The law is often a noble profession. Indeed, without the law and those who practice it, there is no question that we would be a much poorer society--more anarchic, more violent, more oppressive. Most of the lawyers I've known are very good people.
Some people attack lawyers far too often. They do it too viciously, too viscerally, and too irrationally, too much of the time. A lot of such folks like to quote Shakespeare's line about "first, we kill all the lawyers," but they often forget that the line was spoken by a bad guy hatching an evil plot.
So here's to the legal profession. In another life, I might well have become a lawyer, and been proud of it. As a profession, they, as much as any soldier, make possible the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. God bless 'em.
However, I've spent a day or so thinking about an earlier conversation, and have come to this conclusion:
Trial lawyers who make themselves multimillionaires by suing do not get half the kicking around that they deserve.
They are a primary cause of the high cost of health care in the United States. They are also a primary cause of the deterioration of medical services, in several important ways--the most important of which being that doctors are often afraid to give frank advice or to share information with other doctors simply because they're afraid of being sued.
Outside of the medical profession, self-made multimillionaire trial lawyers have ruined many a business. They often do so while self-righteously talking about how much good they did their clients. Meanwhile, they rarely acknowledge the innocent lives, sometimes even communities, that they often destroy in the process.
We also remain the only Western nation which does not put limits on class-action lawsuits, which has no barratry laws of any significance, and which does not put limits on the fees lawyers can collect in lawsuits. Most countries don't even allow lawyers to take percentage-based fees in lawsuits, but it's how most legal sharks and shysters in America make themselves rich.
We have more lawyers per capita than any nation on Earth, in large part because so many people want to get in on the looting that has made a certain breed of American trial lawyer so very wealthy.
Trial lawyers who make themselves rich at the expense of others are a bane to America and an embarassment to their profession. They are not a "class" in the sense that rich people or poor people or middle class people are, or even in the sense that lawyers are a "class." Thus, accusations that criticizing them and their destructive and selfish behavior amounts to "class warfare" have very little merit in my eyes.
Criticizing bad people in a profession, and noting the problems they cause, is entirely legitimate--just as kicking around corporate crooks (not all corporations or corporate executives), quack doctors (not all doctors), or wife-beaters (not all married men), is completely legitimate. We need more of this, not less.
In tribute to the status of selfish trial lawyers as one of the worst things in America, I hereby link for the first time to Walter Olson's Overlawyered.com. Indeed, I'm adding it to my permanent list of links, since it's one of the best sites on the web. Check it out some time.
Well, yeah, it's the same with lawyers as it is with doctors, clergy, police, or politicians. There are good ones and there are bad ones. The good ones often do a great deal of good. But the bad ones can't be criticized harshly enough, precisely because their work impacts so powerfully on so many peoples' lives.
I remember not too many years ago, when Madison, Wisconsin became I believe only the second city in the country to ban smoking in restaurants. (Wasn't the first something like Berkeley? No doubt.) As a native of a town not too far from Madison, graduate of the UW-Madison, and on-and-off Madison resident over the years, I thought to myself, "Well, that's Mad City for you!" At the time I couldn't have imagined how successful the antismoking movement was to become in just a few years, nor would I have believed how wealthy some lawyers were to become at the expense of the tobacco companies.
(Disclaimer: I'm a lifelong nonsmoker, and I'd be the first to tell you that smoking is terrible for your health. In fact I enjoy eating in a nonsmoking restaurant, though I wish that'd been left up to the free market.)
Health care industry, let's put it this way. When I had eye surgery as a kid back in 1963, my parents paid for it, cash on the barrelhead, with no problem. True, $500 was a lot more money back in those days than it is now, but that covered the surgery, a five-day hospital stay, and all attendant expenses. Nowadays, I'm just damn glad my benefits package includes health insurance: I know from past experience what it is to be without, and to be unable to afford coverage. Thank you, trial lawyers!
We now seem to be on the precipice with the fast food industry. There have been some lawsuits in the news, though at the moment I can't believe it's really going to go anywhere. Still, we're living in what Robert Heinlein called "the Crazy Years." It will be interesting to see, ten years from now, whether the trial lawyers have succeeded in wringing gigabucks out of McDonald's and Wendy's.
By the way, speaking of Heinlein... For 500 Science Fiction Geek points, which of Heinlein's novels alluded to that line from Shakespeare, with its mention of "the day they killed all the lawyers"?
Number of the Beast, in beulaland, if I am not mistaken...
Dean:
Good post.
Brings to mind one of my favorite aphorisms from Mark Twain: "If a town has one lawyer, he's a pauper. If a town has two lawyers, they both become rich."
heh.
On the other hand, could you please reflect on the fact that trial lawyers do business in the courtroom that also houses a judge and jury? I've read enough Grisham to know about something called a "runaway jury." Isn't this part of the problem as well? And judges, too? Although many a judge will overturn the finding of the jury, not all do.
Lastly, since we have a trial attorney who is running for president, could someone point me to a source of information on the Web that documents the numerous multi-million dollar cases won by John Edwards?
I ask because we may (or may not) be on the verge of re-visiting these cases once more. How the press presents these cases may go a long way in altering our perception, once and for all, of "filthy rich trial attorneys" (in the words of that famous populist, Robert Novak.)
I believe I have read every Heinlein novel, and almost every short story, and I cannot remember that line.
Which means, of course, that I am going to have to have you killed. Watch your back, Burgess.
(Was it Friday?)
Well I would agree with some of that, Ara. But I have to point out that lawsuit-happy lawyers have a lot of power in selecting their juries. And, of course, except in rare places (like Nevada), judges are also lawyers--indeed, most of them are members of law firms.
Also, one big way to make money is to sue under circumstances where the defendant has a very good chance of winning in court. Why? Because the shark knows there's a good chance the victim will decide it's cheaper to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands settling rather than spend even more money on a defense.
I've seen this happen. It happened to me, in fact. My employer's insurance company settled rather than go to court, even though the case had no merit.
From what I understand, it's an entire sub-industry that's latched like leeches onto the entire medical industry. Death, taxes, and lawsuits appear to be the three certainties of the American medical industry.
I believe I have read every Heinlein novel, and almost every short story, and I cannot remember that line.
Every Heinlein novel?! Sheesh, Dean, and here I thought I was a Heinlein geek! But I'm sure there must be two or three Heinlein novels I've never read. I Will Fear No Evil, for one.
Which means, of course, that I am going to have to have you killed. Watch your back, Burgess.
You try that, Esmay, and I'll have to steal another quote from Heinlein: "[The pastorate], basically a sedentary profession, does have its brisk moments." (I believe I'm paraphrasing that from The Cat Who Walks through Walls.)
(Was it Friday?)
Nope, Andrew got it, it's one of the parallel Earths from The Number of the Beast:
Every Heinlein novel?! Sheesh...there must be two or three Heinlein novels I've never read. I Will Fear No Evil, for one.
Yes, I've read every one. Unless there's one I haven't heard of, in which case I'll go find it. But I doubt one exists because I dug hard. I've even found stuff hardly anyone's heard of, like Beyond This Horizon. (Which, by the way, bears a startling similarity to the movie GATTACA. All the more astonishing since Heinlein wrote the book in the 1940s.)
I have mixed feelings about I Will Fear No Evil. I like a lot of things about it, and it's one of my favorites of his post-Stranger works. But I would recommend it very reservedly. It's one of the first of that long period in his work where his obsession with sex, and his lack of discipline, started to show. I think one should read more Heinlein before reading that one.
On the other hand, it's his most un-PC work (except maybe for Starship Troopers), and it offended feminist sensibilities massively. Funny thing is, I think the things it talks about in our 21st century, post-Feminist world are quite valid. As was so often the case, Heinlein was more forward-thinking and sensible than most of his critics would ever admit.
Besides, if there are really only two or three you shouldn't read...?
As for Number of the Beast, I must warn most people off of it. I honestly believe only a real Heinlein geek could enjoy it. Hell, I had to read it twice before I could even decide if I liked it. I concluded that I did like it, but that you'd have to read Time Enough For Love first, and that's not the easiest book to read either.
Hell, most everything written after Stranger in a Strange Land is a crap shoot so far as I'm concerned. And I'm not even all that fond of that book. I think it's far from his best book. For all that it was a seminal work in its day, I don't think it's aged all that well. And anything written after it is a real crap shoot. There's some gold there, but you've got to do a lot of panning to find it.
On the other hand, I usually tell people that anything written prior to the mid-1960s is probably worth reading. Some are better than others, of course. My personal favorite is and probably always will be The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
MOON is the best thing he ever did. TROOPERS is a close second. Regarding STRANGER, he is known to have said "Some people will do anything for money."
The worst problem with EVIL is that one expects certain things from Heinlein, and this book deliberately goes in other directions.
JOB is crap.
great discussion, i am a new reader of yuor site and i have to say this post struck me. i am in law enforcement and i see lawyers daily. i agree that the vast majority of criminal lawyers both prosecution and defense are good people, but the percentage drops rapidly when you talk about civil trial lawyers. the lawsuit happy society we live in has not only affected health care and private business, but also my profession as well. i am a veteran of ten years and i am an instructor that travels the country teaching classes relating to my profession. i cant tell you how much of what is taught to cops from the police academy on thru advanced classes is based on how to do your job without getting sued. i find this completely ridiculous, i know their are bad cops out their, but i fear for the good ones that hesitate to make a decision out of fear of being sued. i have seen it happen and the cosequenses can be deadly for the cop and the community. a great example is columbine high school. the cops stayed outside and waited for the swat team because that is how they are trained. nobody wants to put themselves at risk of being sued, just let swat get here they know how to handle live shootings.
anyways thanks for good read.
I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Utter completely on his first paragraph, and disagree utterly on the third...
I cannot stand Stranger, I tried twice to read it and couldn’t bear to pick it up after halfway. I suppose were I to go to UCSC and have it as assigned reading (an old acquaintance of mine had her Santa Cruz BA in Science Fiction with a concentration in Heinlein. No joke), I’d give it the old college (so to speak) try...
If someone could please, please, pretty please, explain to me the ending of Number of the Beast, I would be grateful...
Andrew: I think Job: A Comedy of Justice is probably the best book he wrote in the last 10-15 years of his life.
As for the ending of NOTB: For starts, you have to have read Time Enough for Love, because the last quarter of the book is just an extension of that book. The very ending is basically an allegory of the final confrontation between collectivists and individualists. Collectivists are the mostly-faceless villains throughout the book, while the good guys are the proud individualist heroes of the book. Collectivists are basically laughed off as they utterly fail to win.
That he doesn't say so explicitely adds to the confusion.
Now, before we turn this whole thing into a Heinlein discussion:
Rupert: Thanks for your comments. Yes, cops seem actually to have been the first victims of out-of-control lawsuits. Although from what I've seen, police departments have done a good job of developing procedures to avoid lawsuits, it's still astonishing to talk to cops and find out what they can't/won't do, not because it's illegal but because the lawsuits, and the risk to career, are too high.
Now, before we turn this whole thing into a Heinlein discussion...
Okay, just for the record, my favorite lawyer in Heinlein is Garsch, in Citizen of the Galaxy. (Which, by the way, I've read at least a dozen times.) :-)
I am inclined to agree with Rupert and Dean. The growing prevalence of civil suits in American society seems me the single chink in the otherwise airtight armor of the United States Constitution and the political, economic, social and governmental administrative systems are arose on this continent as an outgrowth of limited government based on that constitution.
-- The practice of medicine in this country, both general and specialized, is now threatened because physicians and surgeons increasingly cannot afford the now-excessive costs of malpractice insurance.
-- The viability of the insurance industry in general is now threatened by civil suits resulting from actual or ostensible damages that lead to jury awards far in excess of the actual cost of the damage.
-- Hitherto legal industries such as tobacco manufacturing are now regularly threatened by massive lawsuits, the proceeds of which cash-strapped state governments are using as a new source of operating revenue to supplant taxation increases or new taxes that their voters will not sustain that that, therefore, their legislators will not exact.
-- Lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the viability of the 2nd amendment to the United Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and which most legal scholars now regard as an individual right as opposed to a mere right of the states to have "national guards" which are regularly federalized.
-- Lawsuits against many of kinds of businesses and industries have helped render the cost of goods originating in this country prohibitively expensive to consumers, thus degrading the industrial base of the United States.
Certainly, a case could be made that if the United States were to go the way of ancient Rome, it will have much to do with the fact that civil litigation has become elevated -- or perhaps degraded -- from a remedy to a major industry; an industry, moreover, which has accumulated powers that all the big and little La Cosa Nostras in American history had not dared to imagine possible.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Dean, I don't think I liked anything that Heinlein did after "Stranger in a Strange Land". The "Quotations of Lazarus Long" from "Time Enough for Love" might qualify as decent Heinlein.
I've found "Glory Road" aggravating for various reasons...
I'm surprised (speaking of NON-P.C.) no one's mentioned "Farnham's Freehold" yet.
Me, I like a lot of his so-called "juvenile" stuff. "Space Cadet", "Rocket Ship Galileo", "Have Space Suit, Will Travel"...
I think in many ways the "juvenile" novels were his best work.
Dean: about lawyers; much of the bad rap these days comes from tricks like farming through states to find the most congenial class-action enviornment, winnowing juries to the "worst of the worst", and shopping for idiot witch-hunt suits like those against the tobacco and gun industries...
Re: Farnam's Freehold - I was waiting to hear that mentioned too. Ugh. On the other hand I think that Sixth Column doesn't quite deserve to be on the un-PC list as some have said (like the RAH FAQ).
Re: Job - I actually enjoyed it the third time around.
Back to lawyers. My lawyer brews his own beer and loads his own ammo.
Now that's my kinda lawyer. :-)
Fred & Dean, that's my kind of lawyer, too. Except that I hope he doesn't brew up in the gun room. Moisture ruins otherwise good reloads, and God only knows what gunpowder does to the taste of beer.
(I reload and shoot about 2000 rounds of pistol-caliber ammunition per year, 9mm using a Dillon XL650, for a pair of Browning Hi-Power semiauto pistols; and 45 caliber on a Lee Load-Master, for two Thompson M1A1 submachine guns and an ex-GI M1911A1. I use Accurate Arms #2-Improved powder for both calibers; reduces muzzle smoke, a nice consideration for IPSC or IDPA-type tactical gun matches. That, plus full metal jacket bullets makes for good reloading.)
One problem is that punitive damages are awarded to the plaintiff. They are awarded based on how much punishment the offender deserves, not on how much damage was done to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is already awarded personal damages in adition to the punitive.
Since I have no real examples to give, I'll use the example from Grisham's novel "The Runaway Jury", (a story about a life long smoker's wife's suit against a tobacco company, blaming them for the lung cancer death of her husband) where the jury was reluctant to award the plaintiff because he chose to smoke knowing that it was addictive and dangerous. What had this average man done to deserve the millions that the his attournys were asking for. Nothing. They had little sympathy for him.
The jury's decision came down in favor of the plaintiff anyway (they awarded $2M in personal damages and $500M in punitive), because they wanted to "stick-it-to" the evil tobacco company.
Where should the money go instead? To some government fund? Naw! That would only invite corrupt politicions to line their pockets.
Does any body have a better suggestion?