Lawyers These Days...

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Albert Di Salvo, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The objective behind the lawsuit is to reach the liability coverage of the fraternity. That is all this is about.

    In a better era the plaintiff would have been too ashamed to bring this action. And in a better era lawyers had better things to do than bringing suits over bullshxt.

    Someone was injured? So what?

    The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury. Does the fraternity have some comparative liability under today's standards? Probably. This is all about the reaching a deep pocket.

    One fact revealed by this nonsense is the fact that there are too many lawyers in America with too much time on their hands. The explosion in the number of attorneys in this country has had profound consequences.

    It has led to a concomitant explosion in worthless litigation. Fear of litigation has had a chilling effect on American industrial and commercial activity and imposed an anti-competitive burden on America from an economic standpoint.

    Some pharmaceuticals aren't developed and used in America because the risk of litigation is too great. Similarly, many IPOS have shifted to London from New York because the risk of litigation in the US is too great. Low income housing isn't developed because it might interfere with the migratory habits of some subspecies of cockroach.

    From the cultural standpoint the influence of too many lawyers has affected the behavior of teachers, social organizations, and many others. Land owners along the border in Arizona can't defend their properties from illegal aliens intent on moving north.

    The ethics of lawyers two generations ago were different than what I see today. In too many instances today law has become a hustle and a shakedown. It was formerly a profession.

    The tort bar, of which you are a member, has shaped the political direction of the country as well. American Trial Lawyers are one of the fat cat contributors who have pursued their special interests as part of the left wing coalition that runs this country.

    Leftist politicians enact new laws, creating new rights, and the tort bar and trial lawyers bring class action lawsuits in which they are the only winners. And then the tort and trial lawyers make huge political campaign contributions to those same leftist politicians.

    A bunch of lawyers running a tort mill churning the waters for paydays is a far cry from the silk stocking lawyers of a prior era. Such mills are like poultry processing plants.
     
    SpotsCat and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't hate lawyers. I like lawyers.
     
  3. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Upon what evidence did you determine the plaintiff was a "drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity"?

    I'll deal with the rest of your lunacy after you answer that question, promise.
     
  4. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This isn't a court room and I am not under cross-examination. If you wish to have an exchange with me, then do so, but do not expect me to jump through hoops for you.

    Your choice of the word "lunacy" is most unfortunate. Insults preclude discourse.
     
  5. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So some moron did something stupid, someone got hurt and they are now suing? I think I have that right, from what I can understand of the source. Lawsuit sounds fair to me.
     
  6. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    BullsLawDan: "No one can determine if a suit is frivolous except a court. I would expect that you would have no medical bills and no lost time from work, ergo the case wouldn't even make it to a lawsuit, because the attorney, no matter how questionable his ethics, wouldn't take your case. However, I don't really think this happened to you, given legal ethics prohibit such solicitation."

    I will agree that you can't recognize frivolous but it do4sn't require a court for a person who isn't an attorney to recognize frivolity. Or, are we going back to "it depends on what the meaning of is is."

    No medical expenses? The chriopractor isn't free and once he's established that I have a permanently disabling injury he will certainly treat me. A very expensive treatment, too. And you totally ignore the permanently disab ling emotional injury I suffered. I'm afraid to drive now and therefore I can't work. Oh, and my god, the pain. Pain and suffering. Loss of consortium. Oh, the horror.

    I listened to a burglar explain why what he did was beneficial to sosiety and his argument was no more ridiculous than yours.

    Enjoy your shot at the brass ring but don't try to tell us that dirt is diamonds. Frivilous lawsuits are plentiful, often generated by lawyers, nurtured by judges, and are destructive to our society.

    Assume for a moment that a nitwit chooses to walk out onto a deck with no railing and then chooses to bend over and stick a bottle rocket in his butt and when it explodes he falls off the deck. Now,he, with an attorney, is suing. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit. But, the lawyer will make money so I suspect it's a good frivolous lawsuit.
     
  7. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then admit you made a statement with no support in evidence.

    You stated that, and I quote, "The plaintiff was a drunken fool who participated voluntarily in a degrading and unwholesome activity. He put himself into a position in which his shameful participation in this activity was a contributing cause of his own injury."

    However, there is no evidence of any of that statement.

    I asked how you arrived at those conclusions.

    You refused to answer the question.

    For purposes of this debate, then, we can presume you have no answer, and simply made up your previous statement out of thin air.

    Or would you like to answer?

    Start with the simple: How do you know the plaintiff was drunk?

    No, it requires a court. It precisely requires one. "Frivolous" is a legal determination, which can only be made in court.
    I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?

    A pithy statement, with absolutely no value other than a personal attack.

    Try arguing with logic instead of thinly-veiled insults.
    Again, try arguing with logic instead of insults. That's kind of how it should work here.
    Statement void of evidence.
    Statement void of evidence.
    Statement void of evidence.
    Statement void of evidence.

    That's not what is happening in this case, but thanks for providing you're just another ignorant lawyer hater with no facts (see above) to support your arguments.
     
  8. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "I see. So you would commit perjury? And that's the lawyers' fault, that people in that position are liars?" And, lordy, lawyers never ever suborn perjury. A trial lawyer never hires a "plaintiff's" expert. That's the expert who has made a career of testifying only for plaintiffs and only the way he's told to testify. Try your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on people who've never been to court. I'm done. No, I didn't commit perjury but it sure wasn't for the lack of being told to lie by attorneys. That would be defense attorneys and prosecutors both.

    You have established your vested interest and your willingness to say whatever is necessary to defend your position so we're done.
     
  9. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you think that Political Forum is the same thing as a court of law? The Rules of Evidence don't apply here.

    Legalistic analysis is useful in deconstructing ideas and arguments. But all too often those who employ this method do so in a formulaic and predictable fashion like the catching of a cog within a wheel.

    In the court of public opinion people will use their life experiences and understanding in evaluating facts that have been established.

    There was a frat party where alcohol was served. Most people would conclude that only someone with alcohol impaired judgment would stick fireworks up his ass and detonate it in the expectation of lift off. Most people would think this is shameful behavior of a deviant variety.

    What do you think the plaintiff was doing? Do you think the plaintiff was probably drinking while he watched a deviant drop his trousers? The plaintiff stood around in close proximity and watched this shameful behavior; and in so doing, he participated in the shameful behavior. This makes the plaintiff look like a deviant too. In a better time he would have been too ashamed of his behavior to risk exposure by litigating his claim.

    As far as plaintiff's counsel is concerned the complaint he filed is exactly what one would expect to be churned out by a tort mill. He probably is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association...United Shysters of America.
     
  10. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said that. See, that's you arguing with what is called a "strawman". You need to use logical fallacy to make your argument, because your argument in chief is nonsense.

    Anyway, of course a few lawyers commit bad acts, the same as any other profession. There's no evidence, however, they commit bad acts in any greater rate than any other profession (and considerable evidence they commit them at a lower rate).
    And so what? Attorney's have a responsibility to their client and to the system to put on the best case possible. The adversarial nature of our system requires it.

    Obviously, your problem is not only with attorneys but with the very nature of our justice system.
    And given your known, and essentially admitted, bias against lawyers, we can just assume this statement is an anecdotal fabrication meant to support your position.
    What's my vested interest? I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer. I make money whether I win or not.
    Your "vested interest" is only in lashing out at people whom you wrongfully perceive did you some harm, as your prior examples show.
     
  11. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A bunch of trite statements that really say nothing, except to further show you have no evidence to support the statements you are making.
    And life experience and understanding are obviously biased and limited.

    See, the biggest problem I have with your posts is that you think anecdotes and personal experience provide a basis to invent facts out of thin air.
    Obviously. But the behavior of the defendant is not being called into question. Everyone agrees the defendant was a drunken moron.
    In fact, the only evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite.

    The plaintiff's case is premised on his being startled and suprised by the bottle rocket. From that, we can infer that the plaintiff was not a participant or even a spectator to the actions of the moron defendant.

    Why should a person who has been injured through no fault of their own be "too ashamed" to ask that the guilty parties pay for their injuries? You realize here the plaintiff is only seeking compensatory damages, right? Not punitive or anything like that.

    By your logic, a beautifully-dressed rape victim should be "too ashamed" to file charges, because obviously their appearance makes them look like a "deviant" also.

    This could all be resolved if you'd just admit what is completely obvious: You posted this thread thinking that the person suing was the person who put the rocket in their ass, and you just can't admit your colossal mistake.
    LOL... Well, I'm not, so I can't speak for them, but considering they only count as their membership a small percentage of all lawyers in America, I don't know why you'd arrive at that conclusion.

    Why don't you just come out with the real problem. What wrong? Did you commit a similar stupid act, get sued, and think you were "wronged" by a lawyer? Obviously your venomous bias has some genesis. What happened to you that made you hate lawyers so much?
     
  12. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand the plaintiff did not place the fireworks in his anus. That isn't the issue. My view of the change in the character of the legal profession and the statement this makes about American society prompted this thread. Don't make personal statements about me. It violates the TOS.
     
  13. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does one get when one fuses Jackass Culture, litigation as cultural norm, and the excess of young lawyers?
     
  14. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ... Now that I told you.
    I don't see this particular case making any statement about the legal profession. There have been more silly torts in the past. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the famous Pfalsgraff case of a century ago dealt with people being dummies with fireworks.

    I also don't see it making any particular statement about American society. People have always done stupid things that have led to injuries to other people. That's why we have tort law.

    I just don't understand what your problem is, other than you obviously started the thread for a mistaken reason.

    Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in a semi-public place somewhere, minding your own business, and someone caused you injury, you would be "too embarrassed" to sue?
    What, exactly, is the excess of young lawyers? I find people like you generally have no clue about the realities of the legal profession. What do you think "young lawyers" make?
     
  15. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The roles of professionals in public life changes over time. This is true for law, medicine and accounting no less than other professions.

    Law was once a calling...a profession...professing the law...that took on secular priestly overtones. That's why lawyers didn't advertise. That mindset is completely gone now.

    Today the lawyer is like a technical expert...not a gatekeeper. Perhaps that's why so many young lawyers are disappointed in the experience.

    I saw this change in the recent foreclosure/mortgage modification imbroglio. When the housing market collapsed in California lots of borrowers were confused about the appropriate course of action when they ran into trouble with making payments on adjustable financing encumbering underwater properties. For real estate lawyers this field quickly became a possible profit center.

    Generally at that time, it wasn't possible for a lawyer to help these troubled people because the lenders didn't have their acts together or were not acting in good faith. Old style lawyers told people the truth that they couldn't help them under the then existing state of the market.

    But lots of lawyers didn't tell these people the truth. Instead they gave the defaulting or underwater borrowers false hope and took their money in the form of advance payments up front. It got so bad that the State Bar of California had to promulgate a rule forbidding lawyers from taking advance fees in these cases. A few of these lawyers took their clients' money after promising the world to people desperate for hope. Then they discharged their clients' claims in bankruptcy.

    What distinguished the lawyers who followed the old style of practice and those lawyers who promised the world and pocketed the hefty retainers? Ethics.

    It is much more difficult for young lawyers to survive because the legal profession is undergoing major transformations in the way services are delivered and clients are charged. Most of these young lawyers are not employed with major silk stocking legal operations.

    Instead they are grinding out a living, earning less than they expected, and realizing that the return on their educational investment isn't likely to turn out as they had hoped.
     
  16. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some of what you say there is true, some is nonsense.

    None of it has anything to do with the OP of the thread.
     
  17. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which part is true?
     
  18. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand you don't like to acknowledge the decline of your occupation. The OP dealt with the decline in the legal profession, and so did the posts.
    Sometimes one lacks perspective because one is too close to the problem.
     
  19. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I acknowledge it all the time.

    However, this lawsuit doesn't reflect on the profession at all. It's a perfectly reasonable tort action that is in no way unusual, and it wouldn't have been unusual 50 or 100 years ago.

    As I said earlier, one of the most famous tort cases of all time dealt with idiots misusing fireworks, just as this one.

    There's nothing here that reflects negatively on the profession. It reflects negatively on fraternities. On college students. On people that enjoy fireworks.
     
  20. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The case you cited dealt with negligent transport of explosives, and is inapposite with the case addressed in the OP which involved degrading and depraved conduct incident to which a form of fireworks detonated. You say this type of case could have been countenanced fifty or a hundred years ago. I don't think the Palsgraf decision involved a plaintiff who was watching a man trying to shoot fireworks out of his ass.

    Can you refer me to another case from an earlier era which is in point? I'm wondering if you can cite a case with facts comparable to this one in which the plaintiff stands around and watches a guy take the time to put down his beer, unzip his pants, undo his belt, unbutton the pants, and remove them...along with his underwear, and then place a firework in his rectum while he gets a match or lighter and lights the fuse...and then stands in proximity while the fuse burns? How long do you think this series of events would take to occur?

    We differ on the role of the plaintiff. The moral role of the lawyer is intertwined with the hope of reaching insurance assets for what I suspect was the plaintiff's participation in morally degrading conduct, and what you characterize as innocent behavior as a bystander.

    I don't think the innocent bystander explanation is likely. It took time for the human explosive to perform the actions specified two paragraphs above. If the plaintiff wasn't a participant why did he not take the opportunity to remove himself from the scene of depravity and indecency? I think it's likely the plaintiff stood around in proximity and in amusement providing the audience for the depraved and degrading conduct of a fellow collegian.

    The plaintiff went shopping for a lawyer and found one who didn't care about shame and depravity. It's just business right?

    This reminds me of another instance of shameful behavior by members of the bar. I think poorly of lawyers who represent burglars injured by homeowners defending themselves, their loved ones, and property during the course of the burglary. This is another instance of the legal profession's decline as an institution.
     
  21. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And again, you assume facts not in evidence.

    You assume, again, the plaintiff was "watching". The only evidence we have suggests exactly the opposite.
    Again, you have exactly zero evidence the plaintiff was watching, taking part, or anything of the sort.

    You just made it up to cover the fact that you started this thread thinking the Plaintiff was the idiot with the fireworks.

    Except that I have evidence he was an innocent bystander, and you have nothing except your drive to not admit a mistake saying otherwise.

    Obviously, the fact that he was startled by the explosion would suggest to someone, who isn't blinded attempting desperately not to admit a mistake, that he was caught unaware by the fireworks going off.

    We don't know how big this deck was. We don't know how many people were on it. If it was crowded and noisy, it's perfectly reasonable to think he was unaware (and it also explains why he fell off when everything started to happen, instead of moving to a safe spot on the deck).
    What shame and depravity? By the only evidence we have, the plaintiff was not engaged in any.

    Again, by your wildly ridiculous theory, a woman who dresses attractively shouldn't report a rape, because she should be too "ashamed" that she "took part" in such a thing.

    The only evidence we have suggests an innocent bystander. The rest is simply made up out of thin air by you. I accept low amounts of evidence here, but I stand against facts drawn out of thin air.

    And how many times has that happened? Most of those stories are urban legends spread around mercilessly by lawyer-haters and tort-reform advocates.

    I haven't denied there are a few bad attorneys out there. But to act like one strange lawsuit is a reflection on the profession is just nonsense. It's like saying the dentist who felt up his patients is a reflection on all dentists. That guy would have been a jackass no matter what profession he went into.
     
  22. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lawyers are hurting for work...
     
  23. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BullsLawDean,

    Do you see the post and question appearing above? Would you please answer the question? Thanks.
     
  24. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The lawyer in this case bills himself as a DUI attorney, but he seems to be a jack of all trades. In this case the lawyer is chasing after small money on behalf of a guy who fell three feet. In another case I found he's chasing down hundreds of dollars on behalf of another small time client. This lawyer could probably make more money managing a deli.
     
    Thunderlips and (deleted member) like this.
  25. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And yet you claim lawyers are out for money... If he was, he'd be managing the deli.
     

Share This Page