Redstate

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Edwards made his many, many millions suing on behalf of Cerebral Palsy victims. As the father of a son born with CP, I find it appalling. It is virtually impossible to find a causal relationship.

Didn't live in NC at the time but apparently there was alot of pretty questionable science used at trial in these cases. Edwards was the designated pretty boy. His role was to charm the jury, cajole the medical establishment, work the press, etc. My guess is the doctors were just trying to do their job to the best of their ability.

He is as slippery as they come.

the first case he won - which made the rest easy - he channeled the dead child. He actually stood before the jury and acted like he was the child calling out from the grave for justice against the doctor.

Slippery isn't the correct adjective. Moe will harpoon me if I use the correct one.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

for having the chutzpah to do that. I don't like him, and think he had no business being in the Senate, much less running for President, but I can set that aside and admire that he was a heck of a trial lawyer.

a charlatan makes for "a heck of a trial lawyer". Justice does not involve duping a jury.

that, while I don't like the man or what he stands for, I can as a technician admire his skill in moving and motivating juries. If you don't believe moving and motivating juries is a very large part the American jurisprudential system, you aren't up to speed on what it is and always has been. Trial lawyers must do their work within formal and ethical boundaries, but within those boundaries the ones who connect with and motivate juries are the successful ones.

If you just like to hate lawyers - until you need one - forget I said anything.

Heh. Good one.

There's nothing wrong with charging fees on a contingency basis. There also is nothing wrong with representing accident victims. I'm even ok with suing people who might not, in fact, be the ones responsible and letting the jury sort it out; assessing blame what juries are for, and a lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal, which often requires not being overly generous about letting potential payors off the hook.

None of that is the issue here. (I point this out on the off chance that you are confused about what contingency fees are about, and that you aren't just playing the troll here by deliberately tossing out a red herring.)

Contingency fee work is not charity work. It's a way of financing lawsuits, by the lawyer, for plaintiffs that have potentially large damages and who cannot front the fees. Done well, which means choosing the right cases to take and winning enough of them, it's very lucrative - potentially much, much more lucrative than being a top partner at a top defense firm. Someone else goes through life with the injury, lying in bed with a body covered 90 percent in burn scars or unable to move any muscle below the head, and the contingency fee lawyer walks off with 33 to 50 percent of the damages award in return for his help on the case. In any given town, the biggest yacht, the biggest house, perhaps the biggest jet, are owned by the contingency fee lawyers, who have taken their due rewards for participating energetically in our capitalistic system.

Pro bono work is charity work. Every lawyer, whether they normally charge by the hour or take a percentage of the case proceeds, ought to take some cases where they know they aren't going to get paid by anyone. It might be representing a criminal defendant on appeal, or bringing a civil rights action on behalf of some plaintiffs where no money is going to change hands but bad practices can be brought to an end, or even helping a non-profit charity get incorporated.

Edwards didn't do that. Every case he took - every single case - was for the money. Whether he would get paid was uncertain (as it all too often is for hourly fee lawyers, if they aren't very careful about whom they represent) but there was no doubt that every single case was driven by the profit motive. Not once did he donate his time just for the public good.

I think this matters. I think all attorneys ought to do some pro bono work just as a matter of principle. I think it matters more because it makes Edwards out to be a hypocrite. Finally, it matters because in not anticipating that this might become an issue (and it's not all that hard to take a pro bono appeal, just to get your ticket punched) he shows himself to not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

This will come up for the other attorneys in the race. I'm betting Obama and Rudy both have done pro bono work, but we'll find out.

I've done, and do, both contingency and hourly rates. So:

I'm even ok with suing people who might not, in fact, be the ones responsible and letting the jury sort it out; assessing blame what juries are for, and a lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal, which often requires not being overly generous about letting potential payors off the hook.

I'm not, and I've been a plaintiff's lawyer in my time. While there may be something to suing people who are not responsible, the lawyer has both an ethical duty separate from the client and their relationship, to get such people out of his case in the interest of justice, as soon as he knows that the relevant party is not at fault; and a duty to his client, who may be facing sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit, to do precisely the same thing. As a plaintiff's lawyer, it conflicts with my notion of justice to toss an innocent defendant to the jury to try to wring some money out of him; as a defense lawyer, it offends my notion of right and wrong. Curiously, the Rules in every State in which I've practiced agree with me.

It's a way of financing lawsuits, by the lawyer, for plaintiffs that have potentially large damages and who cannot front the fees.

That's not true. It's a way of financing lawsuits that sometimes turns into charity work, but which is applied to cases up and down the value range, and no one really cares whether the plaintiff can pay his way hourly or not. The money is made in churning and burning those cases, at whatever rate and whatever volume, and taking a big enough share to justify your time in the file.

Done well, which means choosing the right cases to take and winning enough of them, it's very lucrative - potentially much, much more lucrative than being a top partner at a top defense firm.

This is also untrue. I know a total lunatic whose case load almost never exceeds a per-case value of $35,000, the vast majority of which is valueless drek, and who could buy and sell the managing partner of Jones Day. The system is actually a cash cow; whether it is just or not is a different question.

In any given town, the biggest yacht, the biggest house, perhaps the biggest jet, are owned by the contingency fee lawyers, who have taken their due rewards for participating energetically in our capitalistic system.

Or not so energetically. And frequently unethically. But whatever.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I've never done contingency work, but I really have less problems with it than you do. I've known big firm sleazebags (the kind that have never seen a conflict of interest among clients that they couldn't make go away, or who can read interrogatories and document requests in ways that violate the language and the rules) and I've known plaintiff sleazebag attorneys. I've also known ethical people on both sides of the divide.

In terms of letting defendants out, I respond only because you suggest I'm unethical, and because you impute statements to me I didn't write. I resent that. I really, really resent that. The laws of ethics in every state require a lawyer to represent his client zealously, and do not require him to excuse from the case every defendant who might be able to come up with a winning defense. For you to put other words in my mouth is dead offensive.

and having no dog in the fight anyway, but being overcaffinated and over-opinionated, you get my two cents. You can take it on contingency.

In your first post you state:

I'm even OK with suing people who might not, in fact, be the ones responsible...

Now, not being an attorney, the word "responsible" might have a different meaning to me than it does to you. I read the above statement in a way that says you are willing to sue someone if you know they have no culpability in the subject lawsuit, that they are in fact "innocent" of any wrong (as opposed to "not guilty"). Stating the proposition as you did, is not even close to where you ended up in your second post:

...excuse from the case every defendant who might be able to come up with a winning defense.

This would indicate that there is some question about the culpability of the defendant in question and his lawyer might or might not be able to convince a jury.

Your two statements are apples and elephants to this engineer. And having a passing acquaintance with more than a few lawyers, I can understand why Thomas took you to task over your first statement. It appears to me that, given the in-context use of the word "responsible" you have the exact ethical problem Thomas and you refer to.

I think your second statement is radically different in intent from your first, and I would have no problem with that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Let's pretend for a minute that words actually have meaning, and that none of us have an agenda we are trying to graft on to an unlikely host. You will note the words "might not." Those words have meaning. Study them, and apologize.

when hell freezes over.

I was quite clear about my issues with your first statement and my being OK with your second. I'm intrigued with your attitude and way of expression, it's one I've found common in second rate ambulance chasers.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

If you aren't stand up enough to apologize when your characterization of my first post is clearly in the wrong, that says more about you than about me. If the shoe were on the other foot, if I had misread your post and engaged in a gratuitous drive by character slam while under the influence of excessive caffeine, I like to think I would be man enough to apologize. If you aren't, well, what can I say.

I think the note that I've never done contingency fee woirk might clue you in on my not being an ambulance chaser. I will refrain from any further comments on your reading skills.

and that might be difficult for you, but I didn't say you "were" an ambulance chaser or a contingency fee attorney. I said you have all the bad characteristics of one.

Have a nice life.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You know, where I come from people don't toss around stuff like this unless they've read the post and thought about it:
"you have the exact ethical problem Thomas and you refer to."

If it's pointed out that they read things wrong, and that they tossed out a fighting words insult wrongly, the stand up folks apologize. The punks just keep digging their hole deeper.

I really don't think of you as a punk, so I'm surprised to see you acting this way.

In the end, how you choose to act when you are plainly wrong reflects on you, and affects your life a lot more than it's going to affect mine. You are what you do, and eventually the rest of the world figures it out and adjusts to it. If you are the kind of guy who issues an uncalled for insult and can't screw it up to try to make right, keep digging. If not, you know what to do.

And don't worry about my having a great life. I've got a great life, way, way better than anyone deserves.

Here I just went and quoted.

I'm even ok with suing people who might not, in fact, be the ones responsible and letting the jury sort it out; assessing blame what juries are for, and a lawyer has a duty to represent his client with zeal, which often requires not being overly generous about letting potential payors off the hook.

I'm not, and I've been a plaintiff's lawyer in my time. While there may be something to suing people who are not responsible, the lawyer has both an ethical duty separate from the client and their relationship, to get such people out of his case in the interest of justice, as soon as he knows that the relevant party is not at fault; and a duty to his client, who may be facing sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit, to do precisely the same thing. As a plaintiff's lawyer, it conflicts with my notion of justice to toss an innocent defendant to the jury to try to wring some money out of him; as a defense lawyer, it offends my notion of right and wrong. Curiously, the Rules in every State in which I've practiced agree with me.

Your words in italics. Taken, I should add, from your comment immediately above it.

What you now appear to be saying that I said is something I did not say, to-wit, that you are ethically required to release "every defendant who might be able to come up with a winning defense." I said, instead, that "the lawyer has [two duties] to get such people out of his case in the interest of justice, as soon as he knows that the relevant party is not at fault." Note the difference. Insofar as what you meant in your first posting was that it's ok to bring a defendant through the system if liability is questionable, we have no disageement. It's not what you wrote, but I'm open to clarification. What you wrote seemed more blase than that, but I'll accept the clarification and apologize for my misunderstanding, noting that my original point stands.

Last but not least:

I've known big firm sleazebags (the kind that have never seen a conflict of interest among clients that they couldn't make go away, or who can read interrogatories and document requests in ways that violate the language and the rules) and I've known plaintiff sleazebag attorneys. I've also known ethical people on both sides of the divide.

So have I. 95% of my current plaintiff's attorney opponents, I'd take to drinks. Heck, I actually like, as in really like as humans, over half of them. I can think of three defense attorneys off the top of my head whom I'd have disbarred if given the chance. My point was that the contingency system lends itself to a certain ethical looseness -- a point which, I must be honest, isn't really in debate at the local ATLA seminars I used to attend. It's not that it makes you unethical; it's that it greases some unfortunate skids.

And the unethical ones can make one heckuva lot of money that way.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'll give mbecker's gratuituous slime tossing a pass, since he's not a lawyer and perhaps not trained in thinking and writing, but lawyers are supposed to be able to read and write. "Might not" means "might not." It doesn't mean, "definitely not." It means, as you put it, that their liability is open to question. That you want to read that out of what I wrote, and that you and freelance know nothings want to pile on with unfriendly and unfounded ethical accusations, is more than a little annoying.

It's hard being a good lawyer. You have to pay close attention to the words before you, because if you ignore the ones between commas you end up with a completely inaccurate meaning. Given that I'm just posting a comment at Redstate, no biggie, even if I am personally annoyed, but that level of sloppiness in your day job means the difference between being just another hack with a law degree and actually being good at what you do.

I'll give mbecker's gratuituous slime tossing a pass, since he's not a lawyer and perhaps not trained in thinking and writing, but lawyers are supposed to be able to read and write.

And yet here we are, with you evincing, even now, no understanding of the words "connotation" and "context." I've even seen, somewhere in my comment, "apologize."

One hopes your practice involves either sloppy clients or illiterate judges.

"Might not" means "might not."

The words after it "might" "contribute" to "the meaning" of the "sentence." Just a "thought."

That you want to read that out of what I wrote, and that you and freelance know nothings want to pile on with unfriendly and unfounded ethical accusations, is more than a little annoying.

The fact that you're doing a disservice to the Bar by holding yourself out as a member is even worse.

It's hard being a good lawyer. You have to pay close attention to the words before you, because if you ignore the ones between commas you end up with a completely inaccurate meaning.

Or, you create new law.

Given that I'm just posting a comment at Redstate, no biggie, even if I am personally annoyed, but that level of sloppiness in your day job means the difference between being just another hack with a law degree and actually being good at what you do.

I can suggest a few good malpractice carriers. I represent attorneys not much less sloppy than you.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

So you want to go with some vague, undefined "connotation" and "context" instead of the plain words I wrote, eh? I didn't realize you were an "emanations from the penumbra" kind of guy. I suppose I was naive to think that lawyers that come here actually respect the text of documents, as opposed to some ethereal "connotation" that is not what was written. Anyway, the thing about the disbarment hearing gave me a nice chuckle.

Look, neither of you guys seem to be all bad all the time, although in my opinion you are seriously off in a ditch here, trying to defend the indefensible. How about this: I forgive you. I don't want to encourage you to waste more time making up a fantasy me that has little to do with reality. Please spend the time you save with someone you like.

BTW, I don't really need the tip on the malpractice carrier, but thanks. And, if you keep working, and do well, and build a reputation, one of these days you won't have to do that nasty, ill-paying insurance defense work (and no insurance defense work is nastier than defending sleazy lawyers; I shudder to think about it - no wonder you are so bitter). It's hard to make the break up to a better practice if you don't start off with the right degree and the right kind of grades, but on occasion people do make the grade eventually if they are good enough and build up a good enough client roster. Keep plugging away. I have faith in you.

Best of luck.

So you want to go with some vague, undefined "connotation" and "context" instead of the plain words I wrote, eh?

One of my great laments is that lawyers no longer write in fluent English. Nowadays, it's either plain, uninteresting language; sentence structure so simplistic that it makes you wonder how they got past second grade; or a misunderstanding of what they are writing.

I've been privileged to experience all three from reading your writing. Congratulations.

I didn't realize you were an "emanations from the penumbra" kind of guy.

This is a great example: I'm stuck, for the life of me, trying to figure out if you're actually slow enough that you don't understand the difference between that which you mock and that to which you take umbrage; or if your ability to render an insult in English is so poor that you have to fall back on an ill-matched cliche to make the point.

I suppose I was naive to think that lawyers that come here actually respect the text of documents, as opposed to some ethereal "connotation" that is not what was written.

I know better than to expect other lawyers to actually understand what they write. This would appear to be yet another area in which I have the advantage over you.

Anyway, the thing about the disbarment hearing gave me a nice chuckle.

I would that the rest had sent you back for what appears to be much-needed remedial English.

Look, neither of you guys seem to be all bad all the time, although in my opinion you are seriously off in a ditch here, trying to defend the indefensible.

Given the data presented to date, I hope you'll pardon me -- but don't particularly care one way or another -- if I don't pause to seriously re-examine what you and I have said.

How about this: I forgive you.

An offer refused is by definition off the table. Do as you need.

I don't want to encourage you to waste more time making up a fantasy me that has little to do with reality. Please spend the time you save with someone you like.

You overestimate your importance and the time donated to your existence, real or otherwise.

BTW, I don't really need the tip on the malpractice carrier, but thanks.

You're going to earn some guy a lot of money some day.

And, if you keep working, and do well, and build a reputation, one of these days you won't have to do that nasty, ill-paying insurance defense work (and no insurance defense work is nastier than defending sleazy lawyers; I shudder to think about it - no wonder you are so bitter).

Actually -- and you have no reason to believe this, but I couldn't care less -- the insurance defense work I do pays at the same rate that I charge my commercial clients. This is because when I'm defending, say, a rather dense lawyer who doesn't understand the effect of his own words, I get to charge a great deal to minimize the mess he's created, and that mess tends to be rather large. (Usually, this is because people who don't understand what they write tend also to miss the enormity of the consequences of their acts.) My rate, insurance or not, is about $50 an hour below that of associates at the largest firms in town, but that's because I like keeping clients and having very high realization rates. It goes up to slightly higher than market for bad faith, but that's because I'm actually very good at that, and my clients know it.

But I apologize. Here I am writing as if to a litigator who actually enjoys reading comprehension at a level greater than that of an eighth grader. My apologies.

It's hard to make the break up to a better practice if you don't start off with the right degree and the right kind of grades, but on occasion people do make the grade eventually if they are good enough and build up a good enough client roster.

I don't think you'd even understand how ironic this is.

Keep plugging away. I have faith in you.

I wish I could say the same for you.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

and you think you are in a position to condescend to anyone?

Thanks for another good laugh.

Really, best of luck. You will need it.

(English. You'll need it.)

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

So we have here an associate at a not so pricey firm who thinks he's the universe's gift to the legal profession? What a hoot.

Not to be condescending, but I'm thinking that in the real world you couldn't get a job carrying my briefcase for me.

Print this thread out. File it away. Look at it in twenty years. Laugh, then, at the person you are now.

You must be the idiot that gives lawyers and the profession a bad name!

Glad to meet ya! I'm just your town fool whose only knowledge of the law comes from a few episodes of the Paper Chase and higher medical costs thanks to you and yours.

But hey, given your tone (and the fact that you've barged in here and made enemies with just about everyone you've encountered) you could care less who I am.

So here's my low class uneducated beef with ya. You clearly stated that you seem to have no problem with the concept of assisting clients in suing people who may not have any guilt in the matter because the jury will clear it up anyway right? Officer of the court and all that ethical garbage be damned huh?

Just checking. Sounds like an L1 to me. I hope your career is going better than your social skills and your adherence to ethics. Strike that. No I don't.

Take your fantasy lawyer charade somewhere else. I don't think anyone here is buying it.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I made a post noting that John Edwards really should have done pro bono work, because every lawyer should.

I noted, in passing, so as not to get pegged as anti-plaintiff (and if you actually knew my background, you might understand why I was careful about that point), that I'm not innately hostile to the plaintiff's bar.

In that I did mention, in words I think are pretty clear, that sometimes plaintiffs do name peope who might not end up being liable as defendants once all the facts are in. (As Thomas noted, it's accepted to sue people where there is question about their liability. As Thomas could also verify, if he so chose, the surest way for a plaintiff's attorney to end up defending a malpractice action is to leave off the roster of defendants one with questionable liability who ends up being the one at fault once all the facts are known.)

For that, having attacked no one, I got attacked not once, but twice. I was called unethical, which generated righteous indignation on my part.

I was angry. When I am angry, I am not always nice.

I did not, however, throw the first stone. What's more, I was not the first to get personal.

If that's the way you think people ought to be treated when they make a fair comment on a Democratic politician, keep on doing what you are doing.

Allow me to apologize for my words, which are unpardonable. And thank you for your response.

The source of my anger was twofold, and I hope you can see my point when I lose the snark. Not excuses mind you.

First, I continue to read the comment you made (as others here seem to) that it is appropriate to sue persons who might be (in the mind of plantiff's counsel) innocent and to let a jury sort things out. If read in the context as it is written (perhaps unintended) the implication and inference is that you favor an unethical practice. Perhaps your comments in apologia versus other commentators afterword meant to convey that this was not your intent. But this was not made clear.

Second, Thomas replied in a point by point fashion that was absent of any ad hominem. It struck me (and others it would seem) that it was your responses that sank a level. That he implied you were proponing an unethical position was not a personal attack, but a reasoned observation based on your words.

For my part I sank further. Being one who admires Peter for cutting the ear of a guard sent to capture Christ, I rushed in too awkwardly to aid my friend Thomas. Like Peter, I regret bringing any dishonor to my friend in so doing, and regret offense you have taken.

I hope you will reconsider the discussion that has taken place as I have, and consider that Thomas is at once both an ethical attorney and a proud member of this community whose only offense was reading your words and infering that an injustice was being advocated. I know that you consider Thomas unworthy to carry your briefcase, but as for me I consider my self unworthy to even mow his lawn.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I'm happy to move on.

I apologize for all insults I posted, to anyone. I should have been above that, and I apologize that I was not.

There's a whole world of malpractice and ethical violations awaiting you. I'm confident in your ability to experience them.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Keep on being classy, dude.

My penultimate comment in this thread is retracted.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Let's resume bashing Democrats.

Um, ah, nope. Let's just go on bashing dems. The whole group hug thing creeps me out.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I Get My News at TheHinzSightReport!

That was just beautiful to read. You showed remarkable restraint, but it was still fun. Glad you're on our side.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I've seen him as a phony all along. Of all the possible candidates, he absolutely disgusts me.

As far as the comparison to Carter, Edwards is far worse. At least Carter really believes what he says, even if it is straight from kookville. I don't think Edwards has a sincere belief in his body. To him, this is just another trial and he's trying to fool the jury.

Cheers,
Scott in Indy

Never won a primary.
He is a self-funding, deluded neverwuzzer in this race.
The people of North Carolina despise him.
There is nothing to be afraid of from this tool.
And remember: Jimmuh only won in 1976 becuase of Ford's poor campaign and he won very narrowly. Americans are not stupid. The obvious hollowness and cynical posing of Edwards does not attract people in large numbers. It only attracts idiot journalists trolling for cheap filler.

The democrats could have done better running an inanimate object as their nominee. After the playboy interview there could be no doubt of Jimmuhs lack of presidentiality. The problem is that ford had such baggage there was no need to do better.

Edwards won the South Carolina primary and competed strongly in several other primaries that day. That his campaign - and all others but Kerry's - fizzled after that is down to the fact that those seven primaries did not sort out a single challenger to Kerry. Kerry won five, Edwards and Clark one each. Edwards and Clark therefore continued to battle for the same positions on the spectrum: the twin roles of southern populist and main challenger to Kerry.

There are several 'might have beens' that would have seen those primaries turn out differently. The simplest is that if Edwards, not Clark, had won Oklahoma he would have gone into Michigan as the main challenger to Kerry, and possibly won it. His populist, protectionist, message had real traction with the unions in Michigan. From then on, the battle could have gone on to the convention.

Equally, many close observers of Iowa believe that if the campaign there had gone on another week, Edwards would have won. Polls show him leading both Clinton and Obama there now, and the lead over Clinton has been consistent.

So I would say Edwards is a very real contender in 2008. It is a crowded field, on both sides, but do not let your desire to write him off confuse your assessment of his capability.

My biggest concern about the Democrat field in 2008 is that all the leading contenders seem to be protectionists. Edwards most clearly, but Bill Clinton has suggested trade is the one area where he and his wife disagree and Obama seems to veer to the left on this (and other things) as well.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

this John Edwards?

the Breck boy.

...My Little Pony.

I'd be her little pony, but I think my wife might object.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

"Silky Pony"...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

...if we had only elected Kedwards in 2004.

He may yet be ;-)