What's missing from the statement, and unfortunately deliberately so in many cases, is that if the system is used as it was MEANT to be used, the citizen has to SEEK OUT the lawyer for protection instead of the other way around.

It used to be that way... at least it used to be that lawyers (and
doctors and drug companies) were prohibited from advertising. (Whether
by law or by their professional organizations I don't know). The
concept of freedom of speech (that it is up to the listener to decide
the merits, rather than up to some other agency to decide what the
listener may or may not hear) was part of the stated rationale.

When lawyers seek clients to initiate litigation against large corporations, the formula changes, or at least has a tremendous ability to change, into a corrupt attempt to initiate lawsuits against corporations for a profit motive instead of a protection motive.

And here is where the judges enter the picture. It comes down to a
judgment in court. Why don't the meritless cases lose? =That's= where
the responsibility lies.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.