I should also add in fairness that there is indeed an aspect of blame
for the poor condition of the legal system that can be laid directly at
the feet of a greedy public, but no matter how you cut this down, it is
the lawyers, NOT the public, who have been entrusted with keeping the
system honest and ethical.
The bottom line is that the blame must lie with the legal profession and
not the greedy public troth from which the profession feeds.




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.

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


--
Dudley Henriques