge billboard that stated "Taken a hit lately? SUE THE BUM !!!"
Then the billboard listed the name of the Accident-Injury attorney
that would represent the injured client in court. I often wonder if
the problem could have been worked outside of the normal legal channels
to resolve the matter.
Another favorite attorney memory comes from watching daytime television
on a day off from work. Every third or fourth commercial is either
from an accident-injury or a Chapter 7 bankruptcy attorney that will
take a client's case for $20.00. The funniest fact about these
commercials is that they come on during the "Springer" show each day at
3:00 PM. It's clearly obvious that they aren't dealing with the
highest common denominator. However, it doesn't make any excuse for me
watching the show... : )
Finally, back in January 1997, there were a bunch of flash floods in
Northern and Central California. The floods were so bad, that a
section of I-5 washed out over a slough near Coalinga. The bridges
were washed out. The Sierra Club hired attorneys to file an injunction
to stop the reconstruction of the slough bridges in order to do a
full-blown "environmental impact report" for replacing the washed-out
bridges. Obviously, the judge was intellegent enough to throw the case
out, but attorneys reared their ugly heads in that situation. Any
attorney who would have taken this case should have his/hers/its head
examined. But then again, he/she it sucked off money from the Sierra
Club so it wasn't that bad, I suppose.
Nonetheless, attorneys represent another level of "person" to deal with
in order to "Get Things Done" in our society nowadays.
Rich Piehl
>>
>>Just a guess...be honest...you're either a lawyer, the son of a lawyer,
>>or a law student. Am I right?
>
>
> Technically, you are incorrect, I have never practiced law, I am not
> currently in law school, my father was a teacher.
But I'm on the right track, aren't I?
David Jensen
I understand. They are trying to drum up business. There is no question
about that. The question is whether their business is legitimate. The
results show that most of it is. Because these lawyers are investing in
these cases, they quickly cull anything that they don't expect to get a
recovery for. It's good business for them. [FWIW, this behavior is
generally considered a violation of legal ethics codes in most
countries, a view I agree with, but since America's legal ethics allows
contingent-fee cases, they are doing nothing wrong here.]
> >>>>They've furthered the mindset of many people that they are not
> >>>>responsible for their own actions. And no matter how much stupidity
> >>>>they exhibit in those actions when something ill befalls those people
> >>>>they are owed money.
> >>>
> >>>A few people have that attitude, but the filings have not increased as
> >>>quickly as your comment would imply. They have not grown at the rate the
> >>>economy and population growth would have predicted.
>
>The courts are -CLOGGED- with lawsuits. File a lawsuit today and it
>likely won't get heard for months. That is not what I would call swift
>justice.
That is a serious problem, but most lawsuits are not the sort that you
ace concerned about, nor have the courts expanded to keep pace with the
growth in this country.
> >>>>That, when class-action lawsuits are filed, it's not the class that
> >>>>recover the damages. The class gets very little and the lawyers get
> >>>>wealthy.
> >>>
> >>>Class actions are problematic, and the settlements that get me a coupon
> >>>and millions to the lawyers are really grating. That's why we need a
> >>>government that actually cares about enforcing the law.
>
>Enforcing the law has nothing to do with government enforcement of the
>laws. A class action lawsuit is just that - a suit to compensate an
>injured class. Yet the class gets little or no compensation. The
>lawyers get the money.
That's a serious problem. I much prefer that the government fine
businesses that behave in a way that harms a great number of people and
then takes the responsibility for helping them recover. Class action is
a bad system, but no one seems willing to have the government take
responsibility for this.
> >>>When the greed and callousness of businesses are universally condemned,
> >>>lawyers will have far less to do.
>
>Shouldn't those same rules apply to law firms? That statement is an
>oxymoron.
There are plenty of unscrupulous and even criminal lawyers -- wasn't
Abramoff a lawyer? It's just that without lawyers, businesses will be
far more dangerous to us.
David Jensen
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Just a guess...be honest...you're either a lawyer, the son of a lawyer,
>>>or a law student. Am I right?
>>
>>
>> Technically, you are incorrect, I have never practiced law, I am not
>> currently in law school, my father was a teacher.
>
>But I'm on the right track, aren't I?
Yes, years ago.
Ben Dover
client wins or loses, the lawyer has still filled his own purse." I
guess some non-lawyer folk feel cheated sometimes.
Ben Dover
brink
"Rich Piehl" <rpiehl5R...@FORNOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:xo1vf.380$dj3...@fe04.lga...
> David Jensen wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Just a guess...be honest...you're either a lawyer, the son of a lawyer,
>>>or a law student. Am I right?
>>
>>
>> Technically, you are incorrect, I have never practiced law, I am not
>> currently in law school, my father was a teacher.
>
> But I'm on the right track, aren't I?
Does it matter? I have no personal bias for or against lawyers, but I agree
more with David than with you.
People who rag on Lawyers as some great evil are no better than people who
rag on Big Business. All lawyers are not the same, just like all businesses
are not the same. There is NO way one can unequivocally condemn either of
them without becoming a kook in my eyes.
YES there are many egregrious abuses committed by lawyers. YES there are
many egregious abuses committed by business. Does it make each of them
"evil" as a whole? That's dichotomy thinking in a grey world.
brink
brink
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:gr9pr1l1ha4unb9u4...@4ax.com...
Prosecutor: HA! (courtroom observers gasp, judge pounds gavel, shouts
"Order! Order!")
</John Grisham>
Anyway, as I pointed out in another post, I agree more with you in this
tussle, David. I have a friend who is a lawyer, a really nice family guy.
He defends people who, in my opinion, really need his help. Pretty
egregious malpractice suits, the kind where surgeons and doctors are grossly
negligent and people end up with lifelong injuries and/or disabilities.
These are people without any money, insurance has been exhausted, they're
hopeless.
My friend has a nice farm in Sioux Falls, SD; he's a family guy, six kids,
really neat family. I don't know if wealthy is the right word for him--in
fact, I really don't think it is. He has a private practice; funds his
cases by mortgaging his farm. Works very hard on one or two cases at a time
and if they don't win, he's not getting paid (no fat retainers, expense
accounts, fees, etc. from the kind of clients he takes on).
He is a passionate, disciplined, ethical person. A conservative Christian,
if that illustrates anything about him, I guess... it's possible my
feelings about lawyers are biased a bit by meeting him a while back, but
knowing him didn't change my viewpoint--it just reinforced what I already
believed... that there is a ton of good that lawyers do, much more so than
bad.
brink
Jack May
> lawyers." Thoughts?
The last data I saw says each lawyer on average drains a million dollars out
of the economy. Maybe all lawyers should pay a tax on a million dollars
each year no matter what they make.
The legal system and lawyers create a society with rigid laws in an
uncertain world, a really stupid, really expensive thing to do. Because of
lawyers we now have a lot of things that have been put out of reach of
people financially and have driven up health care cost because all of the
extra things that have to be done to protect from lawyers wanting to drain
the money out of the pockets of people, both rich and poor.
The evidence is that all of these antics by lawyers has not improved safety,
just increased costs. Lawyers are often parasites on society, contributing
nothing and just sucking the life force out of our society.
David Jensen
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in
<LLOdna5q6LnBLCPe...@comcast.com>:
>
>"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1136422604.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Just curious why people oftentimes have the knee-jerk reaction "I hate
>> lawyers." Thoughts?
>
>The last data I saw says each lawyer on average drains a million dollars out
>of the economy. Maybe all lawyers should pay a tax on a million dollars
>each year no matter what they make.
I would love to know what the methodology was for this claim. Yes, of
course, legal recompense for damages is relatively expensive, but the
alternative appears to be to allow those who ignore the law to be
rewarded for polluting, maiming, killing and stealing.
>The legal system and lawyers create a society with rigid laws in an
>uncertain world, a really stupid, really expensive thing to do.
What alternative do you recommend?
>Because of
>lawyers we now have a lot of things that have been put out of reach of
>people financially and have driven up health care cost because all of the
>extra things that have to be done to protect from lawyers wanting to drain
>the money out of the pockets of people, both rich and poor.
That is the excuse, but if we compare costs with the other developed
nations, it is neither legal costs nor 'defensive medicine' that
differentiates us from others.
>The evidence is that all of these antics by lawyers has not improved safety,
>just increased costs. Lawyers are often parasites on society, contributing
>nothing and just sucking the life force out of our society.
What alternative do you recommend and how will it protect the rights of
individuals against those who are willing to ignore the safety and
well-being of others?
UGALawDawg
First of all, yes, I am a lawyer. I have been for about 5 years now,
having started a new career at the age of 35. I am an associate with a
very small town office with 3 lawyers. We do just about all types of
law, but primarily personal injury, worker's compensation, criminal
defense, family law (divorces, adoptions, child support modifications,
etc.) and some general business.
Most of the lawyers that I deal with on a daily basis are the best sort
of people. Yes, there are a few scummy types (usually INSURANCE DEFENSE
lawyers, i.e. those that work for State Farm, AllState, Progressive and
some overly aggressive divorce lawyers), but for the most part lawyers
are fantastic people.
I work a 70 hour week, I spent 7 years in a top-notch university and
incurred over $100,000 in debt to become a lawyer, and I go through a
bottle of Tums about every 2 to 3 weeks worrying about my clients.
I recently represented a young man who was charged with 4 counts of
trafficking narcotics. He could only afford to pay $750 up front. As
the trial approached, his family did not come up with any more money. I
still represented him in a 5 day jury trial (plus 2 1/2 days of jury
deliberations) and got him acquited of 2 of the charges. His actual
bill came to over $16,000. I will never see that, but it's okay. Myself
and another lawyer spent well over 100 hours on this case.
I also routinely represent people for nothing when a landlord
wrongfully evicts them, but they have no money to hire a lawyer. I
often help people out in Magistrate Court when they don't understand
the procedures. Again, no fee.
I am no martyr, but I take my oath very seriously, as does the man who
I work for who has been practicing law for decades. He feels a civic
duty in a small town to help anyone that comes in the door, even if
they cannot pay.
As for the courts being "clogged with frivilous cases," that's
bullshit. That is pure propaganda brought to you by AllState,
Progressive, State Farm, etc. and designed to get egregious tort reform
laws passed to increase their already hefty bottom-lines.
By the way, a lot of those cases have little or nothing to do with
personal injury cases.
Most lawyers won't file "frivilous" cases. Since they take the case on
contingency, if they don't collect, they get nothing. And contrary to
the propaganda you're been fed, insuracne companies don't settle those
cases to make them go away. They try them to a jury. If the case is a
dog, the plaintiff's lawyer gets zero, and would soon go broke trying
those types of cases.
People point to a FEW cases (McDonald's Coffee Case) and use them to
erroneously damn the whole system. By the way, the above case is not
nearly as frivilous as most people think. Do a little research and
you'll find out the truth about that case.
Some here said " The evidence is that all of these antics by lawyers
has not improved safety, just increased costs." BULLSHIT...EVERY safety
feature in everyday life is thanks to a plaintiff's attorney.
Seatbelts, airbags, non-exploding gas tanks on cars, a whole slew of
drugs that kill people...the list goes on and on.
I think the vast majority of people that don't like lawyers do so for a
few reasons:
1) they blindly accept the pablum fed to them by the Insurance
industry;
2) they are divorced and their spouse hired a better lawyer; or
3) they have been through the criminal justice system and been
convicted.
pigst...@yahoo.com
>
> The legal system and lawyers create a society with rigid laws in an
> uncertain world, a really stupid, really expensive thing to do. Because of
> lawyers we now have a lot of things that have been put out of reach of
> people financially and have driven up health care cost because all of the
> extra things that have to be done to protect from lawyers wanting to drain
> the money out of the pockets of people, both rich and poor.
>
I have to believe you know better then that.
Lawyers are not responsible for the huge profits the drug companies
made over the years.
Nor are they responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of
debt a medical student has to deal with before he makes a dime.
There are mulitple failures in the heath care system, but lawyers have
very little to do with the problems.
They did a study of medical malpractice claims in NJ. The money
actually paid out is very small.
> The evidence is that all of these antics by lawyers has not improved safety,
> just increased costs. Lawyers are often parasites on society, contributing
> nothing and just sucking the life force out of our society.
Nobody is right when everybody is wrong.
Take care
Randy in Fanwood, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
David Jensen wrote:
> That is a great bit of PR by the businesses who don't want to be held
> accountable for their carelessness.
Wrong.
That attitude is by many organizations--including small businesses and
non-profits--that have found themselves for the carelessness of OTHERS
Many years ago there was a concept known as contributory negligence.
That is, if you got hurt because you were drunk, tresspassing on
private property, or otherwise contributed to your injury, you were not
entitled to damages. That is no longer true. So today if we have a
kid trespass across private property, scale a high fence, and hurt
himself, the property owner is still fully responsible. If the
property owner has deep pockets, the liability can be enormous.
Defenders of the present legal system make it seem like rich businesses
are exploiting others. The reality is that many small businesses--mon
'n pop stores and non-profit organizations (churches)--have to pay a
fortune in liability insurance and are at risk. Are all these little
outfits so horribly negligent they're endangering the public? I don't
think so.
> 12 people died this week because a
> mine company was careless. Unfortunately for their families, their
> recovery is likely to be limited to the statutory workers comp maximum.
Interesting how you have already concluded the company was "careless"
when it is very clear the facts of the situation are very fluid and the
investigation is ongoing.
This illustrates another problem of today's system--lack of
differentiation between blazen negligence and an honest accident.
Honest accidents are a fact of life. For such, the recover should be
limited to, as you say, "the statutory workers comp maximum." But
these are painted as horribly negligent greedy owners or managers.
Another issue today is court cost and legal fees to defend one's self.
They are very expensive. Many times a company will settle to avoid the
great expense of litigation and the settlement amount, curiosly enough,
is the same as that litigation cost. Our non-profit was sued for
negligence which knew was wrong so we defended ourselfs. We "won" in
court. But our legal fees and time spent on defense was very costly,
so we really didn't "win", we still lost.
> A few people have that attitude, but the filings have not increased as
> quickly as your comment would imply. They have not grown at the rate the
> economy and population growth would have predicted.
As someone else correctly pointed out, look in the Yellow Pages under
lawyers, and see the giant color ads for their services. Look at the
ads on daytime TV. Something is very wrong with that kind of aggresive
salesmanship.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
David Jensen wrote:
> It's just that without lawyers, businesses will be
> far more dangerous to us.
We shouldn't depend on lawyers in private litigation to defend the
public's interest. A single plaintiff winning huge damages isn't fair.
Punitive damages, if really justified, should go to the government,
not some lucky plaintiff and attorney.
The safe operation of business is more efficiently and properly
regulated by govt agencies.
The threat of a lawsuit will not force a restaurant to maintain proper
sanitation; insurance will cover that cost and even having proper
sanitation won't stop a lawsuit. Govt inspections of all restaurants
is better protection.
There was a telecom company that screwed its customers and filed for
bankruptcy. When a business goes bankrupt, there's very little lawyers
can do for aggrieved consumers. That's why govt regulation--which is
set for everyone--works better.
Another problem with regulation by lawsuit is that every judge and
situation is different and makes for very difficult precedets for an
individual business to follow. It becomes very inconsistent and
expensive for individual businesses to keep up.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
UGALawDawg wrote:
> I also routinely represent people for nothing when a landlord
> wrongfully evicts them, but they have no money to hire a lawyer. I
> often help people out in Magistrate Court when they don't understand
> the procedures. Again, no fee.
Curious as to "wrongful eviction".
The flip side are individual people who own an apartment and get
screwed with a deadbeat or disruptive tenant. Trying to get someone
like that evicted is expensive and time consuming. Not all landlords
are Donald Trump, some are people just making it, often an elderly
person.
> As for the courts being "clogged with frivilous cases," that's
> bullshit. That is pure propaganda brought to you by AllState,
> Progressive, State Farm, etc. and designed to get egregious tort reform
> laws passed to increase their already hefty bottom-lines.
That (and the other respondant) is propaganda nonsense. The above
mentioned property owners do not have hefty bottom lines. Mom 'n pop
businesses do not have hefty bottom lines. Community organizations are
not rich.
> Most lawyers won't file "frivilous" cases. Since they take the case on
> contingency, if they don't collect, they get nothing. And contrary to
> the propaganda you're been fed, insuracne companies don't settle those
> cases to make them go away. They try them to a jury. If the case is a
> dog, the plaintiff's lawyer gets zero, and would soon go broke trying
> those types of cases.
A lot of litigation doesn't go to a jury but is heard in small claims
court. The amounts are not astronomical, but to a small person (see
above) they are very significant.
> People point to a FEW cases (McDonald's Coffee Case) and use them to
> erroneously damn the whole system. By the way, the above case is not
> nearly as frivilous as most people think. Do a little research and
> you'll find out the truth about that case.
I know of and participated in too many cases that proves the above
wrong. There are "slip 'n fall" claims when great measures are taken
to provide protection. There is the issue of deep pockets, when
affluent homeowners are sued for petty stuff. People shovel their
sidewalks and sprinkle ice-melt, yet snow on the grass can melt and
refreeze and guess what--there's fresh ice. We had a case--we
won--where someone slipped on ice and claimed we were negligent in not
clearing it. As mentioned, our "win" was on paper only since we still
lost in legal fees and time.
Some lawyers will take gargage cases hoping to score a few bucks out of
it, knowing that most defendants will negotiate a settlement rather
than spend the money of a trial, even in small claims court and of the
course the risk of a big award.
>EVERY safety
> feature in everyday life is thanks to a plaintiff's attorney.
> Seatbelts, airbags, non-exploding gas tanks on cars, a whole slew of
> drugs that kill people...the list goes on and on.
Umm, no. Automotive safety devices were and are required by the
government, I recall a number of seatbelts and other safety features
being mandated in 1968. The govt mandated all cars to have airbags.
Drugs are tested and approved by the FDA
In some social situations, lawyers have made things worse for people.
A group of "public interest" lawyers decided among themselves that a
state institution ought to be shut down. Who the heck were them to
make that decision? They sued and won. A few parents of kids housed
in that institution protested and disagreed with those "public
interest" lawyers, but their voices didn't count.
In another situation, public interest laws sued a state prison and got
the court to order operational changes. The court ordered changes
turned the prison into a horrible hell-hole. Discipline was non
existent (thanks to the court orders), and uncontrolled violence was
rampant. This was protecting the inmates? Ridiculous. But the
"public interest" lawyers know best!
That courts agree or disagree on a particular issue is not necessarily
the way to handle problems in society. Often court meddling has made
things worse, not better, for the very people who needed help the most.
David Jensen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
<1137090882.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> That is a great bit of PR by the businesses who don't want to be held
>> accountable for their carelessness.
>
>Wrong.
>
>That attitude is by many organizations--including small businesses and
>non-profits--that have found themselves for the carelessness of OTHERS
Not really.
>Many years ago there was a concept known as contributory negligence.
>That is, if you got hurt because you were drunk, tresspassing on
>private property, or otherwise contributed to your injury, you were not
>entitled to damages. That is no longer true.
Please tell me which states have abolished it.
>So today if we have a
>kid trespass across private property, scale a high fence, and hurt
>himself, the property owner is still fully responsible. If the
>property owner has deep pockets, the liability can be enormous.
Not really true. Yes, if you have an appealing hazard you are
responsible for making it difficult for kids to get to it. That is not a
new doctrine.
>Defenders of the present legal system make it seem like rich businesses
>are exploiting others.
That has been known to happen.
>The reality is that many small businesses--mon
>'n pop stores and non-profit organizations (churches)--have to pay a
>fortune in liability insurance and are at risk. Are all these little
>outfits so horribly negligent they're endangering the public? I don't
>think so.
Small businesses are not noted for their safety. Farms, the ultimate
small business, are particularly noted for the number of people mamed on
them.
>> 12 people died this week because a
>> mine company was careless. Unfortunately for their families, their
>> recovery is likely to be limited to the statutory workers comp maximum.
>
>Interesting how you have already concluded the company was "careless"
>when it is very clear the facts of the situation are very fluid and the
>investigation is ongoing.
History is a guide.
>This illustrates another problem of today's system--lack of
>differentiation between blazen negligence and an honest accident.
What's that?
>Honest accidents are a fact of life. For such, the recover should be
>limited to, as you say, "the statutory workers comp maximum." But
>these are painted as horribly negligent greedy owners or managers.
They can be, but are still protected.
>Another issue today is court cost and legal fees to defend one's self.
That shouldn't even arise in workers' comp, yet it does, far too often
these days. For others, your liability insurance covers the cost of
defending -- and losing.
>They are very expensive. Many times a company will settle to avoid the
>great expense of litigation and the settlement amount, curiosly enough,
>is the same as that litigation cost.
Different insurance companies assess their risks differently.
>Our non-profit was sued for
>negligence which knew was wrong so we defended ourselfs.
Why? Didn't you have liability insurance?
>We "won" in
>court. But our legal fees and time spent on defense was very costly,
>so we really didn't "win", we still lost.
Did you ask for costs?
>> A few people have that attitude, but the filings have not increased as
>> quickly as your comment would imply. They have not grown at the rate the
>> economy and population growth would have predicted.
>
>As someone else correctly pointed out, look in the Yellow Pages under
>lawyers, and see the giant color ads for their services. Look at the
>ads on daytime TV. Something is very wrong with that kind of aggresive
>salesmanship.
Yes, that is a problem, but ambulance chasers are not the entire legal
profession. The folks with the worst reputation are the lawyers who are
defending insurance companies -- they have an incentive to fight a case
that they know the insurance company will lose.
David Jensen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
<1137091173.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>David Jensen wrote:
>> It's just that without lawyers, businesses will be
>> far more dangerous to us.
>
>We shouldn't depend on lawyers in private litigation to defend the
>public's interest. A single plaintiff winning huge damages isn't fair.
Correct, but if our government refuses to protect us, this is the best
available alternative.
> Punitive damages, if really justified, should go to the government,
>not some lucky plaintiff and attorney.
Okay.
>The safe operation of business is more efficiently and properly
>regulated by govt agencies.
Agreed, but what happens when those regulations aren't promulgated or
enforced?
>The threat of a lawsuit will not force a restaurant to maintain proper
>sanitation; insurance will cover that cost and even having proper
>sanitation won't stop a lawsuit. Govt inspections of all restaurants
>is better protection.
Insurers charge much more to restaurants with a bad sanitation record.
>There was a telecom company that screwed its customers and filed for
>bankruptcy. When a business goes bankrupt, there's very little lawyers
>can do for aggrieved consumers. That's why govt regulation--which is
>set for everyone--works better.
Yes.
>Another problem with regulation by lawsuit is that every judge and
>situation is different and makes for very difficult precedets for an
>individual business to follow. It becomes very inconsistent and
>expensive for individual businesses to keep up.
I always prefer good regulations well enforced over the hit-and-miss of
the courts. I look forward to the day when legal redress is no longer
necessary.
David Jensen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
<1137092428.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>UGALawDawg wrote:
>
>> I also routinely represent people for nothing when a landlord
>> wrongfully evicts them, but they have no money to hire a lawyer. I
>> often help people out in Magistrate Court when they don't understand
>> the procedures. Again, no fee.
>
>Curious as to "wrongful eviction".
>
>The flip side are individual people who own an apartment and get
>screwed with a deadbeat or disruptive tenant. Trying to get someone
>like that evicted is expensive and time consuming. Not all landlords
>are Donald Trump, some are people just making it, often an elderly
>person.
That probably depends on the jurisdiction. In most states, deadbeat
tenants are easily and quickly evicted, though the landlord tends to
suffer the cost of replacement. If you can't afford to take care of the
buildings properly, you shouldn't be a landlord. Sell it and invest in a
more appropriate investment.
>> As for the courts being "clogged with frivilous cases," that's
>> bullshit. That is pure propaganda brought to you by AllState,
>> Progressive, State Farm, etc. and designed to get egregious tort reform
>> laws passed to increase their already hefty bottom-lines.
>
>That (and the other respondant) is propaganda nonsense. The above
>mentioned property owners do not have hefty bottom lines. Mom 'n pop
>businesses do not have hefty bottom lines. Community organizations are
>not rich.
They still have the duty to be financially responsible.
>> Most lawyers won't file "frivilous" cases. Since they take the case on
>> contingency, if they don't collect, they get nothing. And contrary to
>> the propaganda you're been fed, insuracne companies don't settle those
>> cases to make them go away. They try them to a jury. If the case is a
>> dog, the plaintiff's lawyer gets zero, and would soon go broke trying
>> those types of cases.
>
>A lot of litigation doesn't go to a jury but is heard in small claims
>court. The amounts are not astronomical, but to a small person (see
>above) they are very significant.
I'm not sure what you are trying to show here. Do small claims courts
handly torts where you live?
>> People point to a FEW cases (McDonald's Coffee Case) and use them to
>> erroneously damn the whole system. By the way, the above case is not
>> nearly as frivilous as most people think. Do a little research and
>> you'll find out the truth about that case.
>
>I know of and participated in too many cases that proves the above
>wrong. There are "slip 'n fall" claims when great measures are taken
>to provide protection. There is the issue of deep pockets, when
>affluent homeowners are sued for petty stuff. People shovel their
>sidewalks and sprinkle ice-melt, yet snow on the grass can melt and
>refreeze and guess what--there's fresh ice. We had a case--we
>won--where someone slipped on ice and claimed we were negligent in not
>clearing it. As mentioned, our "win" was on paper only since we still
>lost in legal fees and time.
Where was your insurer?
>Some lawyers will take gargage cases hoping to score a few bucks out of
>it, knowing that most defendants will negotiate a settlement rather
>than spend the money of a trial, even in small claims court and of the
>course the risk of a big award.
I hear that allegation, but I cannot see why they would.
>>EVERY safety
>> feature in everyday life is thanks to a plaintiff's attorney.
>> Seatbelts, airbags, non-exploding gas tanks on cars, a whole slew of
>> drugs that kill people...the list goes on and on.
>
>Umm, no. Automotive safety devices were and are required by the
>government, I recall a number of seatbelts and other safety features
>being mandated in 1968. The govt mandated all cars to have airbags.
>
>Drugs are tested and approved by the FDA
What was the history before the government took over? Many 'government
reforms' were driven by businesses running to the government to be
protected from fairness in the courts.
>In some social situations, lawyers have made things worse for people.
>A group of "public interest" lawyers decided among themselves that a
>state institution ought to be shut down. Who the heck were them to
>make that decision? They sued and won. A few parents of kids housed
>in that institution protested and disagreed with those "public
>interest" lawyers, but their voices didn't count.
You can be sure that a program will die when unthinking liberals and
skinflint conservatives agree that it is bad.
>In another situation, public interest laws sued a state prison and got
>the court to order operational changes. The court ordered changes
>turned the prison into a horrible hell-hole.
Forgive me if I don't accept that assertion without corroborating
evidence.
>Discipline was non
>existent (thanks to the court orders), and uncontrolled violence was
>rampant. This was protecting the inmates? Ridiculous. But the
>"public interest" lawyers know best!
Judges make the decisions, but I seriously doubt that the judges were as
dumb as you make them out to be.
>That courts agree or disagree on a particular issue is not necessarily
>the way to handle problems in society. Often court meddling has made
>things worse, not better, for the very people who needed help the most.
Courts are limited in what they can do. When legislatures refuse to
spend money because the rich in their state have made allergy to taxes
the watchword, government fails.
Mike McManus
> Small businesses are not noted for their safety. Farms, the ultimate
> small business, are particularly noted for the number of people mamed on
^^^^^
> them.
For we need a little Christmas, right this very minute... ;-)
RJ
> In most states, deadbeat
> tenants are easily and quickly evicted,
I don't think that is correct.
David Jensen
re_...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in
<1h931kw.1oxyvm11n56dwjN%re_...@hotmail.com>:
I suppose it depends on what you consider easily and quickly.
RJ
If quickly means less than six months of continuous effort, it is not
possible most places to get rid of bad tenants quickly.
David Jensen
re_...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in
<1h96837.1u44okhrps6neN%re_...@hotmail.com>:
Do you have a reference to support that claim?
California allows eviction for non-payment on three days' notice:
<http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/landlordbook/terminations.htm>
New York takes roughly two weeks.
<http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/RPAPL/rpapl07.html> Section 732.
Which states do you think take six months?
RJ
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:12:18 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> re_...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in
> <1h96837.1u44okhrps6neN%re_...@hotmail.com>:
> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:50 -0500, in misc.transport.road
> >> re_...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in
> >> <1h931kw.1oxyvm11n56dwjN%re_...@hotmail.com>:
> >> >David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In most states, deadbeat
> >> >> tenants are easily and quickly evicted,
> >> >
> >> >I don't think that is correct.
> >>
> >> I suppose it depends on what you consider easily and quickly.
> >
> >If quickly means less than six months of continuous effort, it is not
> >possible most places to get rid of bad tenants quickly.
>
> Do you have a reference to support that claim?
>
> California allows eviction for non-payment on three days' notice:
> <http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/landlordbook/terminations.htm>
>
> New York takes roughly two weeks.
> <http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/RPAPL/rpapl07.html> Section 732.
>
> Which states do you think take six months?
Got any evidence the actual speed is what you saw written there?
David Jensen
re_...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in
<1h96b44.10e1p1tcnbtj4N%re_...@hotmail.com>:
You are the one who is making the claim about how slow this is. I
provided evidence about how it is designed to work. If you have evidence
that it does not, point it out.
David Jensen
Mike McManus <mcma...@comcast.net> wrote in
<I7ednQW5adx...@comcast.com>:
Touche.