Fighting Back Against the Lawyers?

[Charles Stucker]

There is an art to law that you will never understand. .

You don't know shit about what's required in a brief or the appeals process or the civil liability of the police.

And that's not learned overnight by amateurs.

There is a SCIENCE to engineering which YOU will clearly NEVER understand.

You don't know shit (sic) about what's required To Keep Industrial Manufacturing going

And that's not learned overnight by amateurs.

You clearly are prepared to believe that lawyers create something useful because you are one. Which prevents you from seeing how pointless you truly are.

 

[Vanquish]

And your unwillingness to concede even one point to your adversary shows what a worthless poster you are....so backatcha

 

[jillian]

The problem is the system can be too expensive. That provides companies incentives to settle rather than litigate claims even if they have a legitimate case. And lawyers know this and take advantage of it.

So you have multiple claims that may or may not be lost in court being settled, and that causes money to be paid out. I think that's far more destructive than the huge law suits, though it does seem ridiculous that punative damages can be so high.

Actually, I've found it to be the opposite. In my experience, often insurance companies litigate even when they know they will have to pay because they want to make it too expensive for practitioners to bring suit on behalf of clients, even if the suit is justified.

 

[Charles Stucker]

And your unwillingness to concede even one point to your adversary shows what a worthless poster you are....so backatcha

There is only ONE point. Engineers are FAR more essential for a modern society than lawyers. The LAWYER disputes that central point. The LAWYER hopes to obscure that central point because once enough people realize that it is in fact TRUE that engineers are more essential than lawyers, they lawyers might not have so much money.

 

[beowolfe]

It's not the lawyers that create the settlements. It's your fellow citizens on the juries. Take the lady in McDonald's that drove off with the hot coffee between her legs. It was a jury that awarded her millions; not the lawyers. You all have the wrong target in your cross hairs.

ALWAYS the McDonald's propaganda one. The one everyone refers to. Here is the background on this case.

Prior to this case, McDonald produced coffee machines for their restaurants there were defective. Not just making coffee hot, but making it dangerously hot. They were 100+ similar injures. McDonalds was instructed/warned by the courts to fix the machines. The cost of fixing the machine and protecting the public far outweighed the cost of small litigation. None of the previous case came up, since the were small settlment.

Then the case in hand came about. McDonalds was ignoring warning after warning and putting people at risk, guess what they got hit with punitive damages. Mess with the bull too long you get the horn.

Most people stop there. That wasn't the end. The damages were appealed and substantially reduced to normal level, once McDonalds agreed to fix the machines!

I think you're missing my point which was it isn't the lawyers that create these crazy award amounts; it's juries. And unless and until we can get juries to change, it really doesn't matter what we do to lawyers. Once a case gets to a jury, they will award millions for the most trivial things. BTW, though you apparently didn't get it, your post proves my point.

The damages were appealed and substantially reduced to normal level, once McDonalds agreed to fix the machines

The award was reduced to 'normal levels' once the lawyers (aka judge (whose also a lawyer) got involved. Now, you can be in favor of taking the 'award' power away from the juries, but attacking the lawyers won't get you where you're trying to go.

 

[beowolfe]

And your unwillingness to concede even one point to your adversary shows what a worthless poster you are....so backatcha

There is only ONE point. Engineers are FAR more essential for a modern society than lawyers. The LAWYER disputes that central point. The LAWYER hopes to obscure that central point because once enough people realize that it is in fact TRUE that engineers are more essential than lawyers, they lawyers might not have so much money.

It's not that black and white. There are times when engineers are more important to a modern society and there are times when lawyers are more important. It simply depends on what the issue is at the time.

 

[jillian]

And your unwillingness to concede even one point to your adversary shows what a worthless poster you are....so backatcha

There is only ONE point. Engineers are FAR more essential for a modern society than lawyers. The LAWYER disputes that central point. The LAWYER hopes to obscure that central point because once enough people realize that it is in fact TRUE that engineers are more essential than lawyers, they lawyers might not have so much money.

without lawyers there would still be lead in paint. without lawyers people could discriminate against you in the workplace. without lawyers people could make products that aren't properly made so they're dangerous and you wouldn't get compensated. insurance companies could deny claims without you having recourse.

and while engineers are important, i'd wager very few people (or no one) on this board have ever hired an engineer...

but everyone's hired a lawyer at one time or another.

it's interesting to me that the people who have the most resentment toward lawyers are the ones who run around saying that people should try to succeed, but then seem to resent the success lawyers have...

........... until they need one to save their own sorry butts.

 

[Charles Stucker]

and while engineers are important, i'd wager very few people (or no one) on this board have ever hired an engineer...

but everyone's hired a lawyer at one time or another.

And everyone uses goods whose manufacture requires engineers.
EVERYONE.
They also depend on engineers for anything which is shipped any distance at all, and for their Automobiles.
EVERYONE.

Go ahead try to live like the Amish, see how much you like it. Because that is where you are without modern engineering.

As for you Lead in paint example. Without a Scientist to determine the lead was hazardous we would still be using lead in paint.
Without chemical engineers to make a new lead free formula for paint we would now be using whitewash.

Wow, there you go.

 

[Vanquish]

and while engineers are important, i'd wager very few people (or no one) on this board have ever hired an engineer...

but everyone's hired a lawyer at one time or another.

And everyone uses goods whose manufacture requires engineers.
EVERYONE.
They also depend on engineers for anything which is shipped any distance at all, and for their Automobiles.
EVERYONE.

Go ahead try to live like the Amish, see how much you like it. Because that is where you are without modern engineering.

As for you Lead in paint example. Without a Scientist to determine the lead was hazardous we would still be using lead in paint.
Without chemical engineers to make a new lead free formula for paint we would now be using whitewash.

Wow, there you go.

So you admit that we could live without modern engineers. You're not necessary.

Life without lawyers would give you the Amish equivalent of legal representation...i.e. a crappy outcome. All your little hypos and metaphors work equally as well to prove the opposite of what you're asserting. Keep going..this is great.

 

[Charles Stucker]

So you admit that we could live without modern engineers. You're not necessary.

Cavemen lived without engineers, do you want to live like a caveman? You clearly have the intellect for that.

Life without lawyers would give you the Amish equivalent of legal representation.

Last I checked the Amish don't have that many legal problems.
Or that much crime.
Must be because they don't have lawyers.

 

[jillian]

and while engineers are important, i'd wager very few people (or no one) on this board have ever hired an engineer...

but everyone's hired a lawyer at one time or another.

And everyone uses goods whose manufacture requires engineers.
EVERYONE.
They also depend on engineers for anything which is shipped any distance at all, and for their Automobiles.
EVERYONE.

Go ahead try to live like the Amish, see how much you like it. Because that is where you are without modern engineering.

As for you Lead in paint example. Without a Scientist to determine the lead was hazardous we would still be using lead in paint.
Without chemical engineers to make a new lead free formula for paint we would now be using whitewash.

Wow, there you go.

While scientists may have been the ones who determined that lead was hazardous, it was lawyers who made sure that people were compensated because it was. and its that compensation

you seem to think i begrudge the engineers and scientists. i don't. i have extraordinary respect for scientific people. without the lawyers, though, no one would be making sure that what the scientists knew about the dangers would be implemented. it's hand and glove...

my point was that you need to reign in your resentment. society doesn't choose whether it has lawyers OR scientists. Both make their contributions in whatever way they can. It's like saying that blue collar people aren't important because scientists are...

silly concept.

 

[Charles Stucker]

society doesn't choose whether it has lawyers OR scientists. Both make their contributions in whatever way they can.

A better analogy might be the Notre Dame cathedral.
Take out the Rose window and a lot of the beauty is lost.
Take out the main support columns and the whole thing crumbles.
Lawyers are like the Window - a nice addition
Engineers are like the support columns - absolutely required.

So the question remains - why are lawyers paid more?

 

[RodISHI]

There are good attorneys and bad attorneys. Good judges and bad judges. I have met a lot of them along the way. I have some very dear friends who are judges and attorneys.

If companies or other people did not abuse someone in some manner there would not be a problem. The person injured would not need an attorney to go to court for them. The only problem I see is when the judges or the attorneys do not act in an ethical manner. In that respect they protect one another from being justly dismissed from the profession. That same thing happens when bad doctors are protected for the sake of the profession and are allowed to continue to practice medicine injuring even more people. It is not necessarily a good thing to have people in any profession as the watchdogs for that profession. Same with bankers watching over bankers. The whole system is corrupted in that way and it needs a good bath and new regulations.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The only problem I see is when the judges or the attorneys do not act in an ethical manner.

What is the difference between Ethics and Morals?
The Ethical man knows cheating on his wife is wrong.
The Moral man does not cheat on his wife.
Which explains why congressmen talk about their ethics all the time.

 

[jillian]

society doesn't choose whether it has lawyers OR scientists. Both make their contributions in whatever way they can.

A better analogy might be the Notre Dame cathedral.
Take out the Rose window and a lot of the beauty is lost.
Take out the main support columns and the whole thing crumbles.
Lawyers are like the Window - a nice addition
Engineers are like the support columns - absolutely required.

So the question remains - why are lawyers paid more?

why do you think lawyers are paid more?

and if they are, why not ask why people who play sports or make movies for a living are paid more than teachers (which REALLY should be your focus)

the answer... athletes and entertainers, like lawyers, generate wealth. i consider it profit sharing.

why aren't you complaining about what doctors earn?

why aren't you complaining about what entertainers earn?

why aren't you complaining about what CEO's earn?

Seems to me that you're focused on lawyers because someone else's propaganda told you to.

 

[Charles Stucker]

why do you think lawyers are paid more?

Because they have taken over the government (look at the number of lawyers in congress) and use that to insure they get more than they are worth.
Celebrities are like lottery winners - they get lucky so they get money; sure it takes a certain degree of talent, but unless they are noticed they never get much. Athletes are much the same, but theirs is the "Am I injured before I make Pro" lottery.
Lawyers make money by creating cases, simple as that. Creating cases means either litigating something which is not needed (perhaps you are unfamiliar with a case in rural Texas where a law firm got a class action suit against a bread company, won and made millions. The people of rural East Texas got sent settlement checks which were barely more than the cost of the stamps on the envelopes) or manufacturing criminal cases (we could do much better at eliminating Drugs by legalizing, educating and regulating than by having so many criminals, but the lawyers would not make anything off that).

I can actually show that what Lawyers truly produce is more crime - would you like to see that?

 

[jillian]

why do you think lawyers are paid more?

Because they have taken over the government (look at the number of lawyers in congress) and use that to insure they get more than they are worth.
Celebrities are like lottery winners - they get lucky so they get money; sure it takes a certain degree of talent, but unless they are noticed they never get much. Athletes are much the same, but theirs is the "Am I injured before I make Pro" lottery.
Lawyers make money by creating cases, simple as that. Creating cases means either litigating something which is not needed (perhaps you are unfamiliar with a case in rural Texas where a law firm got a class action suit against a bread company, won and made millions. The people of rural East Texas got sent settlement checks which were barely more than the cost of the stamps on the envelopes) or manufacturing criminal cases (we could do much better at eliminating Drugs by legalizing, educating and regulating than by having so many criminals, but the lawyers would not make anything off that).

I can actually show that what Lawyers truly produce is more crime - would you like to see that?

Actually, no. I'm not interested in hearing the rant without the response to my questions. But that's ok.

And no, lawyers don't "create" cases. Some do, I'm sure... but not as a general rule.

let me know when you respond to my points and don't edit down my post to the one sentence you want to address.

 

[Yurt]

why do you think lawyers are paid more?

Because they have taken over the government (look at the number of lawyers in congress) and use that to insure they get more than they are worth.
Celebrities are like lottery winners - they get lucky so they get money; sure it takes a certain degree of talent, but unless they are noticed they never get much. Athletes are much the same, but theirs is the "Am I injured before I make Pro" lottery.
Lawyers make money by creating cases, simple as that. Creating cases means either litigating something which is not needed (perhaps you are unfamiliar with a case in rural Texas where a law firm got a class action suit against a bread company, won and made millions. The people of rural East Texas got sent settlement checks which were barely more than the cost of the stamps on the envelopes) or manufacturing criminal cases (we could do much better at eliminating Drugs by legalizing, educating and regulating than by having so many criminals, but the lawyers would not make anything off that).

I can actually show that what Lawyers truly produce is more crime - would you like to see that?

you can't be serious

 

[goldcatt]

why do you think lawyers are paid more?

Because they have taken over the government (look at the number of lawyers in congress) and use that to insure they get more than they are worth.
Celebrities are like lottery winners - they get lucky so they get money; sure it takes a certain degree of talent, but unless they are noticed they never get much. Athletes are much the same, but theirs is the "Am I injured before I make Pro" lottery.
Lawyers make money by creating cases, simple as that. Creating cases means either litigating something which is not needed (perhaps you are unfamiliar with a case in rural Texas where a law firm got a class action suit against a bread company, won and made millions. The people of rural East Texas got sent settlement checks which were barely more than the cost of the stamps on the envelopes) or manufacturing criminal cases (we could do much better at eliminating Drugs by legalizing, educating and regulating than by having so many criminals, but the lawyers would not make anything off that).

I can actually show that what Lawyers truly produce is more crime - would you like to see that?

you can't be serious

He thinks he is.

 

[Yurt]

i fear for our children