Skip to comments.One-Time Lawyer Finds Job Hopes Riding on E-Mail
Posted on 06/29/2003 10:10:49 AM PDT by Archangelsk
One-Time Lawyer Finds Job Hopes Riding on E-Mail
By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 29, 2003; Page A01
First in a series of occasional articles
Monday begins with good news, exactly the opposite of what Stuart Adkins has come to expect.
"Congratulations," the e-mail Adkins is reading starts off, and that first word alone is enough to flood him with an emotion he hasn't felt in nearly two years. Later, he will describe it. "Jubilation," he will say. But for now, he reads what comes next -- "on successfully advancing to Level 2 of the Trade Chief Assessment" -- and sits, just sits, overcome.
A 38-year-old single man, Adkins represents what in Washington is the political issue of what to do about the more than 9 million Americans who are either jobless or underemployed and an economy that has been described as "slow" and "adrift." In Newark, Ohio, though, Adkins is simply one of the sadder stories around.
Once a lawyer, he lost his job in June 2001 when his company downsized because of the worsening economy, and has seen his life collapse. He has exhausted his savings and retirement. He had to sell his house and the 40 acres he lived on and everything else he owned except a car, a bed, two chairs, a laptop computer and a TV. It took 18 months to find the part-time job he has now, which, to add to the sting, is at the local unemployment office helping people find jobs. He works in a cubicle that belongs to a woman on extended sick leave. The family pictures are hers. The decorations are hers. The bottle of water is his, and the day planner, and that's it. That's what two years have brought.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We know that in the next 20 years that 70 million baby boomers will be eligible for retirement and social security. We also know that a lot of IOUs are in the social security fund. Finally, at present, we will be paying out an average of 14 years worth of benefits to each qualified retiree (average life expentency is now 79).
The, probably never-mentioned-in-public solution is to lower the life expentency which would reduce the strain on the fund. Since we can't kill 'em off, a more subtle solution is to lower the quality of life at an early age, which would manifest itself during later years. Afterall, if someone checks out of the net before 65, very little in the way of benefits are paid.
Call me crazy, which I know some will, but I think long life expentency is going to be reserved for those who can afford it in the future.
It's called Socialized Medicine, that in some countries refuses dialysis to patients over 65.
In other words, euthanasia.
Unemployed lawyers are cause for celebration among all decent people.
True. Due to rules created by lawyers, you must higher a lawyer each time property changes hands to do a title search. The fact that some lawyer did such a search the last time the property changed hands is not relevant, it must be done again. Further, again due to laws written by lawyers, if their title search fails to reveal any claim on the property, but such a claim is later put forward anyway, the lawyers who did the search bear no responsibility or consequences. But you still have to pay for the search.
stop your neighbor from infrining on your rights,
Potentially true, and occasionally useful. More frequently, disputes among neighbors do not rise to the level of requiring a lawyer. Those that do go to court can often be resolved with each side representing themselves. However, lawyers will try to inject themselves, very aggressively trying to drum up business, usually by making each party feel more aggrieved, and trying to raise the potential consequences. Hey, they're businessmen after all, you gotta make money somehow - and if making the situation worse is how you make money - well, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
open your own business,
I can practically repeat the bit about buying property here. There are many licensing boards, generally created by lawyers, for people to jump through. The ensure the system is sufficiently complicated that you need a lawyer to guide you through. They usually require some one to make a judgement call - which they will only make if you have a lawyer representing you, otherwise it just drags on with no decision either way. It is rare anymore for there to simply be standards - if you meet the following qualifications, you get your license - always require a hearing, it's employment for lawyers.
create a trust/will etc.
A few years back, people were able to put this rather simple, repetitive work into software form, allowing anyone to do it by themselves. Lawyers couldn't have that, and began a campaign to make this illegal - since the software was giving "legal advice." They succeeded, at least in causing enough fear of lawsuits, so that this software is now rarely available. Good job.
you will need a lawyer.
Look, I don't want to claim lawyers are completely useless. But they, as a group, have been trying to make sure they're needed for everything. We're greatly oversupplied in lawyers, and they - along with the many lawyers in Congree - try to make our lives ever more adversarial, so that these lawyers have something to do. You listed almost all the examples where they really aren't needed, but force themselves in. Some disputes with neighbors do rise high enough to require lawyers, but that's the only example you gave that's partially legitimate.
Only because the lawyer's cartel has made it so. Society is suffocating under their thumb. It's not just plainitff's lawyers, though I reserve a special degree of loathing for them. Defense lawyers, judges, legislators, they're all in on the scam.
We need to take a chainsaw to the legal system, and make it so fair and understandable that any sensible person could represent himself pro se on any matter he might reasonably have to address in court. Plus, we need to forbid lawyers from being legislators; it's a clear conflict of interest.
I am in favor of loser-pays, barratry rules on contingency fees, and many other legal reforms that would drive hundreds of thousands of lawyers out of business. All of society would benefit from their misery. I want them destroyed!
I wish we were more like Asian countries, in which a family is shamed and embarrassed if a son goes into legal studies instead of something like engineering or medicine that is good for society.
Yes, it is. More and more people every day are coming to realize that our legal system is one of the main impediments to progress and civil order. Tort reform is coming and it will be ugly for lawyers. Deal with it.
Ahhhh ! ! Does this mean you'll be volunteering to be the very first one culled ?
Analytically and as unemotional as possible, may I suggest you choose a method that does'nt tax the treasure of our already burdened paramedic, fire, and police system.
It can be very embarrassing, not to mention expensive, if you don't get it right the first time. You might even consider soliciting these fine people at FreeRepublic on a cheap and efficient method of "self culling."
There are some really smart people that post here (like Lazamataz, annaZ Travis Mcgee to mention a few) and as Bob J, Jim Robinson and Agitator know, there are some really cheap ba$tards here as well.
Perhaps you could cull yourself in the parking lot of your local coroner, thereby saving us the cost of a house call, you could be tagged and bagged by 12:00 noon. Now that's efficient.
Don't forget to slip your prepaid funeral burial insurance policy into your one of your pockets.
If you can't get a free ride to the mortuary rider on that policy, perhaps you could attach a $20.00 bill to cover the costs of gas.
If you need anymore ideas or support, by all means ping me,
I remain your humble and soon to be culled servant.
oh, and please remember . . . thanks to you, it's working.
"Society is suffering under their thumb."
You sound like a psycho. Your idea of simplistic idea of "take a chainsaw" to the legal system is absolutely laughable and is spoken from someone who obviously knows nothing about the evolution or law, and why things can't be so simple.
You like loser pay, do you? I actually we hope we get a loser pay system, and you are injured (not in the physical sense) by someone else, but you are too afraid to pursue it because there is a chance you will lose. It would suit you right.