Jose wrote:
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.

I remember as a young man coming up through the educational ladder when
lawyers were respected members of the community. Lawyers were sought
after for opinion and their opinion was considered by almost everyone 9I
knew anyway) as delivered through a foundation of honesty and integrity.
Lawyers were in fact some of the most respected members of the community.
All gone now. Typical of the lawyers in my present community are an
entire segment, and I literally mean an entire large office building,
almost entirely filled with attorneys specializing in drop and fall,
auto accidents, and the vast majority and the most financially rewarded,
an entire cadre of attorneys specializing in medical malpractice.
There are literally almost as many lawyers in the malpractice business
where I live as there are doctors. The reason for this is that the
doctors are leaving the state in ever increasing numbers.
One of our best friends is a neuro surgeon. You don't even want to guess
what he has to pay for his malpractice insurance.
This isn't anywhere at all representing what SHOULD be the level of
litigation protection against normal malpractice. It's indicative of the
HUGE and highly lucrative BUSINESS that the practice of malpractice law
has become.
And this is only the TIP of this iceberg :-))

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

I agree that the judges are indeed included in the equation that defines
unethical law practice....but then again, judges are lawyers :-))

Jose, it's not any one thing that's wrong with the legal system. It's
the entire thing that's wrong. You can look in any direction and find a
constantly degrading curve of ethics and greed. It's the OVERALL result
of this that defines the legal system as we see it here today in the
United States.


--
Dudley Henriques