joefromchicago wrote:Well, it's true that I am the only universally beloved lawyer in America. ....
What am I, chopped liver?
Seriously, the "I hate all lawyers, they're all horrible!" statement is old. Yeah, some deserve it. Many don't.
Being an attorney means being a part of one of the most regulated professions in the US, if not the world. We pass through 3 very hard years of school and a very difficult Bar exam and a Professional Responsibility exam and we have to be vouched for by a number of members of the community (lawyers and non-lawyers) before we are able to practice (that is how it is in New York. Similarly rigorous standards are upheld elsewhere in the US, plus everyone must pass the Bar. For some states, such as Florida, the Bar exam lasts for 3 days). So there are a lot of checks and balances in place to try to assure competency. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it does tend to assure that the people who practice law are the ones who want to, and are willing to study hard and learn the law. You can't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, I'll be a lawyer today."
And once in, there are checks on frivolous lawsuits. You may not agree with these checks or think they're effective enough, but the idea is to allow lawsuits and then, if the lawsuit fails, potentially bring suit for a frivolous claim. It has to work that way (e. g. a loss in the original suit is a requirement for bringing a claim that said suit was frivolous); otherwise, people would be afraid of bringing new kinds of claims. We wouldn't have strict liability in tort, for example, if people were afraid of trying out new legal theories. Some work, some don't. Some are nutty, some aren't. Some are brought maliciously, while others are worthwhile. But who can say that a new kind of theory is worthwhile, unless it's put through its paces?
Yes, class actions tend to not get their participants too much $$. But without them, Ford would still be making Pintos (you remember, the car that had the gas tank that ignited in rear-end crashes - and it was found in that case that Ford's management had rejected a $7/car - $7!!! - modification that was recommended by the engineers. Why? Because it was too expensive. Ford did a cost-benefit analysis and determined that people's lives were less important than $7/car. How did this information come to light? The memo was discovered during the course of the class action suit against Ford).
Legalese? Absolutely, for the most part, it's a kind of barrier between the profession and everyone else. And don't think for one second that there isn't some attorney out there who's using 10-dollar words in order to sound smarter. I well recall many a deposition wherein the other side would say "prior to" and "subsequent to" instead of "before" and "after". It's not like these words are so much tougher, it's that they're unnecessary. The same point can be gotten across much more easily. You can be more accessible. You need not toss around big words. You don't become any smarter or more valuable when you do. At the same time, though, there are many words that are what are called "terms of art". That is, the term has a very specific meaning in the law. You can use the term "Rule Against Perpetuities" or you can say "It's that law of wills and trust where you can't make a life estate plus 21 years." Which is easier? Well, neither is easy, but "Rule Against Perpetuities" is just a term of art. Any lawyer worth his or her salt will explain such things to the client in plain, easy to understand English. Personally, I'd consider myself to be derelict in my duties if I didn't.
But I just can't see a reasonable scenario for dropping a newborn. Maybe there is a scenario, but I just can't figure out what that would be.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace