Then surely, this must be the two of us..
Posted on 09/20/2005 11:38:42 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
I look at lawyers the way I look at hammers, chain saws, or even guns. They are tools. In our open system, anyone can pick that tool up and use it, but the responsibility for the actions of the tool should not fall on the tool, but on the user of said tool. I don't fault a hammer when a kid picks it up and breaks a vase with it. I don't fault the chain saw for trees being cut down. I sure don't blame a gun when it is used in the commission of a crime, so why should we blame lawyers when persons come to them to file suits (often frivolous) on their behalf, and it is the lawyer's legal and moral obligation to try to win that suit on behalf of their client. In our legal system, one almost has to have lawyer represent them in court because of the complexity of our laws.
To paint all lawyers with as broad a brush as has been done on this thread is wrong. None (maybe a few) of us personally knows CobaltBlue, but to contend that she is a money grubbing ambulance chaser smacks of ad hominem attack. She may be a very giving person and provide "pro bono" services to many who otherwise could not afford an attorney. In defense of Howlin, her position as a court recorder (I think that is what she said, to far back to check) allowed her to witness the seamier side of the legal profession up close and personal. As a caring human being who obviously saw the system "gamed" by unscrupulous attorneys, her opinion of lawyers is probably lower than that of the general public. I say that lawyers should be judged solely on their own merits, not on their profession's negative (and mostly deserved) reputation.
That being said, money earned by lawyers seems to be another sore point with some posters. CobaltBlue has the right to earn a living as a lawyer, and her fees are hers to set. Free enterprise is the American (conservative) way. If people do not wish to pay her price, go somewhere else. If the same rates are endemic within the profession to the exclusion of the poor, then perhaps they can be investigated for collusion. If it can be proved that all lawyers do act in collusion to set prices, then the government is obliged to step in and make sure that free market principles are observed in the legal market place. But as things stand now, lawyers charge what the market is willing to bear, and that is the way it should be. Do I like it? No, but until it reaches a point where we find it intolerable, and we actively seek change within that structure then we should give lawyers the benefit of the doubt, but I personally will continue to be wary of them.
BTW, I am not a lawyer; I do not even play one on tv.
Yeah, yeah, kill all the lawyers. *Yawn.*
Thank you for your kind and temperate comments.
As for being wary of lawyers, I hope you never need one. At least, not for the purposes of litigation.
I believe that the common law system of justice is one of the crown jewels of our civilization. But it's a rough business.
It beats the alternatives, though. In most parts of the world, if you are damaged through the fault of someone else, you have no recourse whatsoever, just suck it up.
But I didn't set out for this thread to be a referendum on me, or on lawyers, or the American legal system.
Others, who know a lot more about engineering than I do, have pointed out that it appears that the flood controls in New Orleans were improperly designed, improperly constructed, and improperly maintained.
If so, the onus -- it appears to me -- ultimately falls on the Army Corps of Engineers, who are charged with flood control in the region.
If so, the people who lost everything may have legal recourse, and I can't help but think that's a good thing. A lot of business owners who were the backbone of the community for generations have lost everything. People who never asked for a handout in their lives.
I don't think they are greedy parasites if they seek compensation.
And if you do, or anyone does, it's a free country, they're entitled to their opinion.
However, in another thread, you came across as some kind of race-baiter, and that I do find objectionable, but what the heck, thats your right, and perhaps indicative of the tactics you might use in your profession, so in the end, I give you a big thumbs down. Its lawyers like you who give the other 5% a bad reputation.
I don't even know what "race-baiting" means, really.
Maybe you live in a nice little world where there are no racial problems. Vermont or New Hampshire or something. If there is such a place.
Maybe you work in a field where this kind of nonsense passes as debate... Oh, wait..
Well, I have no idea what you mean by "race-baiting."
As I said.
Yesterday I posted several things about race on several different threads.
To sum it up, I think it's silly to protest that race wasn't an issue in the slow response to the situation of the people in the Superdome and the Convention Center.
But it's not a simple "Bush hates blacks" situation.
Many of the blacks in those "shelters" were armed and dangerous to begin with. A lot of them came from housing projects that are famous (infamous) for lawlessness.
The police and National Guard were afraid to go in there, and left the people inside to fend for themselves, without even stopping to hand out food and water. They threw cases of food and water from moving trucks.
If you want to get into "root causes" I would suggest to you that generations of New Orleanians were content to let the ghettoes these people live in just rot, as long as they victimized each other, and didn't prey too much on white people and tourists.
Sort of like the South Bronx before Rudi Juliani cleaned it up, at least a little.
These places are pus pockets, and that's a fact. And I feel sorry for the people who have taken these people into their
homes, and their communities, because they have taken a viper into their bosom.
If you call these opinions "race baiting" then you're just being silly, too.
From my perspective --- it appears lunacy in our courts is more the rule than the exception.....
Revolving door for criminals of all types....
Justice to the level you can afford..
Judgments from juries SECLECTED for their presumed ignorance or bias...
High priced "defense" lawyers, challenging overworked, underpaid and understaffed Public Prosecutors.
Judge shopping and Judge buying, no longer a bad joke, but reality.
Many of the most feckless imbeciles in our Congress, as "public servant" representatives ---- are lawyers and among the most despicable amoral individuals in the country......
I respect the Constitution, and our commitment to the "Rule of Law" --- but I rank many lawyers down there with the Politicians and pedophiles....
Semper Fi
Prove it, but then again, the burden of proof on FR is going to be alot tougher than your average jury, so you should do just fine, and reap the financial rewards you are so eager to find.
I think you're doing that "smugness" thing again.
Just a thought.
Then surely, this must be the two of us..
Just because the pot calls the kettle black, doesn't mean the kettle isn't black! ;^)
Well, if that's the way you view the legal system, nothing that anybody does is going to seem right to you to begin with.
So, all you're doing is venting.
I guess you had a bad experience with a lawyer once or twice, and never got over it. Most people with a "lawyer complex" are that way.
I've known people with "doctor complexes," "mechanic complexes," "priest complexes," "politician complexes," "government complexes," "cop complexes," "prosecutor complexes," I believe that there is probably a complex for every walk of life. Somewhere out there, no matter what you do for a living, it pisses somebody off.
Have a nice day.
What do you have to say about flood insurance, which is nearly free, considering that taxpayers pay the burden for people who choose to live in unsafe areas?
Shouldn't flood insurance cover those who purchased it? I mean the chances of being flooded in NOLA are (and were) 100 percent.
As I understand it, flood insurance is mandatory in New Orleans if you have a mortgage. The lenders require it.
But that won't get the Army Corps of Engineers off the hook, if they're at fault, because of the Collateral Source Rule.
Just because you had insurance, that doesn't mean that the tort-feasor should not compensate you, otherwise, that's a windfall to the tort-feasor -- that's the Collateral Source Rule.
Lawyers make ladders cost $300.
Lawyers make doctors practice law as nearly as much as they practice medicine.
I can go on and on with examples.
Lawyers add to the cost of nearly everything effectively lowering the standard of living for many.
If you look at the balance sheet of productive behavior verses destructive, it is hands down on the destructive side.
Are all lawyers destructive parasites? No. But the profession seems to provide a special calling for those types.
Ladders don't cost $300. But they are now rated for the weight they can carry, because of lawsuits. And, if you buy a ladder that's not rated for your weight, you're out of luck, because there's a sign right on the thing, telling you how much weight it will carry.
Thank a lawyer, or not, it's the truth.
Doctors don't practice law. Not the good ones, anyway. But the others are much more careful than they used to be when they could get away with murder and the rest of the medical community would simply close ranks around one of their own.
Thank a lawyer, or not, it's the truth.
In New Orleans, the report is that the concrete retaining walls on the canals were built in separate panels, like highway sound barriers, instead of interlocking. If they have to pay through the nose, they'll never be that dumb again.
Thank a lawyer, or not, it's the truth.
Me, I love a good lawsuit, even as a spectator. This one promises to be a doozy.
Classic... Confusing the issue with the facts. One picture = well you know....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.