Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveZ
As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.
The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.
Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.
Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.
Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...081218-01.html ).
Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after. |
With the United States having over 50% of the world’s attorneys the chances of escaping from them is essentially zero if you have any net worth. As for being parasites, that is the economic definition. As I said, lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth; they create nothing that adds to the GDP.
Most PI attorneys solicite clients – not the other way around. The term ‘ambulance chaser’ came into being because it is an accurate description of many in the PI business. How many ads on television, the backs of phone books, etc that encourage people to sue with phrases such as “no cost to you if we do not collect” do we need to see before we accept the fact that it lawyers, not plaintiffs, who initiate most lawsuits? The last time I checked, no homes were being built in the western world filled with asbestos, Thalidomide had been pulled from the market, Agent Orange is no longer being used, etc. Countries around the world did this because they learned of the dangers and then promptly acted. The difference is that in the United States, these cases were a source of profit for the bar at the expense of the rest of the people. You missed the point where I said we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers, not eliminate the profession.
In your discussion of viewpoints, you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ As I pointed out in several major class action lawsuits, the truth was never sought it was even deliberately avoided - the only thing sought was personal gain at the expense of many.
Lawyers do not advocate the clients in many cases – they advocate their own gain. As for not just being an accomplice to fraud – a huge number of PI attorneys initiate the fraud. See everything I have cited. I applaud you for withdrawing from casers because your client insisted on presenting a lie. Would that all attorneys would do so, but far too many do not.
Freedoms are lost when our government and our courts erode the power of the people. While our revolutionary leaders included lawyers, businessmen and military leaders led the fight. The first lawyer to become President was John Adams. He was also the first President to seek to withdraw freedoms through The Alien and Sedition Acts. The actual protection of our freedom lies with the military. They can act and not just talk.
Consider the outcome of the cases of Ana Alvarez-Jacinto and compare it to Weiss. She was, quite correctly, sentenced to 30 years in prison for committing a fraud amounting to 11 million dollars. Weiss, on the other hand, was sentenced to 30 months for defrauding others of billions. His partner, William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice’. He was speaking not only about the firm, Milberg Weiss, but the entire industry of shareholder lawsuits and the attorneys engaged in them. Once again I ask, if the ABA sees nothing wrong with the ad, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” then how can you assert the honesty of PI attorneys? And what does that say about the bar in general?