Anger and the American Rule
2 comments:
Too many lawyers, not enough honest ones. Too many judges, not enough competent or courageous ones. See essay on Judge DumKopf below.
The legal profession, as I see it, is all about dividing-up the pie, while reserving the largest share for itself and members of the 'bar'. It is a totally nonproductive enterprise. In what other profession can you get paid for making mistakes, not doing your job and/or performing badly?
If I am an average trades-person--pick any other occupation--say, and I perform badly, I get fired or laid-off. If I am a private contractor or merchant, I may not get paid for my labor or paid for my merchandise. That is the real reason why all attorneys want to get paid upfront. That is the first thing they teach you in 'law' school. Because, I know full-well that if I lose or fail somehow to satisfy my client, I may not get paid. It is a totally dishonest profession from the getgo, a profession full of sound and fury but often signifying nothing.
Think Justice Antonin Scalia, who this week is being featured on PBS along with the other S.C. justices. Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, so too is the 'law' too important to be left to the attorneys and judges who torture and distort the English language to suit their private inclinations and achieve predetermined results.
This is easily demonstrated. And if you do not believe me, read some appellate and supreme court opinions, both state and federal. Some are brilliant, and many are little more than gibberish, gobbledygook and codswaddle. The legal profession encompasses both the brilliant and the deficient under the same tent. The declining career of the dottering Justice William O. Douglas comes to mind as an example of the latter. (I certainly would not want him flying my airplane or building my house.)
I have personally heard Mr. Pattis say, at a public forum, "We attorneys work hard! We have to get paid!" Yes, Mr. Pattis, we hear you. But how much? And when is too much not enough? Or, did I get it backwards?
Is it any wonder that the legal profession consistently ranks at the bottom of opinion polls? Having said all of that, I'm thinking about taking up the profession myself--in retirement--so that I can re-open my own grotesque CT cases as a 'member' of the bar, where no attorney will come to my aid for anything near a reasonable fee. Attorneys engage in the obfuscatory arts for a reason. The reason is, more often than not, treason.
January 3, 2010 8:22 AM
This just in from Chicago:
Norm, I tried to post a response on your blog today (with my name attached) but had difficulty. I guess my computer IQ is too low. I wanted to respond to your post about the "American Rule" and your suggestion that plaintiff's attorney's post bonds.
In any event, this is what i wanted to say:
Norm, I always value your opinions and comments but I hope that you will reconsider your position on this issue. Civil litigation is not a roulette wheel. And the cost of pursuing civil litigation is hardly minimal. To the contrary, it probably costs at least $10,000.00 in litigation expenses to try the SMALLEST personal injury case in the Chicago area, which is where I practice. In major cases the litigation expenses can reach the six-figure range. Indeed, the significant cost of litigation is the greatest deterrent to the filing of so-called frivolous lawsuits. No lawyer wants to throw his or her money away. So your premise is wrong from the onset. And in any event, there are rules in place to impose sanctions should an attorney indeed file a frivolous lawsuit: Federal Rule 11 and its state equivalents. If the truth be told, the deck is already stacked in favor of the insurance companies. By requiring a plaintiff's attorney to purchase a bond as a condition precedent to the filing of the lawsuit, you are putting up another hurdle that must be jumped, if it can be jumped, before justice is achieved. And who is going to finance these bonds? The insurance companies that we are indirectly suing? Seems to me that they wouldn't want to do it. As you have no doubt observed in your own practice, even the most meritorious cases with catastrophic injuries are aggressively defended by corporate America. How often does an insurance company come forward and say, "We owe on this one. Let's settle it without litigating." You'll find more snowy days in Hawaii.January 3, 2010 12:04 PM
Comments