"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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.

One might say it began when lawyers found they could make buckets of money
getting criminals, particularly gangsters off from charges. In many cases,
they were consultants to gangsters, advising them how to conduct their
crimes with the least likelihood of capture or successful prosecution.

And no, I don't mean the "bootleggers" and bank robbers of the 1920's and
30's, I'm referring to the gangs of the 1870's and onward.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY.