How lawyers are ruining America, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 14-3-2010 @ 11:05 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
I am a lawyer. It is not fair to say all lawyers are ruining America or that lawyers are to blame for every problem. However, the legal profession as a whole has caused more than its fair share of problems. Here are some things the legal profession as a whole is doing to hurt America.

1. Opposing a loser pays rule

In most other countries, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay the winner's legal fees. In America, the loser seldom pays the winner's legal fees. This opens the floodgates of litigation and keeps many lawyers employed. People can file ridiculous lawsuits, and reasonably expect to get something back in the form of a settlement because it is cheaper for defendants to give plaintiffs a few thousand dollars to go away than it is to litigate a case to the bloody end.

2. Profiting of Divorces

Most lawyers practice in the area of family law. Most of you (in America) reading this thread will not need to hire a lawyer because they got arrested or breached a contract. About half of you will need to hire a lawyer and spend a large sum of money because you are going to get divorced.

Our country could do a great deal to reform our divorce laws to encourage marriage. Unfortunately, many lawyers make a living off divorce. It follows lawyers would oppose reforms which would limit the numbers of divorces.


3. Exalting procedure and form over substance

Most lawyers make money off the procedural aspects of the law. In many simple matters, the average person understands the substantive law. Yet, the average person will have to hire a lawyer because they do not understand the procedural aspects of the law like how to file a pleading. Many people also do not understand procedures and formal arrangements like properly executing documents like wills or taking the proper steps to form a business.

People need to be given some leniency when it comes to procedures. They should not be punished because they could not afford a good lawyer to make sure they dotted their i's before they crossed their t's.


reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 12:51 AM by ExPostFacto
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I am currently in the process of applying for law school admission. I am also someone who has fought several cases on my own after lawyers turned me down and said I had no case. I have won every case so far. I study law, read case law, and dig into legislation as a hobby. I am not a big fan of tort reform as it is applied currently but am open to something less geared at benefiting huge corporations from large lawsuit awards, yet the little business has to close up from the same award. That said from a person trying to get into the legal field I agree with just about every point you make.

You are right, anyone who can read can find out what laws are there and research them further. Law is really not a mystery. But the average person gets lost in the law. Our politicians seem to not be able to read their own laws. I see many administrative agencies of government set their own standards of enforcement of a law, even though their standards go against the legislative intention of the law they are enforcing. I see so many loopholes in laws it is almost uncanny. I really should write a book for how employers can structure their business to get away with not following the law. Of course nobody would buy it until I get a piece of paper that says I am able to read and understand the law. And if I get a piece of paper that says I can practice law, I certainly can not advise them how to legally structure their business to avoid the laws.



reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 03:28 AM by whatukno
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Not to be mean, but, I hate you.

2. Profiting of Divorces

Most lawyers practice in the area of family law. Most of you (in America) reading this thread will not need to hire a lawyer because they got arrested or breached a contract. About half of you will need to hire a lawyer and spend a large sum of money because you are going to get divorced.

Our country could do a great deal to reform our divorce laws to encourage marriage. Unfortunately, many lawyers make a living off divorce. It follows lawyers would oppose reforms which would limit the numbers of divorces.


Oh I know the pain of this oh so well. Hows this one for ya, in my divorce, her pos lawyer somehow, some way was able to write the divorce settlement ex parte. The judge signed it and it was given to me.

I could have not shown up. I couldn't have done worse. If I had a violent bone in my body. I would have liked to show that guy the worst parts of hell.

Yea, reform does need to happen, and happen badly.


reply posted on 15-3-2010 @ 05:51 PM by ExPostFacto
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Another point I see relevant in this discussion is the issue tort reform has on precedents. Precedents are designed to give consistency to a system. However, if cases are never brought forward that have facts relevant to overturning a bad precedent then nothing changes. You mention that current tort reforms discourage lawyers from taking the case all the way through a decision. Personally I see a huge impact on the precedent setting principles with lack of cases being ruled on. If more lawyers fought these cases to the end it would make a much more fair system, with plenty of case examples and situations being ruled upon.


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 07:48 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ExPostFacto


Good luck to you in your studies. Just remember to make the best of your time in law school. I know this sounds patronizing, but make sure you read your cases before each class. (Many lawschool students are goof offs that seldom read before class.) Also, make sure you make your own briefs and make your own outlines. Stay away from commercial outlines and briefs, they are made for and by C students. Also, do not rely to heaviliy on some other student's outline, even if that student aced the course last year.


When a lawyer says "you cannot win" what they are often really saying is "I will not win that case for you." As you may have figured it out, most lawyers are bad at what they do. When a two bit lawyer says "you cannot win" what they might really be saying is "I don't have the knowledge, expertise, or resources to win." Another thing that comes into play is that most lawyers may not be willing to touch cases where the expected recovery is small. No lawyer is going to want to put in hundreds of hours of work to get 30% of a $5000 damage award.


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 08:01 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ExPostFacto


This is not really true. In a lawsuit, there are two types of issues that are contested: legal issues and factual issues. Legal issues are decided by judges and involve questions on how to interpret the law. Courts follow precedent when deciding legal issues.

Factual issues are often decided by juries. Factual issues involve questions like: Is the plaintiff severely injured or faking it? Was the defendant really speeding at the time of the car crash or was he obeying the speed limit? What dollar figure should we put on the plaintiff's pain and suffering? Courts do not follow precedent when determining factual issues as each case involves its own sets of evidence.

When it comes to tort cases, legal issues are rarely contested. The law and how its interpreted is pretty much settled in this area. What gets contested in these cases are the facts. Defendants claim they were acting carefully at the time of plaintiffs' injuries, while plaintiffs claim the defendants were acting carelessly. Plaintiffs will claim their injuries are severe while defendants downplay the extent of injuries. Defendants will claim the plaintiff caused their injuries, while plaintiffs often claim the defendant had a pre-existing condition.

Both sides present evidence trying to convince juries their version of the facts is correct, and juries decide what the facts of the case were based on the evidence put before them. Precedent does not matter because juries are not allowed to look to prior cases. More precedent will not add more certainty to this process.


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 08:12 PM by ExPostFacto
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


My interest is in the area of labor laws. The NLRB case law is fairly well established as it has hundreds of cases to chose from all over the country. However, state labor laws are rarely taken to court. A fired employee cannot readily afford an attorney. I remember doing some research in Nevada on a case. I couldn't find many cases at all. The annotated statues books were almost completely devoid of any case decisions. I would imagine though in the area of personal injuries that this is fairly well established case law.

Any recommendations for LSAT prep?



reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 08:19 PM by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by ExPostFacto


I don't know much about state labor law. It is possible that much of the case law in that area is in administrative courts. Administrative court decisions usually do not find their way into annotated statutes.

When you go to law school, make sure and take a class on administrative law. It will teach you that everything you learned in civics class about separation of powers and the executive branch only enforcing the law is not really true. In administrative law, you will learn that the executive branch makes more laws than the legislative branch and is even capable of overturning the Supreme court!

As far as LSAT prep goes, I did not go with a test prep company. I went to a bookstore and bought books with practice LSAT's. The month before my LSAT I took one practice test a day. I also practiced working out the game section. In retrospect, I may have scored a few points higher if I went with a test prep company.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^