When Judges Won't Judge

The Wall Street Journal ^ | October 22, 2003 | PHILIP K. HOWARD

[OESY]

America's lawsuit culture is transforming our society, but there's been little focus on why litigation spun out of control over the last 30 years. People never used to sue for hot coffee spills, or for getting fat. There was a time, in the 1970s, when a million-dollar verdict for an accident was headline news. Now people sue for billions. What changed?

[OESY]

Lex et Veritas

[Dante3]

I jsut see the lawusits as socialism -- taking from the richer (who often are in no way responsible) and giving it to the poorer who also lack in ethics and are willing to extort anyone.

[longtermmemmory]

There is a PI law firm in town that is quite proud of the fact that three of its members have "ascended" to the bench.

[CatoRenasci]

Bump for judical responsibility.

The abdication of responsibility by judges is just a symptom of the larger refusal in society to accept responsibility for our own actions, the most egregious of which are the various 'zero tolerance' policies which defy common sense.

[longtermmemmory]

Enforcing rule 11 sanctions agains the lawyers who file the cases would bring clarity of mind.

Additionally these universities desperate for money should be stopped from opening law diploma mills.

Does everyone realize ANYONE who wants to be a lawyer is able to find a law school? It is now 1 to 1 applicants to first year seats. There is NO selectivity. (unless conservative, then you have to pay cash.)

[Lurker]

Scary.

L

[CatoRenasci]

Do you mean to say there is a seat in an accredited law school for every applicant? That would be scary. When I was in law school in the late 1970's in California there were lots of proprietary unaccredited law schools, but their students had to take a 'make or break' "Baby Bar" examination at the end of their first year in order to later be permitted to take the bar examination.

At least the bar examinations (watered down though they may have been) in major states are some sort of barrier to entry for the truly incompetent and stupid. Character and Fitness committees have long since become a joke in judging candidates.

[ought-six]

"Enforcing rule 11 sanctions agains the lawyers who file the cases would bring clarity of mind."

One can file for Rule 11 sanctions all day long, but if the judge disagrees (which is usually the case, since the party seeking sanctions is almost always on the defense side, and is seeking sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney, and the judiciary is virtually owned by the plaintiff's bar), the only party who loses is the party who has to pay the bill of the attorney filing to motionn

[CatoRenasci]

I must say, I have been taken aback at some of the practitioners I've seen who managed to pass the bar on their 5th or 6th attempt after graduating at the bottom of their class at some "East Pottowatomie State Teachers' Normal School College of Law and Animal Husbandry" or equivalent.

Entry to the major law schools remains extremely competitive, however, even more than it was in my day, and even then a 99th percentile LSAT and an A GPA did not assure one's choice of top schools.

[TheAngryClam]

It's gotten worse.

Applications have shot up by nearly 50% in the last three years, and all those extra students have to go somewhere- the very, very top schools don't see much difference, as they're picking the same kind of people anyway, but the mid-top level schools (say, #10-#25 or so) are seeing a surge in the average LSAT and GPA of admitted students.

[CatoRenasci]

Sigh. Law schools are generally profit centers, even for universities - the additional facilities required (except for the law library) are really pretty minimal, students pay full boat, a good chunk of the faculty can be cheap adjuncts who do it for the prestige, and the alumni tend to be wealthy and often generous. As long as those facts continue to obtain, law schools will be a growth inducstry.

I suspect you're right about the ramping up of the applicant pool, at least on paper. I know I hear about it in my UCLA Law Alumni publications. I wonder, though, if these top paper candidates are really better. There is far too much bright grindism and too little real education and knowledge among the newly minted lawyers and MBAs I see.

[inquest]

I have to wonder whether this guy's cure is worse than the disease. He wants the judges to consider the "social" impacts of their rulings and not just regard it as a case between two litigants. Sorry, not buying it. "Social" impacts are the concern of legislatures, not judges. The purpose of a court is to apply the law as written, and beyond that, simply to do what's necessary to render fair and impartial justice to those who come before it. They are not, and must not ever be, policy-making centers.

The reason lawsuits are out of control is very simple - legislation has made it that way. "Pain & suffering", "wrongful death", "punitive damages" and many other modern doctrines, are creations of statutory law. There's nothing wrong with making wrongdoers pay extra for the harm they cause to others, but all moneys above and beyond purely economic damages to the plaintiff should go into the public treasury, not to the plaintiff. The plaintiff should only receive what's necessary to defray whatever expenses were incurred by the defendant's action. That will cut way down on the profit motive for predatory lawsuits.