Blame the Lawyers, should we?

[mlr1m]

On another thread lawyers are being raked over the coals for taking on a case where a criminal is attempting to use the law to punish a person for protecting himself. Here is my problem with this.
Why is it we will attack the lawyer for using the law but will re-elect the person that wrote it? Or, we refuse to voice the same outrage about the law as we do about the person using that law. I don't see many people actively working to change the laws they believe are being abused.

Its like blaming the police when they write you a ticket for doing 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. Then voting to re-elect the person who is responsible for the law you were ticketed for violating.

Michael

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[NMB]

Everyone dogs lawyers until they need one. They are just doing their job, not creating the laws.

Blame politicians and the idiots who vote for them.

[OldVet]

There are good lawyers...and then there's those who aren't. Show me a lawyer who wears a suit from Sears, drives a used Ford to work, and talks in plain English, and I may put him on my good list.

[lizjimbo]

The reason I can't stomach lawyers, and I have been represented by some, is because the law is no longer about the search for the truth, no longer about justice. It has become a sporting event in the courtrooms and the judges for the most part have not done their jobs...they have simply become referees. No I am not a sore looser because my side prevailed all the time. It is what I observed from both sides that makes me want to puke whenever I get around a lawyer that holds himself in some high esteem. Winning is the only purpose for the law nowadays. You say hold the politicians accountable because they wrote the laws. Most politicians are lawyers. The lawyers and the courts are the ones that have manipulated the law and the rules. I call your interrogatory and I raise you 5 depositions. Your client is out of money...I win!

[oakchas]

Nope, he's gotta drive a GMC truck... otherwise...I go with OldVet.

I got very little against lawyers.. really... they got a job to do... OJ's lawyers, the "dream team"? Good lawyers all... Was justice served? Nope. Was a reasonable doubt cast? Sure Was. The Cops blew that one sky high... And the law won out.

Then we get to torts and tort reform... and should we keep these lawyer/sharks from suing McDonalds for coffee burns... Or doctors for malpractice...

Well, they "reformed" tort law in Texas...on the basis that premiums and expenses for Malpractice suits would go down... Did it? Nope... premiums doubled! The potential exposure to the insurance companies was lessened by a HUGE margin... But the insurance companies didn't pass on any projected or real savings on to the doctors... and of course, medical care costs rose because of the increase in premiums...

But Lizjimbo's right, all the law "makers" are lawyers... all the judges are lawyers... who's gonna read all the mumbo jumbo they pass as the "laws" of the land? Only other lawyers can do it... And the laws are written with commas, and semicolons and wheretofores and whomsoevers and parties of the first part, and the second part... and ya da da ya da da...

Heck, even those who could really write laws for the public good, back in 1776, let an errant comma get into the thing here and there... and you get lawyers like Gura who read it one way and Stevens another...

I don't like 'em... but I might need one someday... i don't like dentists either... but... well, there you go.

[mlr1m]

The reason I can't stomach lawyers, and I have been represented by some, is because the law is no longer about the search for the truth, no longer about justice. It has become a sporting event in the courtrooms and the judges for the most part have not done their jobs...they have simply become referees. No I am not a sore looser because my side prevailed all the time. It is what I observed from both sides that makes me want to puke whenever I get around a lawyer that holds himself in some high esteem. Winning is the only purpose for the law nowadays. You say hold the politicians accountable because they wrote the laws. Most politicians are lawyers. The lawyers and the courts are the ones that have manipulated the law and the rules. I call your interrogatory and I raise you 5 depositions. Your client is out of money...I win!

Yes but it is us the common citizens who must take the responsibility for putting then in office. I'm not talking about lawyers who intentionally attempt to bend the law into something those who wrote it never intended it to mean. I am referring to the one who use the law as it was intender to be used and are then called out on it.

Yes that dirty so and so lawyer got a child molester off by pointing out the police broke the law and became criminals themselves in their attempt to find evidence arrest him. How despicable.

Yes that dirty so and so lawyer forced police, the Government, to quit abusing the rights of legal gun owners in their attempt to find evidence of a crime and arrest the gun owners. How despicable.

Michael

[Rock and Glock]

I have no problems with attorneys, other than there are too many law schools turning out too many attorneys too low on the Bell Curve chasing rainbows that do not exist. That creates societal problems with excessive litigiousness because too many attorneys are chasing too little work. That directly results in lawsuits that lack any merit whatsoever, and a huge cost to the USA in lost productivity. Having said that, if we had a system where fees were awarded to prevailing attorneys we might have fewer meritless lawsuits.

And on a lighter note, Congress is full of attorneys, and the "Plaintiffs Bar" is one of the largest political contributors around. What does that produce? Relaxed procedures, relaxed standards, liberally written and interpreted statutes, statutes that allow meritless lawsuits or lawsuits with little merit, abused industries, and the like.

Vote your critters out if they stand with the Plaintiffs Bar.

[BigStick]

I think it is multifaceted. I don't dispise all lawyers. Some are good and trying to do good. But it seems that disreputable people are drawn to what is supposed to be a noble profession because of the money. These few then twist and manipulate the law to their own benefit, those cases make headlines, and that is what people see and hear about. That drives the distaste for lawyers.

Some of the good lawyers are also put into bad spots. Do murderers deserve a good lawyer? Is it their obligation to do their best to defend a guilty client? What does that mean? To defend? Does it mean see that justice is served and guide them through the system, or does it mean do everything in your power to get them off, even if you know they did it. It presents a lot of moral dilemas.

I don't blame all lawyers, but some of them are scum.

[mlr1m]

If the laws are being correctly used and we do not like it then change the laws. Don't complained about the people using them. Like I said earlier. Don't blame the police who give you a ticket when you were caught doing 80 mph. Change the law to allow folks to drive 80 mph. Go after the message not the message.

The trouble is that most folks like the abuse by government when it helps them catch that other guy. Those same folks like those lawyers who use the law to get them out of a fix but cry foul when that same lawyer gets another person out of a fix when we do not approve of what that other person was doing.
We don't want the law to change because while we despise others using the law in their favor we want it to be there if we ever need it.

Michael

[Hopyard]

All a lawyer does, can do, is use the existing law to the advantage of his client. It doesn't matter if
the issue is water or mineral rights, taxation, civil rights, torts, criminal defense, criminal prosecution.
The lawyers DIDN'T write the law and they didn't write the important decisions interpreting statutes.

Moreover, lawyers using the law help to improve our lives. Think Heller? Or, more commonly, think about
the victim of a negligent driver who might not get adequate compensation for injuries, lost income, and other
costs of something not their fault without proper representation. That is what the Plaintiff's Bar does day in and day out,
so I can't really agree with some of what R&G wrote.

[discoboxer]

I know it's their paycheck, but I just have issues with the lawyers that take cases where the offender is guilty and they know it. Instead of proving innocence, they exploit loop holes to free their clients. More money can buy some lawyer's integrity.

I'm not bashing lawyers because I understand it's their job. But it's also not quite like a LEO because the laws a LEO has to enforce but may not like, are generally (loosely) for the greater good vs a lawyer protecting the rights of a confirmed criminal but exploiting evidence usage loop holes.

I'm sure my posting might open a can of worms, but my intent is to just state my frustration. I understand why the lawyers do it....maybe even beyond just the paycheck, I just don't like it.

[kb2wji]

IMO, I find that criminal attorney's are as the OP described (usually). Even though we often do not agree, they are simply doing their job using the laws that we the people (usually) agree to.

My beef is usually with the civil attorney's. The ones that can sniff out a dollar like a blood hound. The ones that sue McDonalds over hot coffee. The ones that sue a vehicle theft victim because the thief crashed and got hurt. The ones that sue for no reason other than they can smell a dollar. The ones that love those folks who get into a fender bender and grab their necks ("ohhhh my pancreas!!"). I have little love for folks who abuse a system that is designed to protect, all for that dollar.

I deal with lots of attorney's in my work week. I have a great relationship with most, but there are also a good number who use and abuse. I've often said a defense attorney has one of the most difficult jobs out there. Especially if they have any moral compass (que the lawyer jokes! )

[Rock and Glock]

That is what the Plaintiff's Bar does day in and day out, so I can't really agree with some of what R&G wrote.

The Plaintiffs Bar does have its place, but there are well documented cases of the PB abusing the Courts and businesses (asbestos comes to mind). Similarly, the Class Action attorneys that get paid in cash while the plaintiffs get 15 minutes of free airtime. Likewise, the securities attorneys that are suing companies when their stock prices fall.................I could go on and on, and for every egregious case there's probably a meritorious case. The only way I can partially solve this is a "Loser Pays" system, so the attorneys have a greater than 50% risk in an outcome. While not perfect, and refinements are certainly possible, it would give attorneys pause before they sign up a plaintiff to pursue a lousy meritless case in hope of a settlement...........I am open minded...........at some point I am not.

The intent would not be to prevent valid cases, but to reduce the suits playing on hazards of litigation....................

[Hopyard]

Loser pay would keep people from filing meritorious but non winning cases. With the standard being
"preponderance of the evidence" and that being interpreted as it has to mean the tiniest sliver above 50%,
there would be too many meritorious suits lost by very slim margins, and with devastating financial consequences
to the loser.

I might agree with some form of loser pay, under specific conditions, such as a judicial judgment that a case has
no merit and was brought in bad faith, the case was filed for reasons of malice, and more-- we can let our
creative imaginations figure it out; we better because our legislators won't.

[CanuckQue]

I quite like the process of law school. I find that a lot of fresh graduates have a good handle on how society works, because they're able to make sense of all the weird rulings that boggle common folk. So, imo, they make good conversationalists.