Lawyers...Yuk

[xoxoxoBruce]

In my area there's an ad campaign going on to promote lawyers being good guys.
One ad describes how a black woman started her own business.... because of a lawyer.
Nice try, but this sort of thing keeps rearing it's ugly head.

Lawyer's Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million

He says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers.

Pearson is demanding $65,462,500. The original alteration work on the pants cost $10.50.

By the way, Pearson is a lawyer. Okay, you probably figured that. But get this: He's a judge, too -- an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia.

Why should Ki, Jin and Soo Chung -- the family that owns Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE in the District's Fort Lincoln section -- pay Pearson $15,000 so he can rent a car every weekend for 10 years?

The plaintiff, who says he has devoted more than 1,000 hours to represent himself in this battle, says that as a result of poor service at Custom, he must find another cleaner. And because Pearson does not own a car, he says he will have to rent one to get his clothes taken care of.

A week after that routine mishap -- pants go astray all the time at cleaners -- Soo Chung came up with gray trousers that she said were Pearson's. But when the judge said that he had dropped off pants with red and blue pinstripes, there was no joy in Fort Lincoln.

Pearson's first letter to the Chungs sought $1,150 so he could buy a new suit. Two lawyers and many legal bills later, the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000, then $4,600 and, finally, says their attorney, Chris Manning, $12,000 to settle the case.

A judge in the case has admonished Pearson about his take-no-prisoners tactics. When Pearson sought to broaden the case to try to prove violations of consumer protection laws on behalf of all District residents, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said that "the court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith" because of "the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks."

Pearson has put the Chungs and their attorneys to work answering long lists of questions, such as this: "Please identify by name, full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1, 2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that advertise 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.' "

In the world.

This asshat is out of control. Unfortunately it's just a common problem that has been magnified by this fool. A common problem of lawyers having the holier than thou attitude and the resources to threaten ordinary people with a huge bill to defend themselves against bullshit lawsuits.

Judges are even worse... they can do no wrong ...unless they piss off other judges or very powerful politicians. Is it any wonder they sit (hide)behind bullet proof benches.

They are going to have to come up with one hell of an ad campaign.

[SquadRat1]

I agree...I love those "The adjuster works for the Insurance company" ads. Being I used to work in insruance claims. The majority of the attorneys take 40% off the top of any settlement you get. Some are more, depending on the amount a claimant receives. I hated the fact that people would get 1/2 or less (after paying taxes as well) of what they would have had they not hired lawyer.

[Cloud]

I know many fine lawyers who take their ethical code seriously, don't overcharge, and sincerely want to help people.

Of course, I know asshole lawyers, too. In 20 years in the business, the good ones outweigh the bad.

People are people--some good, some stupid and venal--no matter what their profession.

[Hime]

There are plenty of problems with the system, but they aren't the fault of all lawyers. If you ever get charged with a crime, I'm sure you will be very happy to have one.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Cloud

People are people--some good, some stupid and venal--no matter what their profession.

I agree, but lawyers, like cops and a few other professions, have an inordinate amount of power should they happen to be unethical--do you have any insight as to why cases such as the one described above are not dealt with more thoroughly (or at all?) by the Ethics Board?

[TheMercenary]

Yea, I am not a big fan of Lawyers.

[Cloud]

the above story does not describe a lawyers actions. It describes a plaintiff's actions--the fact that he is a lawyer is immaterial to the facts of the lawsuit, so it would not rise to the level of an ethical violation. He's only doing what millions of other litigious plaintiffs do. Sounds like he pissed off the judge, however, which is never a good thing, and he could be subject to sanctions (i.e., a fine) for filing a frivolous suit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cloud

the above story does not describe a lawyers actions. It describes a plaintiff's actions--the fact that he is a lawyer is immaterial to the facts of the lawsuit, so it would not rise to the level of an ethical violation. He's only doing what millions of other litigious plaintiffs do. Sounds like he pissed off the judge, however, which is never a good thing, and he could be subject to sanctions (i.e., a fine) for filing a frivolous suit.

Plaintiff's would not be able to conduct these cases without lawyers looking to make a buck on the potential award.

[Cloud]

Well, plaintiffs can and do conduct their cases on their own, pro se, and they are often as stupid as this one.

In addition, lawyers must follow their clients wishes, and I can tell you that many, many times, clients want to prosecute suits against the advice of their attorneys. That kind of litigious climate is the real problem, not lawyers wanting to earn a living like everyone else.

Yes, I agree there are problems with the system, but I'm sure glad the system is in place. Are there abusers of the system? Sure, absolutely, but there are as many greedy plaintiffs out there as are greedy lawyers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cloud

the above story does not describe a lawyers actions. It describes a plaintiff's actions--the fact that he is a lawyer is immaterial to the facts of the lawsuit, so it would not rise to the level of an ethical violation. He's only doing what millions of other litigious plaintiffs do. Sounds like he pissed off the judge, however, which is never a good thing, and he could be subject to sanctions (i.e., a fine) for filing a frivolous suit.

But the difference is he isn't paying a lawyer to do all this harassment, he is in a position to do it himself, It costs him little or nothing and there is nothing to temper his judgment. Maybe we should require lawyers to hire lawyers like everyone else is forced to do.

[Happy Monkey]

Nobody is forced to, unless they are judged mentally incompetent to make the decision. But, lawyer or not, it is discouraged to handle your own case- "fool for a client" and all that.

[Cloud]

and that adage is demonstrably correct in this case

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Cloud

... the good ones outweigh the bad.

Some smart guy a while back said something to the effect that: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

So all the Good Lawyers who fail to reign in their unethical professional colleagues are, in my opinion, just as guilty. I mean, if anybody can make it hard for someone to do something its a lawyer. So the inaction of the so-called Good Lawyers is especially troublesome.

Until the good ones step up to the plate and enforce their own code of ethics then they might just as well be bad. Which brings us back to Bruce's original point.

I have an idea for an ad campaign too. It goes something like this:

Shakespeare: "...let's kill all the lawyers."
Stand up comic: "...what to you call tossing 500 lawyers overboard?"
Narrator: "...the legal profession is broken. It was broken by the very people who built it. Let's disbar every attorney in the United States and make all of them re-apply to a citizen's board for the right to practice law. That way, all the good lawyers who apparently are content to let their legal brethren rape the legal system for their own personal enrichment can continue to serve the public and at least allow us to do the job they don't have the nads to do themselves."

Then we can start a pool. How long before Beestie is served with an injunction against airing the ad? I'll go first: 13 seconds.

[Cloud]

I don't agree that the person spoken about in the opinion column posted has violated any attorney ethical standard. Stupid, yes--unethical no.

I read the disciplinary actions against lawyers in Texas every month, and I assure you that actions ARE taken by good lawyers against the bad. This kind of self-policing is similar to other professions, such as doctors and engineers, and it isn't a perfect one.

It just makes me sad when I read opinions like this, because they are uninformed. Most lawyers I know are wonderful people, who work long hours and give so much back to the community. Yet the good things are never noticed in favor of "oh, let's kill all the lawyers." It's just like anything else, I guess--good people go unnoticed and unlauded. Very sad.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Nobody is forced to, unless they are judged mentally incompetent to make the decision. But, lawyer or not, it is discouraged to handle your own case- "fool for a client" and all that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know that's not true. You can represent yourself in court but you can't do the preparation before hand. That requires the cooperation of court flunkies and other lawyers, like that's going to happen.