| Author |
Message |
Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Intermediate Member
Username: Stickanddice
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
>>Many Lawyers seem to be crooked<<
This is why you hire the best. It will save you loads of time and money at the end.
Cheers |
philip (Fanatic1)
Member
Username: Fanatic1
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
Sean,
True, I don't have any "personal" experiences with Frank....and might I add, I particularly don't "like" lawyers......I say "like" for lack of a better word. Many Lawyers seem to be crooked, and in todays society, they are searching for a "jackpot" and seem to financially rape people who genuinely need their help. I recently paid an attorney 600.00 to write a letter that I basically wrote, faxed to her, she had a para legal type my letter up nearly identical, only it was on their letter head with her signature...600.00!!! What a crock.........however, that 600.00 probably saved me 10,000.00...............so I guess they can charge whatever they want, or be as important as they wanna be, because when it comes down to it, all of us would pay them virtually any amount of money in order to avoid jail......and generally speaking no matter what their bill is, it's less than the alternative......still kinda sucks though........Wish I was an attorney.
|
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Phillip,
This is not the first time Frank has used a Holier than thou' attitude towards me (and other) regarding how important he and all lawyers are. For him to suggest that America is the result of lawyers and w/o them we would not exist takes an ego so big I'm supprised he can fit it in his boxer. It's an isult to all hard working Americans everywhere both now and in the past. |
philip (Fanatic1)
Member
Username: Fanatic1
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Why does Frank take such a beating on this board..? I don't get it. He may be egotistical...I DON'T THINK HE IS. The truth be known, I don't know him personally so I can't make that call. However, for the sake of argument, lets say he's got an over active ego....what right does that give so many people to be so rude, and exude so much hatred for a man.....geez, not every comment someone makes deserves a response. Especially a negative response. I think a lot of people need to chill out. Frank seems like a nice and reasonable person...he has strong beliefs, but to be honest most of us on this board do. The kind of people that work hard, make a lot of money, and drive these cars, probably didn't get to where they are without some amount of ego, self preservation and strong beliefs.........
just my .02 |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:35 pm: | |
"And even if it did exist it wouldn't be a place you would want to live with no watchdogs to protect your rights and no one to curb the power hungry government."
While I didn't agree with Don't rant towards you earlier in the week, I'm thinking maybe he was right, but for a different reason.
I asked for thoughts on the article, and I explain the title of the post above. If I wanted your over-inflated egotistical opinion of how important you think you are, I would have asked for it.
Now if you actually have something to add to the discussion, please do. |
Mark (Markg)
Member
Username: Markg
Post Number: 524
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
"first thing we do is kill all the lawyers?"...was actually suggested by a peasant name Wot Tyler in London during the great plague, 1350's, when 50% of the serfs and workers took a permanent dirt nap, resulting in a manpower shortage. Wot and some others put up flyers urging a peasant revolt, and these flyers advocated, among other things, killing off the barristers.
Just some worthless trivia I remember from my studies of plagues and epidemics...
|
Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member
Username: Parkerfe
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
Just remember, without lawyers there would be no USA in the first place. And even if it did exist it wouldn't be a place you would want to live with no watchdogs to protect your rights and no one to curb the power hungry government. If you hate lawyers then I suggest that you move to the nearest ditator ran country as it will no doubt be a land of few if any lawyers. |
Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
OK, in light of the earlier thread (which I agree, in some circumstances you bill for your time, in others you don't - depends on the client), I read this earlier and would like to hear what the rest of you think.
EDIT: After Franks post, I want everyone to know I don't personally HATE lawyers, I just was continuing the "Lawyers suck" thread, only I used the wrong title. I really more interested in a discussion of the article, and should have titled my post differently.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=6/13
In "The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law," Walter Olson describes trial lawyers as government's fourth branch with its power, through massive class-action suits, to create new laws.
Indeed, this is the boast of the fourth branch. It breaks up partisan gridlock. It "gets things done."
But Olson asks the question: "If just getting things done is the main priority, why then do we go to such lengths to constrain the powers held by 'real' government officials?
"The answer, of course, is we do not for a moment trust these officials to wield the intimidating powers of government office without imposing on them a high degree of transparency and predictability, because we know how likely it is that the power would otherwise soon be abused."
Lawyers may soon also find their powers constrained. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would in essence move all class-action suits into federal courts and out of state courts � a move that could slash the number of frivolous lawsuits against businesses.
IBD recently spoke with the author.
IBD: Economist Hernando de Soto has said for every percentage-point increase in the number of lawyers in a nation's labor force, economic growth is reduced by 3.7% to 4.8%. So was Shakespeare right � first thing we do is kill all the lawyers?
Olson: As lawyers enjoy pointing out, Shakespeare put that line in the mouth of one of his villains.
Even Hernando de Soto would agree that up to a certain point, the increase in availability of lawyers to enforce things is an improvement for an economy's efficiency, as opposed to people's complete inability to go to court to enforce any rights.
The question is: When you pass some optimum, does this begin declining again? I think, unfortunately, we passed that point some time ago.
IBD: Would introducing a loser-pays principle be the most important reform we could introduce?
Olson: Yes, it is the most important difference between our system and other advanced industrial democracies. Middle-class people living in Sydney or Toronto or wherever view their legal systems as more predictable.
More confidence is placed in their judgments than here. It ties in with the fact that there is a remedy if someone wrongly litigates against you. We deny people that remedy.
IBD: "Loser pays" means the loser has to pay the legal fees?
Olson: The idea is that you pay a significant share of the cost of response, which includes lawyer fees. It may include things like expert witness fees.
In Norway, they say you have to pay your prevailing opponent for the time they spent showing up in court to testify or respond to you in some other way.
In this country, if you drag somebody into a lawsuit and they have to spend days and days in depositions, and they're vindicated and show they have done nothing at all wrong, they can't get their money for their time or anything else.
IBD: What are the historical reasons the U.S., unlike most countries, doesn't have a loser-pays rule?
Olson: The early 19th century seems to have been the critical period in the decay of loser pays. The best explanation I have read indicates the legislatures were sympathetic to farmers, who at times of agricultural bust were having trouble paying their mortgages.
Mortgages were often held by Europeans, who were not well represented in the American legislatures. By disabling loser pays, which had been a feature we inherited from British law, they reduced the efficiency with which debts could be collected. This was a pro-debtor measure.
IBD: How serious is President Bush about tackling tort reform?
Olson: People notice he didn't do that much in his first two years and some of them have said that proves he never was that serious. I don't draw that conclusion.
First, I look back at his Texas record, and he was very impressive. His way of operating in Texas was to pick three or four issues that he was going to make a big difference on, then batter away, putting enormous effort into those areas.
Texas was a hard state to reform litigation in because it had been the playground of the plaintiffs' bar. . . . To everyone's amazement, a set of strong, significant litigation reforms were soon on their way to passage. Where his record as president differs is that the vote counts in the U.S. Senate have been very discouraging.
But I think he's sending off signals that he never really did forget about it. He was just waiting for the right time.
IBD: Explain how a list of defendants can grow beyond reason. For instance, Hilton Hotels was named in a case where a woman ran over her husband. The suit alleges Hilton didn't train employees to handle the confrontation.
Olson: There's a phrase � they call it "blame storming." This is one of the defects in our system. We don't have loser pays, so it's very difficult for people wrongly named to get any sort of relief.
The decision to add a second or third defendant is often inexpensive. You just serve some more documents. You adjust something in your word processor.
Expanding from a lawsuit against one defendant to a lawsuit against several defendants is a very cheap step. However, it is an incredibly expensive step for the defendants you add.
IBD: Reading your book, one is impressed with the arrogance of these trial lawyers. What accounts for this arrogance?
Olson: This is a group of people who have had their own way for quite a while and have succeeded even beyond their wildest dreams.
You wind up with rationalizations for power. Since the system isn't stopping them, it must be they are needed and are doing the country a great service.
If you tell someone that if you build an Eiffel Tower out of tooth picks we'll give you a million dollars, before long they begin having a very exalted idea of the social value of building an Eiffel Tower out of toothpicks.
If you're in the line of work of a trial lawyer, you can probably work yourself into a lather about the wrong-doing of the people that you sue.
From that, it is not a very long step to believing that any tactics you use against them, or any power you use against them, must have been divinely intended.
IBD: Are you a lawyer?
Olson: No, I just criticize them. |
|