Why the lawyer hate?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 162 of 162
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170

    Why the lawyer hate?

    I got two neg reps just because I stated that I am a lawyer. Why the lawyer hate? I love to bike and I'm a lawyer - a great combination. Plus, lawyers do a lot of good for society.
    Last edited by BCTJ; 08-18-2012 at 05:29 PM.

  2. #2
    Suckin wind like a boss
    Reputation: big terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,680
    some things are better left unsaid.
    If you arent bleeding, you arent riding hard enough.
    http://about.me/bigterry

    Quote Originally Posted by Hutch3637 View Post
    I don't need sex. My life fvcks me daily.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by big terry View Post
    some things are better left unsaid.
    Lol, ^^^^^^x2.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,248
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    ..................... Plus, lawyer's do alot of good for society.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: honkonbobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    Plus, lawyer's do alot of good for society.
    i nominate this for ridiculous quote of the year

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    68
    Lawyers are a necessary evil in our society. There are good ones and bad ones. But I imagine we all want to avoid them at all times.

  7. #7
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    I got two neg reps just because I stated that I am a lawyer. Why the lawyer hate? I love to bike and I'm a lawyer - a great combination. Plus, lawyer's do alot of good for society.
    It's kinda funny it is so in the states.

    Around here (Denmark) I would think that most people whom ever had use for a lawyer, are pretty happy to lawyers around.

    Lawyers does our patents for instance. Without patents the development would grind to a halt pretty soon.

    Some companies are though abusing the system, and the lawyers working for them, ought to be embarrassed.

    Companies like Monster Cable, Specialized and so forth, are sure giving lawyers in general a bad image.


    Magura

  8. #8
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Will my participation in this thread result in myself being litigated against?

  9. #9
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,149
    Lawyers end up being the public face of what is worst about modern society. People think that lawyers have developed the system that allows over entitled people to sue for things that to most people are common sense so we hate on them. Frankly the lawyers are just doing what they are paid for, just like everyone else that has a job.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  10. #10
    Pale Rider
    Reputation: 1of4Horsemen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    240
    I always thought a good name for a Law firm would be Hammer, Nail and Screw.
    With my goldfish shorts swimming around my toes.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    632
    Paraphrasing the Monz, "I see this ending well".

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Hate is a strong word, I'll say everyone dislikes lawyers, until they need one.
    You passed the bar and just figured that out?
    Round and round we go

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    People assume all lawyers are into litigation and lawsuits. I work with a lot of lawyers in estate planning and all they do is draft wills and trusts. Others I've worked up draft up business corporations, partnerships, patents, etc. These guys are truly helping families and business get their ducks in order and want nothing more than to stay far away from hardcore court litigation.

  14. #14
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    ... People think that lawyers have developed the system....
    I can understand why people might think that due to the fact that most elected positions in government are held by lawyers esp the big positions like head of Senate, President etc. Harry Reid's old law firm is the biggest ambulance chasing law firm in Nevada. Gee, I wonder why medical malpratice tort reform wasn't a part of Obama care....

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    People assume all lawyers are into litigation and lawsuits. I work with a lot of lawyers in estate planning and all they do is draft wills and trusts. Others I've worked up draft up business corporations, partnerships, patents, etc. These guys are truly helping families and business get their ducks in order and want nothing more than to stay far away from hardcore court litigation.
    A few generations ago Lawyers were, as a group, respected. In today's day and age not so much. Not judging every lawyer's morals or beliefs, but in a country (ours) that has more students in law school than there are lawyers practicing, that's a recipe for disaster for society as a whole, not to mention the system of law we have. I know more people who passed the bar who aren't practicing law than are. Seems to be a good business for schools thou.
    People around the world make fun of America for being the land of the law suits, with good reason.
    Not so lucky with the lotto ?, spill a cup of hot coffee on yourself or fall on a grape at the supermarket to improve your windfall chances. You don't even need a dollar to play. Just an out of work lawyer, which every family seems to have these days, and you're in. Not much to loose, and everything to gain. Some simple changes like making people/companies more liable for court costs or jail time for frivolous law suites would IMO, stop alot of BS, and also clear some desks at schools for more needed studies, but it seems the whole system of schools, judges, clerks, police etc. just love job security.
    My .02
    Last edited by theMeat; 08-18-2012 at 10:10 AM.
    Round and round we go

  16. #16
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    OP, mate you got the reps for saying, '' i am a lawyer and i passed the bar on my first attempt, so i dont think you can call me stupid'' or along those lines, i think it was just the way you said it, i never said you're stupid but somebody must have..

    It was just a lame response to somebody calling you stupid, being somebody that passed the bar on your first attempt i thought you could have come up with something a little better than that, i happen to know a lawyer thats as dumb as dog ****, he passed the bar on his first attempt and if you put him in the bush or on the streets for a week he would be dead for sure, he is good doing his job but not much else.
    I know tradesmen , fishermen n hunters that are some of the most cunning, smartest blokes around that would eat most lawyers for breakfast..
    What im trying to say is having a job like a lawyer doesnt mean your automatically a smart dude, it depends on how you judge smart..
    Now you have put up a thread twisting the facts and saying others hate lawyers n you got neg repped, mate im no lawyer n havnt passed the bar but but id love to tackle you in court over this thread n your last one, im a lure fishing guide, my job is to fool fish with a lie n teach others how to do the same, n let me tell you fooling some species of fish is a hell of a lot harder than fooling humans, humans are easy to play with n fool most of the time, you must be taking the piss with this thread because if you were a fish you would have taken the lure as it hit the water n you would be in the boat gasping for air, cheers mate n happy days
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    Oh... and like I said before... collapse your rep comments and don't read them. Problem solved. I wouldn't know if somebody has left me positive or negative rep or what they've commented on.

  18. #18
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    And as a footnote, i think lawyers are a very important and valuable part of society as we know it, we certainly could not get by without them, some are very noble n creditable people and do it for a great cause n fight for people that really need it, i have great respect for many of your profession, but some are like vultures n maggots waiting to feed of rotting carcasses.
    For the work some do they take a fortune off others in real bad situations, i guess it all comes down to the type of lawyer n the moral fibre he or she is made of, n i suppose that applies to a lot of trades, cheers mate n happy days
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    I can understand why people might think that due to the fact that most elected positions in government are held by lawyers esp the big positions like head of Senate, President etc. Harry Reid's old law firm is the biggest ambulance chasing law firm in Nevada. Gee, I wonder why medical malpratice tort reform wasn't a part of Obama care....
    John Edwards was another example. Two life experiences with lawyers and hopefully the last:. First lawyer wanted $500 up front before even talking to my wife and I, that was for two hours of work. The next lawyer which the first lawyer recommend saw us for nothing and said If all I have to do is write this letter to the plaintiff's attorney I wont charge you, like night and day.

  20. #20
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,311
    I have a couple of friends who are lawyers. Neither does litigation.

    My few encounters with litigation lawyers have not been positive. A couple of people have tried to sue my wife for dumb stuff and looking up the lawyers they hired showed me that there are a lot of crappy low bbudget lawyers that will take any case without researching it.

    One threatened a lawsuit over something that state law expressly prohibited and dictates a stiff penalty for even trying.

    I totally agree that it's a symptom of law schools graduating more lawyers than there are jobs

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    I got two neg reps just because I stated that I am a lawyer. Why the lawyer hate? I love to bike and I'm a lawyer - a great combination. Plus, lawyer's do alot of good for society.
    If you don't get why there could be lawyer hate... I can assure you won't ever represent me.
    I was gonna stop by and see you, but the Jehovas witnesses came by. When they left I started drinking. Voicemail from Paul

  22. #22
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Not judging every lawyer's morals or beliefs, but in a country (ours) that has more students in law school than there are lawyers practicing, that's a recipe for disaster for society as a whole, not to mention the system of law we have. I know more people who passed the bar who aren't practicing law than are.
    I heard it said that if you were to lay all the lawyers end to end around the world...
















    We'd all be better off

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    770
    I like my lawyer I go fishing with him all the time, it's all the others that worry me.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,475
    Just wait, someone will show their ignorance by misquoting Shakespeare.

    And what is wrong with litigators? Have you ever needed one? When you do you will be glad to find the best one you can find.
    Nobody cares...........

  25. #25
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,752
    If I ever am accused of a crime, I'd like a lawyer

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    I got two neg reps just because I stated that I am a lawyer. Why the lawyer hate? I love to bike and I'm a lawyer - a great combination. Plus, lawyers do alot of good for society.
    I'm a lawyer and I'm sending positive rep your way. You will come to see mountain biking as your Moment of Zen to escape and cope with the pressures that come with the professional responsibities. You have to disconnect from your cases. When you are biking you must clear your mind and focus on that next drop, turn or tree, and not think about your cases, or you will bust your ass. Great combo, and welcome to the bar!
    Will trade for some chicken.

  27. #27
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    ...Plus, lawyers do alot of good for society.
    from: The difference between alot, a lot and allot</font> (grammar lesson)

    There is often confusion over the words 'alot', 'a lot' and 'allot'.
    Alot
    This word does not exist. It is often mistakenly written instead of "a lot".

    I know alot about precious stones.

    I know a lot about precious stones.
    A lot
    The term 'a lot' is the opposite of 'a little'. As an noun, 'lot' means a large extent, a large amount or a large number. As an adverb, 'lot' means 'to a great extent' or 'to a great degree'. It nearly always appears in the form 'a lot'.

    Mark has a lot of toys.
    (Lot is a noun in this example.)

    He cheats a lot.
    (Lot is an adverb in this example.)

  28. #28
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    from: The difference between alot, a lot and allot</font> (grammar lesson)

    There is often confusion over the words 'alot', 'a lot' and 'allot'.
    Alot
    This word does not exist. It is often mistakenly written instead of "a lot".

    I know alot about precious stones.

    I know a lot about precious stones.
    A lot
    The term 'a lot' is the opposite of 'a little'. As an noun, 'lot' means a large extent, a large amount or a large number. As an adverb, 'lot' means 'to a great extent' or 'to a great degree'. It nearly always appears in the form 'a lot'.

    Mark has a lot of toys.
    (Lot is a noun in this example.)

    He cheats a lot.
    (Lot is an adverb in this example.)


    Alot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  29. #29
    Formerly mtbnoobadam
    Reputation: Adam_B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by pursuiter View Post
    from: The difference between alot, a lot and allot</font> (grammar lesson)

    There is often confusion over the words 'alot', 'a lot' and 'allot'.
    Alot
    This word does not exist. It is often mistakenly written instead of "a lot".

    I know alot about precious stones.

    I know a lot about precious stones.
    A lot
    The term 'a lot' is the opposite of 'a little'. As an noun, 'lot' means a large extent, a large amount or a large number. As an adverb, 'lot' means 'to a great extent' or 'to a great degree'. It nearly always appears in the form 'a lot'.

    Mark has a lot of toys.
    (Lot is a noun in this example.)

    He cheats a lot.
    (Lot is an adverb in this example.)
    Here's what hitler thinks of your grammar nazi a$$
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YnHla4fhTcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,545
    Those who can't do, correct grammar

    sent from one of my 4 gold leafed iphone4s's

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    As a lot, Mountain bikers smoke pot a lot, as well as a lot of pot.

  32. #32
    Afric Pepperbird
    Reputation: dirt farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,752
    Oops, I missed the obvious grammatical error. The OP is not one of those SNL-type lawyers, is he? Like Dan Akroyd representing dangerous children's toy makers?

  33. #33
    Suckin wind like a boss
    Reputation: big terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,680
    haha i got negged for my relatively (i thought) innocuous post in which i chose no side, merely made a simple statement.

    "just another hater" it says. how much of a hater can i be if i myself am a lawyer too? hmmm?
    If you arent bleeding, you arent riding hard enough.
    http://about.me/bigterry

    Quote Originally Posted by Hutch3637 View Post
    I don't need sex. My life fvcks me daily.

  34. #34
    I'm SUCH a square....
    Reputation: bigpedaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,953
    It's kinda like this:

    Opinions are like @$$holes, everybody has one, most stink. But too many people believe with heart & soul that their opinions carry the weight of law (for example, I give you the rude motorist who cusses and yells, "GET ON THE F****** SIDEWALK!") I know the arguments regarding "everyone is entitled to a defense", and how litigation can affect how a law gets changed for the better, but people see mega-sized awards for silliness (sometimes just their opinion, other times their CORRECT opinion), and get irate with the lawyer who succeeded there. To some people, ethically "right" and legal either ARE the same or damned well SHOULD be.

    Society does, not really fortunately, need lawyers; but nobody has to LIKE them. The opinion, or IMPRESSION, of flawed integrity is enough for many people to look down on lawyers.

    Personally, I don't care much for lawyers, any more than I do cops. It's just because your life has dipped into a pretty sh***y pool if you need the services of either.
    A bike is the only drug with no bad side effects....

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,740
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Hate is a strong word........
    Hate is a very strong word. However I'm not sure it's strong enough.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    344
    No surprise that I got negged with this insightful post: "just cuz ur lawyer scum". The poster was not man enough to sign his name.

    But a good lesson can be drawn from this showing the value of a lawyer. Mr. Negrepper, assume in real-life (not forum-life), someone published a false allegation against you for dishonesty, marital infidelity or that you had a criminal past. As your lawyer I could not only find out who made the accusation, but I would defend you vigorously and make the scum (your word, now directed against the correct target) pay and retract the allegation. And you know what? You would thank me.
    Will trade for some chicken.

  37. #37
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by edley View Post
    No surprise that I got negged with this insightful post: "just cuz ur lawyer scum". The poster was not man enough to sign his name.

    But a good lesson can be drawn from this showing the value of a lawyer. Mr. Negrepper, assume in real-life (not forum-life), someone published a false allegation against you for dishonesty, marital infidelity or that you had a criminal past. As your lawyer I could not only find out who made the accusation, but I would defend you vigorously and make the scum (your word, now directed against the correct target) pay and retract the allegation. And you know what? You would thank me.
    And will he have to give you his right testicle and right arm and a couple of years income for your help, or his left testicle and left leg and 5 thousand bucks for some photo copying n a phone call, cheers
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel View Post
    Just wait, someone will show their ignorance by misquoting Shakespeare.

    And what is wrong with litigators? Have you ever needed one? When you do you will be glad to find the best one you can find.
    Yea, lawyers are like guns, the only reason you need one is because the other guy has one, if they didn't exist nobody would need one.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    I got two neg reps just because I stated that I am a lawyer. Why the lawyer hate? I love to bike and I'm a lawyer - a great combination. Plus, lawyers do a lot of good for society.
    "Lawyer do good for society"

    This depends on what kind of lawyer you are. I have a good corporate lawyer that gives me advise about how not to lose my house if my small manufacturing corp. gets hit with a frivolous liability suit.

    Do you have any idea how much liability insurance adds to the cost of a US Made product? A good example is Blitz. They make most of the gas cans you get at a place like Wal-Mart.

    Google - Blitz Chapter 11 and look for the stuff from a couple of months ago.

    Weighed Down By Lawsuits, Blitz U.S.A. Enters Chapter 11

    Blitz U.S.A. Inc., which makes portable containers used to store fuel, sought bankruptcy protection Wednesday, overwhelmed by a flood of lawsuits that say the popular plastic red jugs of gasoline are prone to explosions. ...


    Blitz has 45 some lawsuits going on. Primarily from 3 Law Firms. The classic is a guy that tried to 'get his woodstove going again'. He used a Blitz can to pour gas in the stove. It blows up - burns down his trailer - kills his kid - he has 3rd degree burns. Blitz is at fault because the warning on the can was not 'big enough to read'. WTF? You need to have a warning to tell you not to pour gas on a smoldering fire?

    That's just one example of why people HATE lawyer. Some of you guys are abusing the system and putting us out of business.

  40. #40
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by dead_dog_canyon View Post
    "Lawyer do good for society"

    This depends on what kind of lawyer you are. I have a good corporate lawyer that gives me advise about how not to lose my house if my small manufacturing corp. gets hit with a frivolous liability suit.

    Do you have any idea how much liability insurance adds to the cost of a US Made product? A good example is Blitz. They make most of the gas cans you get at a place like Wal-Mart.

    Google - Blitz Chapter 11 and look for the stuff from a couple of months ago.

    Weighed Down By Lawsuits, Blitz U.S.A. Enters Chapter 11

    Blitz U.S.A. Inc., which makes portable containers used to store fuel, sought bankruptcy protection Wednesday, overwhelmed by a flood of lawsuits that say the popular plastic red jugs of gasoline are prone to explosions. ...


    Blitz has 45 some lawsuits going on. Primarily from 3 Law Firms. The classic is a guy that tried to 'get his woodstove going again'. He used a Blitz can to pour gas in the stove. It blows up - burns down his trailer - kills his kid - he has 3rd degree burns. Blitz is at fault because the warning on the can was not 'big enough to read'. WTF? You need to have a warning to tell you not to pour gas on a smoldering fire?

    That's just one example of why people HATE lawyer. Some of you guys are abusing the system and putting us out of business.
    This all started with Ralph Nader.

  41. #41
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    This all started with Ralph Nader.
    Pretty much.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why the lawyer hate?-corvair1.jpg  


  42. #42
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Pretty much.

    That picture brings back fond memories of my youth. Some of the amazing parking lot stunts we did with the Corvair were amazing. What a shame. There was nothing wrong with this car.

  43. #43
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    This all started with Ralph Nader.
    A lawyer in good standing!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    The threat of being sued prevents a lot of bad stuff from happening...
    I find it sad that the only reason you "do the right thing" is for fear of getting sued for doing the wrong thing. Luckily I believe that this is not true for the majority of us.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    898
    I work for a large corporate firm. They go where the money is.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    I'm a life insurance agent (for a fraternal benefit society, not a commercial company).

    Admittedly, life agents in the commercial world have given the industry a bad name - throw in shady behavior by awful claims processes by some companies, and mix in some multi-level-marketing schemes, and it makes my job an uphill run with cement shoes. But, for the decade I've been doing this and the ups and downs with commissions, I've learned that if you do a good, ethical job, there's nothing a person can say that will bother you.

    I know what I'm doing and I'm good at my job. And when somebody passes away, and all the hospitals, courts, IRS, etc. are taking money - I'm one of the few people that's actually delivering a check to the family - nobody else is doing that. In the last ten years I've been an agent with my company, I've not once had a contested claim by my company - but again, I work for a fraternal and not a commercial company.

    So, OP - you shouldn't let any of that nay saying bother you. If you're good and your clients are happy - then I don't see why you, a presumably intelligent person (intelligent enough to pass the BAR) would let red chicklets on an online forum bother you.

    I get all kinds of nay saying and resistance. That's okay - I know my stuff and I've designed plans for families that saved them when they needed it most. Neg rep? Big deal - I'm still the one delivering those tax-free checks to widows - who else does that?

    If you feel, with conviction, that you are legit in your professional and are helping others - then there's no reason why you would let a neg rep comment bother you. That is, unless, you are second guessing your career path, and there is truth to their comments.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: edley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    And will he have to give you his right testicle and right arm and a couple of years income for your help, or his left testicle and left leg and 5 thousand bucks for some photo copying n a phone call, cheers
    Come on - you know that lawyers don't take testicles. No, the current fee arrangement is for the first- born child.
    Will trade for some chicken.

  48. #48
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by dead_dog_canyon View Post
    "Lawyer do good for society"

    This depends on what kind of lawyer you are. I have a good corporate lawyer that gives me advise about how not to lose my house if my small manufacturing corp. gets hit with a frivolous liability suit.

    Do you have any idea how much liability insurance adds to the cost of a US Made product? A good example is Blitz. They make most of the gas cans you get at a place like Wal-Mart.

    Google - Blitz Chapter 11 and look for the stuff from a couple of months ago.

    Weighed Down By Lawsuits, Blitz U.S.A. Enters Chapter 11

    Blitz U.S.A. Inc., which makes portable containers used to store fuel, sought bankruptcy protection Wednesday, overwhelmed by a flood of lawsuits that say the popular plastic red jugs of gasoline are prone to explosions. ...


    Blitz has 45 some lawsuits going on. Primarily from 3 Law Firms. The classic is a guy that tried to 'get his woodstove going again'. He used a Blitz can to pour gas in the stove. It blows up - burns down his trailer - kills his kid - he has 3rd degree burns. Blitz is at fault because the warning on the can was not 'big enough to read'. WTF? You need to have a warning to tell you not to pour gas on a smoldering fire?

    That's just one example of why people HATE lawyer. Some of you guys are abusing the system and putting us out of business.
    There will always be people that are willing to abuse the system, whatever the field.

    But the problem is still the system. The last time I was in the US was 20 years ago, and I was utterly amazed at seeing adverts on tv with lawyers pretty much bragging that they had won millions for a guy who caused a car crash...

    Now you are complaining that it was the lawyers fault that a company selling gas canisters is out of business, but those guys are probably working for a company with a board of directors who are serving a bunch of stock owners... Sure they are partially responsible, but they where hired by the injured guy with a dead kid, who your justice system feels might be entitled to compensation. So you are saying they are the problem?

    Where I live we would have an official saftey committee investigate the cans, and the victim would only be able to sue if the product was found to be dangerous, or the company manufacturing would really have neglected their responsability in marking the warnings. There is a standard for what needs to be in a warning sticker, and if you blow your house up while doing something stupid you are the one who will probably get charges... Also if you do get compensated the sums are a fraction of what is payed in the US.

    Now I find the situation in the US in regards to lawyers to be terrible, but the problem is your legal system which is at fault. If you allow anyone to sue for anything, pay huge compensations to somebody who spillt hot coffee on himself and accept that any company can be sued for not including a warning for something really stupid then you are asking for this. It's not abusing your justice system; it IS your justice system.

    And it does not get much better with patents

  49. #49
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    There will always be people that are willing to abuse the system, whatever the field.

    But the problem is still the system. The last time I was in the US was 20 years ago, and I was utterly amazed at seeing adverts on tv with lawyers pretty much bragging that they had won millions for a guy who caused a car crash...

    Now you are complaining that it was the lawyers fault that a company selling gas canisters is out of business, but those guys are probably working for a company with a board of directors who are serving a bunch of stock owners... Sure they are partially responsible, but they where hired by the injured guy with a dead kid, who your justice system feels might be entitled to compensation. So you are saying they are the problem?

    Where I live we would have an official saftey committee investigate the cans, and the victim would only be able to sue if the product was found to be dangerous, or the company manufacturing would really have neglected their responsability in marking the warnings. There is a standard for what needs to be in a warning sticker, and if you blow your house up while doing something stupid you are the one who will probably get charges... Also if you do get compensated the sums are a fraction of what is payed in the US.

    Now I find the situation in the US in regards to lawyers to be terrible, but the problem is your legal system which is at fault. If you allow anyone to sue for anything, pay huge compensations to somebody who spillt hot coffee on himself and accept that any company can be sued for not including a warning for something really stupid then you are asking for this. It's not abusing your justice system; it IS your justice system.

    And it does not get much better with patents
    Ya, even our second President recognized that the flaw in our capitalist, representative republic is that it is to easily taken advantage of by those lacking morals, but I'll take what we have over a socialistic democracy anytime- frivolous lawsuits and all.

    Offer a solution, but you canít mention tort reform.

    Tell me of any system of governance mankind has devised that isnít flawed.

    Op Esq., donít worry about it. Lawyers get a bad wrap and itís easy joke fodder, it may have been wiser to not post that bit on a public forum where in our society such a reaction would be expected.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    375
    lawyers are great. if you can hire enough of them you can do pretty much anything you want.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    To be a lawyer you have to have somewhat thick skin. There are always going to be people who take one isolated incident or one little area where they think (in their expert opinion) that lawyers are bad, and then extrapolate that all lawyers are bad. You just have to blow those people off. Just like if you were an astrophysicist and you were at a bar, and the drunk patrons started opining on astrophysics. You would blow them off.

    To a large extent, lawyers make our system work. The government sure as hell doesn't. The legal system is very, very flawed but without lawyers, and a lot of them, this country wouldn't be known as it is for quality products, for people getting paid by their employers, for basic decencies that we just have come to accept as normal. The threat of being sued prevents a lot of bad stuff from happening, and the ability to sue (while far from perfect) is at least something that you have.

    The government? Hmm, you mean the same government that has an SEC that didn't catch Madoff? A CIA that didn't see the peaceful fall of the Soviets? An INS that can't prevent border crossings? Think about it next time you are at the DMV. I'm just sayin'

    So, yeah, ralph nader is a putz, there are stupid lawsuits, but be thankful there are as many lawyers as there are.

    Oh man. Are you for real? The threat of being sued may have at one time lead to a better society but that was long ago. Long, long ago.

    I'm an Emergency Physician. The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.

    Everything medically relevant about most patients can be written on an index card. Instead, thanks to lawyers even a patient with a simple viral sore throat generates twenty pages of meaningless paper and only requires ten minutes of paperwork because we have software that generates the mandatory boilerplate. Reading a patient's chart nowadays is almost impossible as the really important information is buried under reams of useless lawyerspeak.

    You have no idea the burden placed not only on medicine but every other productive enterprise by an out-of control legal system. It is truly horrendous and if you haven't experienced it it's only because you probably work at a low-level kind of job.

    Lawyers are driven purely by greed. There is nothing wrong with making money but they make it at the expense of the productive sector and do nothing to increase the value of anything, instead sowing ruin and chaos.

    Litigation, unfortunately, has replaced personal responsibility as the governing principle of our society.

    It's true that there are some good lawyers doing noble work but they are the exception. It's also true that many lawyers are not involved in litigation. But as the government and bureaucracy are run by lawyers, they have gradually created a system that is so byzantine that lawyers are required to sort it out. This is not a virtue of the system but a pathology.
    Last edited by Ailuropoda; 08-20-2012 at 01:16 AM.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Ya, even our second President recognized that the flaw in our capitalist, representative republic is that it is to easily taken advantage of by those lacking morals, but I'll take what we have over a socialistic democracy anytime- frivolous lawsuits and all.

    Offer a solution, but you canít mention tort reform.

    Tell me of any system of governance mankind has devised that isnít flawed.

    Op Esq., donít worry about it. Lawyers get a bad wrap and itís easy joke fodder, it may have been wiser to not post that bit on a public forum where in our society such a reaction would be expected.
    Lawyers get the rap they deserve. We have something like 99 percent of the world's lawyers in our country and as there is not enough legitimate work to keep them employed, the legal profession now mostly just stirs things up to make money on the litigation.

    Additionally, the law was respected at one time because law schools were much fewer and had very high standards of both admission and graduation. Now, there is a diploma-mill-style law school for everyone and they open new ones every year.

  53. #53
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Oh man. Are you for real? The threat of being sued may have at one time lead to a better society but that was long ago. Long, long ago.

    I'm an Emergency Physician. The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.

    Everything medically relevant about most patients can be written on an index card. Instead, thanks to lawyers even a patient with a simple viral sore throat generates twenty pages of meaningless paper and only requires ten minutes of paperwork because we have software that generates the mandatory boilerplate. Reading a patient's chart nowadays is almost impossible as the really important information is buried under reams of useless lawyerspeak.

    You have no idea the burden placed not only on medicine but every other productive enterprise by an out-of control legal system. It is truly horrendous and if you haven't experienced it it's only because you probably work at a low-level kind of job.

    Lawyers are driven purely by greed. There is nothing wrong with making money but they make it at the expense of the productive sector and do nothing to increase the value of anything, instead sowing ruin and chaos.

    Litigation, unfortunately, has replaced personal responsibility as the governing principle of our society.

    It's true that there are some good lawyers doing noble work but they are the exception. It's also true that many lawyers are not involved in litigation. But as the government and bureaucracy are run by lawyers, they have gradually created a system that is so byzantine that lawyers are required to sort it out. This is not a virtue of the system but a pathology.
    Best post I ever read on mtbr.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  54. #54
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Ya, even our second President recognized that the flaw in our capitalist, representative republic is that it is to easily taken advantage of by those lacking morals, but I'll take what we have over a socialistic democracy anytime- frivolous lawsuits and all.

    Offer a solution, but you canít mention tort reform.

    Tell me of any system of governance mankind has devised that isnít flawed.

    Op Esq., donít worry about it. Lawyers get a bad wrap and itís easy joke fodder, it may have been wiser to not post that bit on a public forum where in our society such a reaction would be expected.
    I agree, no system is perfect, however the more a system is broken the more people should be trying to work towards fixing it. I don't think this has anything to do with capitalism vs. socialism though, actually you would think that exactly strong capitalism would want it to be efficient and predictable to run a business.

    Your current system makes working inefficient as people have to take into consideration things that they SHOULD NOT have to worry about. It increases risks for businesses in areas where they should not have to be worrying about. It makes it harder for your average Joe to start a business because they have to worry about ridiculous law suits from customers, and established competitors suing them for bogus patent claims and dragging it on for so long that they run out of funding.

    We do have our fair share of problems, which are completely different. Also we don't have enough discussion on fixing those problems, maybe partially because they have more to do with a large inefficient public sector and too strong social support compared to low salaries which creates a big group of people who don't have an incentive to work (as they earn the same amount of money if they work or don't work). You are lucky in this sense that the fixes you would need could be fairly small, as this problem (and solution) with the legal system is pretty easily defined. That still makes me wonder even more why nothing is really done...

  55. #55
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    ^ with all due respect Sven, we know all this about our system, and your commenting on it shows how little you know about the U.S., our government, and our economic system. Maybe you should stick to the bike threads.
    Last edited by BIGABIGD; 08-20-2012 at 02:53 AM.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  56. #56
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Sorry, with the large amount of blame towards the symptom, and no real discussion on the real problem I thought it would not be that obvious.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    ^ with all due respect Sven, we know all this about our system, and your commenting on it shows how little you know about the U.S., our government, and our economic system. Maybe you should stick to the bike threads.
    Eh? You all know about it but he shouldn't say it because, despite the fact you admit he's right, it shows how little he knows?

    Without the slightest respect at all, you really are the dumbest new troll on the block.

  58. #58
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by nuffink View Post
    Eh? You all know about it but he shouldn't say it because, despite the fact you admit he's right, it shows how little he knows?

    Without the slightest respect at all, you really are the dumbest new troll on the block.
    Hey Nuffink, if you're too stupid to understand the naiviety in that post, then i am not going to explain it to you. Why don't you just go eat a bag of dicks?
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  59. #59
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    No need to fight, I have no doubt there is a lot about the issue I don't understand

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    Hey Nuffink, if you're too stupid to understand the naiviety in that post, then i am not going to explain it to you. Why don't you just go eat a bag of dicks?
    Yeah, I might just do that. Popcorn's more traditional while watching a troll make a complete cock of himself but you're a special case so a bag of dicks it is.

    See you around (for a short while only).

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,769
    What stinks about our system is it can cost more to fight a law suit than just caving in and paying.
    We're being sued for 95,000 and it feels like extortion. A government agency needed to generate some cash so they get their lawyer on salary to screw us over many years after the situation.
    Nice after having to sell our house and leave everything we worked 17 years to accomplish.
    No matter who wins or loses it's going to cost us plenty.

  62. #62
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Oh man. Are you for real? The threat of being sued may have at one time lead to a better society but that was long ago. Long, long ago.

    I'm an Emergency Physician. The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.

    Everything medically relevant about most patients can be written on an index card. Instead, thanks to lawyers even a patient with a simple viral sore throat generates twenty pages of meaningless paper and only requires ten minutes of paperwork because we have software that generates the mandatory boilerplate. Reading a patient's chart nowadays is almost impossible as the really important information is buried under reams of useless lawyerspeak.

    You have no idea the burden placed not only on medicine but every other productive enterprise by an out-of control legal system. It is truly horrendous and if you haven't experienced it it's only because you probably work at a low-level kind of job.

    Lawyers are driven purely by greed. There is nothing wrong with making money but they make it at the expense of the productive sector and do nothing to increase the value of anything, instead sowing ruin and chaos.

    Litigation, unfortunately, has replaced personal responsibility as the governing principle of our society.

    It's true that there are some good lawyers doing noble work but they are the exception. It's also true that many lawyers are not involved in litigation. But as the government and bureaucracy are run by lawyers, they have gradually created a system that is so byzantine that lawyers are required to sort it out. This is not a virtue of the system but a pathology.
    While the Dr. made some good points, I believe his opinion is biased towards doctors, and several of the more important points of our inadequate and broken medical system were not mentioned by him.

    These are as follows:

    1) The insurance companies are one of the main drivers of our increasing health insurance. When the Dr. mentions ---- "The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.
    he is not thinking about the vast number of administrative people employed by both hospitals, clinics and doctor's offices whose primary job is to file paperwork developed by insurance companies in an effort to reduce their costs and deny patient claims, many of which are valid. I don't think tha litigation plays a big part in this.

    2) What about the drug companies? Our costs for prescriptions are 2-3x as high as in other countries. If you look at an annual report for Merck, Pfizer and many other of the big pharma companies, the amount of $$ they are making (at our expense) is shocking. Merck and Pfizer alone made $20 billion in profit last year on $100 billion in sales.

    3) Forbes and other publications have determined that the very high referral rate of patients to specialists is one of the main contributors of these high health costs. The huge differential in what a specialist charges compared to a GP is one of the main factors.

    4) Medical malpractice insurance is also an important factor... and here our legal system is to blame as the exorbitant insurance the doctors have to pay has much to do with frivolous lawsuits. This in turn jacks up the costs of specialists for the average patient.

    So while the Dr. makes some good points that lawyers are responsible for some of this, the fact is that they are only responsible for a piece of our high health costs..
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  63. #63
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    3) Forbes and other publications have determined that the very high referral rate of patients to specialists is one of the main contributors of these high health costs. The huge differential in what a specialist charges compared to a GP is one of the main factors.



    Why do GP's refer so many patients to specialists? Right, so they lower the risk of litigation.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    the amount of $$ they are making (at our expense) is shocking.

    Merck and Pfizer alone made $20 billion in profit last year on $100 billion in sales.
    Oh boy Ė here we go getting into a very very complicated subject but as a line item
    ---------------------

    So..... You think a 20% profit is outrageous?

    How much do you think is appropriate?
    2%
    Guess what, if the profit was fixed at 2% by .gov, nobody would invest in pharmaceutical research.

    Iím just guessing here but I bet 75-90% of all drug research is by US Pharm. companies.

    Would you rather have your next wonder prescription come from a Mexican, etc. research lab?

  65. #65
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by dead_dog_canyon View Post
    Oh boy Ė here we go getting into a very very complicated subject but as a line item
    ---------------------

    So..... You think a 20% profit is outrageous?

    How much do you think is appropriate?
    2%
    Guess what, if the profit was fixed at 2% by .gov, nobody would invest in pharmaceutical research.

    Iím just guessing here but I bet 75-90% of all drug research is by US Pharm. companies.

    Would you rather have your next wonder prescription come from a Mexican, etc. research lab?
    ^ yes I do. Plus, if they didn't charge exorbitant prices for their drugs, their combined revenue would have been $60-70 million, not $100 million, and that extra 30-40B or so would be in OUR pockets, not the drug companies.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    3) Forbes and other publications have determined that the very high referral rate of patients to specialists is one of the main contributors of these high health costs. The huge differential in what a specialist charges compared to a GP is one of the main factors.



    Why do GP's refer so many patients to specialists? Right, so they lower the risk of litigation.
    Exactly. Most consult are unnecessary. A patient, for example, with known heart disease admitted for chest pain with a negative workup should be admitted to his primary care doctor who only consults the cardiologist for particularly difficult clinical problems or for necessary procedures such as catherterization. Today, the admitting physician reflexively consults the cardiologist on admission; subsequently the cardiologist having a hammer and seeing a nail reflexively "does everything" because over-reacting and testing to exhaustion is the new standard of care and to not do so is to open yourself to a huge lawsuit if your reasonable clinical judgement is wrong as it is occasionally.

    You can say this is a good thing as nothing is ever missed but the cost to be zero-defect is immense and bankrupting the country.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    While the Dr. made some good points, I believe his opinion is biased towards doctors, and several of the more important points of our inadequate and broken medical system were not mentioned by him.

    These are as follows:

    1) The insurance companies are one of the main drivers of our increasing health insurance. When the Dr. mentions ---- "The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.
    he is not thinking about the vast number of administrative people employed by both hospitals, clinics and doctor's offices whose primary job is to file paperwork developed by insurance companies in an effort to reduce their costs and deny patient claims, many of which are valid. I don't think tha litigation plays a big part in this.

    2) What about the drug companies? Our costs for prescriptions are 2-3x as high as in other countries. If you look at an annual report for Merck, Pfizer and many other of the big pharma companies, the amount of $$ they are making (at our expense) is shocking. Merck and Pfizer alone made $20 billion in profit last year on $100 billion in sales.

    3) Forbes and other publications have determined that the very high referral rate of patients to specialists is one of the main contributors of these high health costs. The huge differential in what a specialist charges compared to a GP is one of the main factors.

    4) Medical malpractice insurance is also an important factor... and here our legal system is to blame as the exorbitant insurance the doctors have to pay has much to do with frivolous lawsuits. This in turn jacks up the costs of specialists for the average patient.

    So while the Dr. makes some good points that lawyers are responsible for some of this, the fact is that they are only responsible for a piece of our high health costs..
    Sure, litigation is not strictly to blame and there are many other factors but the lawyers are the only major players in the medical industry who add nothing of value. Pharmaceutical companies may charge what seem like outrageous prices and some doctors may make outrageous salaries but they at least provide useful products and services. Lawyers are nothing but parasites.

    And like I said, it's bad enough being sued and paying huge malpractice premiums but the real cost to the system is the destruction of trust between physicians, hospitals, and patients that now requires not only a massive amounts of wasteful paperwork essentially to document responsibility for "mistakes" but hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary testing and consults to defend against the parasites.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    First I'm calling BS. I find it very hard to believe that someone who's old enough, and smart enough to pass the bar could be so naive. He either isn't really that naive and just started this thread because he wants everyone to know he passed the bar first try, it's a troll attempt, or it really is true. Guess stranger things have happened but I smell a really, very, not so smart lawyer, or more likely just BS. At least that's my opinion, which brings me to my next point....
    Bigabig? I've always heard it said that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I missed the part about how you were entitled to theirs too. While I don't disagree with all your points, which shouldn't matter when people debate or discuss things, it's the way you come across which is proving to be entertaining.
    Round and round we go

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 53119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,279
    i agree the post is bs. clearly chumming the waters

  70. #70
    I'm a Noob
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1
    In addition to the issues identified by BIGABIGD, in many of the States there is a medical malpractice act which requires a victim of malpractice to go through a medical review panel before he or she is even allowed to file a law suit. Then there is a cap on the amount that a jury can award that victim. If a doctor amputates your leg when he was supposed to treat a sore throat, the most that you can collect is $500k in many States. There is only a small group of highly specialized lawyers who would even consider taking a medical malpractice case due to these restraints, and I can assure you that the cases that are litigated are not frivolous. Any frivolous claim does not make it past the medical review panel, which is composed of doctors.

    How do I know all of this? I know this because I am a defense lawyer who represents doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice claims. I am on your side doctor. And I can assure you that I do not hold "a low level job." Nor am I a "parasite" as you claim all lawyers to be.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    It is always interesting to read these types of threads. The generalizations made about lawyers can also be made about other professions. It is always a few bad lawyers/doctors, etc. that make the rest of the profession look bad. There are some informed statements and there are some uninformed statements in this thread. Also to state that lawyers are nothing but parasites is a good example of a generalization about the legal profession. In my opinion most lawyers and doctors are trying to better society whether it is through legal issues or health issues. Most people don't realize but In my state in order to file a medical malpractice lawsuit a lawyer must have an affidavit from a licensed physician stating that the defendant physician committed malpractice. The problem is that everyone hears about how someone won millions from spilling hot coffee on themselves, but what most people don't remember is that a jury awarded that verdict.

  72. #72
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Lawyers get the rap they deserve. We have something like 99 percent of the world's lawyers in our country and as there is not enough legitimate work to keep them employed, the legal profession now mostly just stirs things up to make money on the litigation.

    Additionally, the law was respected at one time because law schools were much fewer and had very high standards of both admission and graduation. Now, there is a diploma-mill-style law school for everyone and they open new ones every year.
    Just to be clear Ailuropoda, I agree with your assessment and alluded to this very point through a tongue and cheek quote/ respond on page one-

    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    A few generations ago Lawyers were, as a group, respected. In today's day and age not so much. Not judging every lawyer's morals or beliefs, but in a country (ours) that has more students in law school than there are lawyers practicing, that's a recipe for disaster for society as a whole, not to mention the system of law we have. I know more people who passed the bar who aren't practicing law than are. Seems to be a good business for schools thou.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    I heard it said that if you were to lay all the lawyers end to end around the world...
















    We'd all be better off
    As you say there are exceptions. My last comment to the OP was aimed toward a fellow member who may or may not be one of them, I wasnít giving lawyers a pass as a whole.

  73. #73
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    First I'm calling BS. I find it very hard to believe that someone who's old enough, and smart enough to pass the bar could be so naive. He either isn't really that naive and just started this thread because he wants everyone to know he passed the bar first try, it's a troll attempt, or it really is true. Guess stranger things have happened but I smell a really, very, not so smart lawyer, or more likely just BS. At least that's my opinion, which brings me to my next point....
    Bigabig? I've always heard it said that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I missed the part about how you were entitled to theirs too. While I don't disagree with all your points, which shouldn't matter when people debate or discuss things, it's the way you come across which is proving to be entertaining.
    Very well said meat, this is why i wrote my posts at the top of the page, The OP surely cant be serious with this tread and the last one, and correct me if im wrong but he hasnt been back to show us his lawyer skills and explain him self further, as i said maybe he was talking about passing the bar/club on the way to uni, i think your spot on meat, cheers
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  74. #74
    banned
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,666

  75. #75
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    It appears that the Dr. has a hard-on for lawyers... not sure why. Sounds to me like he was probably sued before... but in his defense, ER doctors have a really, really hard job. They have to treat someone that they have never seen before, probably have no medical history on, and have to make a diagnosis with extremely limited information.

    A friend of mine is an ER doctor in Louisiana and was sued for medical malpractice because he failed to diagnose a stroke in an ER patient who came in feeling "disoriented". He had no medical history, no family history - Nada. It turned out that a few hours later the woman had a stroke, ended up partially paralyzed, and then sued him for malpractice. This has turned into a blight on his career.

    It's not fair, but it doesn't make all lawyers parasites.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  76. #76
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Lawyers end up being the public face of what is worst about modern society. People think that lawyers have developed the system that allows over entitled people to sue for things that to most people are common sense so we hate on them. Frankly the lawyers are just doing what they are paid for, just like everyone else that has a job.




    /\ This. It is a reflection of our society sorry to say. Many want something for nothing. It is what our country has become. If there were not a demand for Lawyers to litigate this nonsense there would not be such an abundance of them. Some reform to curtail frivolous lawsuits would go a long way to solving parts of the issue. Anyone remember the woman who got 5 million by suing Mcdonalds when she spilled hot coffee in her lap?

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyTheCat View Post
    In addition to the issues identified by BIGABIGD, in many of the States there is a medical malpractice act which requires a victim of malpractice to go through a medical review panel before he or she is even allowed to file a law suit. Then there is a cap on the amount that a jury can award that victim. If a doctor amputates your leg when he was supposed to treat a sore throat, the most that you can collect is $500k in many States. There is only a small group of highly specialized lawyers who would even consider taking a medical malpractice case due to these restraints, and I can assure you that the cases that are litigated are not frivolous. Any frivolous claim does not make it past the medical review panel, which is composed of doctors.

    How do I know all of this? I know this because I am a defense lawyer who represents doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice claims. I am on your side doctor. And I can assure you that I do not hold "a low level job." Nor am I a "parasite" as you claim all lawyers to be.
    Have seen these books. It's pretty creepy that lawyers along with insurance companies use these to determine what to plea and what to pay. Those books also make it clear that it's all about the money. No one can claim that ALL lawyers are "parasites", but you must admit that everything is getting more complicated and costly due at least in part by an abundance of lawyers looking for angles on everything. I mean I feel like I should have a lawyer when I sign my Verizon contract, or buy expensive electronics, not to mention a car. Let's not even start on how insurance companies write law.
    Round and round we go

  78. #78
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Oh man. Are you for real? The threat of being sued may have at one time lead to a better society but that was long ago. Long, long ago.

    I'm an Emergency Physician. The constant threat of litigation not only at least triples the cost of medical care by encouraging the wasteful practice of defensive medicine but the majority of the endless paperwork that is choking the life out of medicine is crafted strictly to protect the hospitals and groups from mostly frivolous litigation.

    I saw 26 patients in my 12-hour shift last night. The majority of my time was spent massaging paperwork, none of it particularly relevant to patient care either but just form after form and check box after check box. Meanwhile the waiting room is packed and people are waiting four or five hours to be seen.

    Everything medically relevant about most patients can be written on an index card. Instead, thanks to lawyers even a patient with a simple viral sore throat generates twenty pages of meaningless paper and only requires ten minutes of paperwork because we have software that generates the mandatory boilerplate. Reading a patient's chart nowadays is almost impossible as the really important information is buried under reams of useless lawyerspeak.

    You have no idea the burden placed not only on medicine but every other productive enterprise by an out-of control legal system. It is truly horrendous and if you haven't experienced it it's only because you probably work at a low-level kind of job.

    Lawyers are driven purely by greed. There is nothing wrong with making money but they make it at the expense of the productive sector and do nothing to increase the value of anything, instead sowing ruin and chaos.

    Litigation, unfortunately, has replaced personal responsibility as the governing principle of our society.

    It's true that there are some good lawyers doing noble work but they are the exception. It's also true that many lawyers are not involved in litigation. But as the government and bureaucracy are run by lawyers, they have gradually created a system that is so byzantine that lawyers are required to sort it out. This is not a virtue of the system but a pathology.
    This matches my personal experiences. Doctors are now solving for what you don't have, with testing, by elimination, instead of testing and treating the basic, most obvious stuff... All their time is spent eliminating "Y" when the majority of the time, the symptoms are so obvious that it is "X" that you should be diagnosed and treated for.

  79. #79
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    I agree, no system is perfect, however the more a system is broken the more people should be trying to work towards fixing it. I don't think this has anything to do with capitalism vs. socialism though, actually you would think that exactly strong capitalism would want it to be efficient and predictable to run a business.

    Ö

    We do have our fair share of problems, which are completely different. Also we don't have enough discussion on fixing those problems, maybe partially because they have more to do with a large inefficient public sector and too strong social support compared to low salaries which creates a big group of people who don't have an incentive to work (as they earn the same amount of money if they work or don't work). You are lucky in this sense that the fixes you would need could be fairly small, as this problem (and solution) with the legal system is pretty easily defined. That still makes me wonder even more why nothing is really done...
    The inference I read here is that many of our nations issues stem from a complacent and apathetic citizenry to which I cannot completely disagree, however many powerful enterprises benefit much from the system as it stands and are heavily vested who lobby to keep the money flowing. This seems an insurmountable obstacle that, short of something as unrealistic as revolution, I am unsure what gains to expect through elected officials, litigations, an petitions from the common citizen whoís lives are busier and more complex than ever.

    The trend Iíve noticed in my short life is that of implementing socialist solutions to remedy problems in capitalism. Iím sorry, but over here your official safety committee would equate to little more than yet another bureaucratic hand in the cookie jar.

    Regardless of how easy you may find the problem is to define, that in no way makes it any less of an uphill battle and we the people are out gunned, or more accurately out funded.

  80. #80
    Trail Connoisseur
    Reputation: RIVER29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    721
    I put my ex-wife through law school on a professional musicians salary. It was hard but I made it work. Once she got her first job she decided I wasn't "professional" enough for her and used her degree to take my house and everything I had worked for while she was in school. I don't hate her or lawyers but a lot of people are negatively affected by SOME lawyers with a lot of drive and little ethics.

  81. #81
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by RIVER29 View Post
    I put my ex-wife through law school on a professional musicians salary. It was hard but I made it work. Once she got her first job she decided I wasn't "professional" enough for her and used her degree to take my house and everything I had worked for while she was in school. I don't hate her or lawyers but a lot of people are negatively affected by SOME lawyers with a lot of drive and little ethics.
    The only word that springs to mind is 'HITMAN'
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  82. #82
    meow meow
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,621
    Quote Originally Posted by RIVER29 View Post
    I put my ex-wife through law school on a professional musicians salary. It was hard but I made it work. Once she got her first job she decided I wasn't "professional" enough for her and used her degree to take my house and everything I had worked for while she was in school. I don't hate her or lawyers but a lot of people are negatively affected by SOME lawyers with a lot of drive and little ethics.
    that is so sad its funny.

  83. #83
    Trail Connoisseur
    Reputation: RIVER29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul View Post
    that is so sad its funny.
    For me too now, that was a long time ago. She was a nice small town girl but her first boss taught her that greed was king and she always was a great student.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    [/COLOR][/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    Very well said meat, this is why i wrote my posts at the top of the page, The OP surely cant be serious with this tread and the last one, and correct me if im wrong but he hasnt been back to show us his lawyer skills and explain him self further, as i said maybe he was talking about passing the bar/club on the way to uni, i think your spot on meat, cheers
    Nope, I really was being serious with this thread. Here are a few of the negative comments that I have received since beginning this thread.

    "Lawyers are thieves"

    "lawyers are evil"

    "most of you are a drag on society and the economy."

    Not very insightful or helpful comments, to be sure.

    On the other hand, I would like to thank all of the people who have pos repped me, including some fellow lawyers and law students.

    It seems my intelligence has once again been questioned, which leads me to sigh.

    Here are a few statistics you may find interesting:

    My law school was recently ranked in the top 50 out of 200 school in the 2012 QS World Rankings.

    QS World University Rankings - Topuniversities

    The passage rate for first time takers of the bar which I took is currently at 66%. The overall pass rate for everyone combined (second/third time takers) was even lower, at 46%. Not exactly an easy bar to pass. (Some bars have a 90% pass rate)

    I was also on a law journal while at school, which is quite difficult to accomplish. I competed with people from Yale, Princeton, Brown, and other top schools. Not what you might refer to as easy competition.

    My intention here is not to come across as arrogant, but you called me out on having subpar lawyering skills and intelligence. Here, I have provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that a) yes, I was being genuine when creating this thread and b) it wasn't exactly easy to accomplish all of these goals - although I do have greater goals for the future, like possible being the first person to ride a mountain bike around the world (when I retire)

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    If you say so and I read it, here on the internet, it must be true, thanx for clearing that up.
    Round and round we go

  86. #86
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    [/COLOR][/COLOR]

    Nope, I really was being serious with this thread. Here are a few of the negative comments that I have received since beginning this thread.

    "Lawyers are thieves"

    "lawyers are evil"

    "most of you are a drag on society and the economy."

    Not very insightful or helpful comments, to be sure.

    On the other hand, I would like to thank all of the people who have pos repped me, including some fellow lawyers and law students.

    It seems my intelligence has once again been questioned, which leads me to sigh.

    Here are a few statistics you may find interesting:

    My law school was recently ranked in the top 50 out of 200 school in the 2012 QS World Rankings.

    QS World University Rankings - Topuniversities

    The passage rate for first time takers of the bar which I took is currently at 66%. The overall pass rate for everyone combined (second/third time takers) was even lower, at 46%. Not exactly an easy bar to pass. (Some bars have a 90% pass rate)

    I was also on a law journal while at school, which is quite difficult to accomplish. I competed with people from Yale, Princeton, Brown, and other top schools. Not what you might refer to as easy competition.

    My intention here is not to come across as arrogant, but you called me out on having subpar lawyering skills and intelligence. Here, I have provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that a) yes, I was being genuine when creating this thread and b) it wasn't exactly easy to accomplish all of these goals - although I do have greater goals for the future, like possible being the first person to ride a mountain bike around the world (when I retire)


    I applaud you're accomplishments, quite the achievements. I also humbly suggest that it is not what you have accomplished but what you will do in the future that others may judge you by.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,248
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    [/COLOR][/COLOR]

    Nope, I really was being serious with this thread. Here are a few of the negative comments that I have received since beginning this thread.

    "Lawyers are thieves"

    "lawyers are evil"

    "most of you are a drag on society and the economy."

    Not very insightful or helpful comments, to be sure.

    On the other hand, I would like to thank all of the people who have pos repped me, including some fellow lawyers and law students.

    It seems my intelligence has once again been questioned, which leads me to sigh.

    Here are a few statistics you may find interesting:

    My law school was recently ranked in the top 50 out of 200 school in the 2012 QS World Rankings.

    QS World University Rankings - Topuniversities

    The passage rate for first time takers of the bar which I took is currently at 66%. The overall pass rate for everyone combined (second/third time takers) was even lower, at 46%. Not exactly an easy bar to pass. (Some bars have a 90% pass rate)

    I was also on a law journal while at school, which is quite difficult to accomplish. I competed with people from Yale, Princeton, Brown, and other top schools. Not what you might refer to as easy competition.

    My intention here is not to come across as arrogant, but you called me out on having subpar lawyering skills and intelligence. Here, I have provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that a) yes, I was being genuine when creating this thread and b) it wasn't exactly easy to accomplish all of these goals - although I do have greater goals for the future, like possible being the first person to ride a mountain bike around the world (when I retire)
    You sound like you need some validation for being you, so here you go:

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyTheCat View Post
    In addition to the issues identified by BIGABIGD, in many of the States there is a medical malpractice act which requires a victim of malpractice to go through a medical review panel before he or she is even allowed to file a law suit. Then there is a cap on the amount that a jury can award that victim. If a doctor amputates your leg when he was supposed to treat a sore throat, the most that you can collect is $500k in many States. There is only a small group of highly specialized lawyers who would even consider taking a medical malpractice case due to these restraints, and I can assure you that the cases that are litigated are not frivolous. Any frivolous claim does not make it past the medical review panel, which is composed of doctors.

    How do I know all of this? I know this because I am a defense lawyer who represents doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice claims. I am on your side doctor. And I can assure you that I do not hold "a low level job." Nor am I a "parasite" as you claim all lawyers to be.
    Again, you missed the point. It's not the huge malpractice suits that drive up the cost of medicine. It's the thousands of low-level frivolous suits that are resolved for much less than the caps in the the one of only seven states that have such caps. I can easily avoid being sued for gross negligence that leads to serious harm of a patient because I am a good doctor and heck...if I screw up that badly I should be sued. But it's the little out-of-nowhere minor lawsuits that take their toll.

    I was sued, for example, for something very minor that caused no harm to the patient, only a little inconvenience, and it cost me five thousand dollars to defend myself from the hospital who wanted to settle just to make it go away. It is this kind of thing that makes us practice completely absurd defensive medicine where the true cost of litigation is felt.

    Defensive medicine...not the occasional large settlement or malpractice insurance...is the real cost of out-of-control lawyers.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    [/COLOR][/COLOR]

    Nope, I really was being serious with this thread. Here are a few of the negative comments that I have received since beginning this thread.

    "Lawyers are thieves"

    "lawyers are evil"

    "most of you are a drag on society and the economy."

    Not very insightful or helpful comments, to be sure.

    On the other hand, I would like to thank all of the people who have pos repped me, including some fellow lawyers and law students.

    It seems my intelligence has once again been questioned, which leads me to sigh.

    Here are a few statistics you may find interesting:

    My law school was recently ranked in the top 50 out of 200 school in the 2012 QS World Rankings.

    QS World University Rankings - Topuniversities

    The passage rate for first time takers of the bar which I took is currently at 66%. The overall pass rate for everyone combined (second/third time takers) was even lower, at 46%. Not exactly an easy bar to pass. (Some bars have a 90% pass rate)

    I was also on a law journal while at school, which is quite difficult to accomplish. I competed with people from Yale, Princeton, Brown, and other top schools. Not what you might refer to as easy competition.

    My intention here is not to come across as arrogant, but you called me out on having subpar lawyering skills and intelligence. Here, I have provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that a) yes, I was being genuine when creating this thread and b) it wasn't exactly easy to accomplish all of these goals - although I do have greater goals for the future, like possible being the first person to ride a mountain bike around the world (when I retire)
    Thats great, but can you ride a bike worth a ****? A short video of you hopping your bike over an ice chest will suffice.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    I can tell you that a good lawsuit, which has merit, has everything to do with "responsibility" and usually the defendant not having any of it until it is sued.
    There are very few "good" lawsuits like you see in the movies. The majority are like the many people I see who "slipped on a puddle" at Wal Mart and are sent by their ambulance-chasing lawyers to the ER for documentation of their injuries which are mostly non-existant and documented as such by me. I see, maybe, ten of those a week. I go to Wal Mart all the time and have never slipped or seen these mythical puddles.

    Additionally, the ambulance-chasers liberally advertise for their services on almost every billboard in town. Personal injury litigation is a growth industry.

    If you are a good lawyer doing useful work for society I apologize for lumping you into the herd but you should be ashamed for your profession.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    The municipal swimming pool where I used to live, as an example, removed all of the diving boards because the city risk manager (another lawyer, by the way) determined that this drove up the cost of their liability insurance to unacceptable levels.

    Now come on. Diving from a diving board is relatively safe but if you hurt yourself doing it you are a dumb ass. Why should the taxpayers of the city be forced to defend the city or pay huge damages?

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    The municipal swimming pool where I used to live, as an example, removed all of the diving boards because the city risk manager (another lawyer, by the way) determined that this drove up the cost of their liability insurance to unacceptable levels.

    Now come on. Diving from a diving board is relatively safe but if you hurt yourself doing it you are a dumb ass. Why should the taxpayers of the city be forced to defend the city or pay huge damages?
    Two of our local trails had teeter totters. They were removed last year due to the high cost of liability insurance. This I don't blame the lawyer, I blame the dumbass who fell and somehow think its not their fault, it must be someone else's fault, so they sue the land manager and trail workers.

  93. #93
    clown question, bro
    Reputation: zeppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    The municipal swimming pool where I used to live, as an example, removed all of the diving boards because the city risk manager (another lawyer, by the way) determined that this drove up the cost of their liability insurance to unacceptable levels.

    Now come on. Diving from a diving board is relatively safe but if you hurt yourself doing it you are a dumb ass. Why should the taxpayers of the city be forced to defend the city or pay huge damages?
    I still wouldn't blame the lawyers (entirely). I'd blame the company determining they liability insurance rates and the turd-burglers that find it necessary to sue when they injure themselves on a diving board that a 5 year old can successfully jump off of...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilikebmx999 View Post
    Are we just ignoring balls? Lol

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by zeppy View Post
    I still wouldn't blame the lawyers (entirely). I'd blame the company determining they liability insurance rates and the turd-burglers that find it necessary to sue when they injure themselves on a diving board that a 5 year old can successfully jump off of...
    But the point is that it is easy to sue and there is money to be made doing it. The liability rates are what they are. You can't force an insurance company to underwrite what it views as a high risk activity and they would simply not insure the city against liability unless the diving boards were removed. People are encouraged to sue, they will sue, and the cost to defend let alone the cost of damages determines the liability premiums.

    Risk management is a huge cost to cities and towns. More than most of you know and this all comes out of your tax dollars and sucks money from other more important civic functions like fire, police, trash pick up, parks, and schools.

    Speaking of insurance, this is another way that lawyers suck money out of all of us. As a prosperous doctor it is necessary that I be insured to the hilt against all manner of parasites waiting to try to squeeze money out of me if I tap their bumper in a parking lot or if my dog nips at their stupid kid sticking his hand in the fence. The money I am forced to spend to protect myself from the parasite class is like an extra tax.

    You folks who are not so prosperous pay for it with decreased economic prosperity, fewer well-paying jobs, and the extra cost in every product you buy because of lawyers. This is a true invisible tax.

    Hell, the office chair I am sitting on has no fewer then four warning labels on it.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    To sum up, the OP asked "Why the Lawyer Hate?"

    For my part it's because lawyers make what is already a difficult and stressful job an order of magnitude more difficult as the majority of my time is spent not practicing medicine but defending myself from their potential depredations. The legal profession is bloated parasite sucking the life and common sense out of medicine.

    By the same token, the litigiousness of our society, as it drives up the cost of medicine at least triple...yes triple...what it should cost is bankrupting our nation.

    Additionally, the cost to insure against liability is a huge and hidden tax on everything.

    We have become a nations not of laws but of lawyers.

  96. #96
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by zeppy View Post
    I still wouldn't blame the lawyers (entirely). I'd blame the company determining they liability insurance rates and the turd-burglers that find it necessary to sue when they injure themselves on a diving board that a 5 year old can successfully jump off of...
    Liability rates reflect risks and costs + a profit margin, you are saying the companies calculating this simple equasion are at blame? The poor clumsy fellow who hurt himself on the board and is according to the law entitled to compensation is to blame?

  97. #97
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Well I tell you what, I sure was glad to have a lawyer around...
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  98. #98
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    A good friend of mine is a cardio thoracic surgeon in CA. His medical malpractice premium is $135,000... Nuff said.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  99. #99
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    To sum up, the OP asked "Why the Lawyer Hate?"...The legal profession is bloated parasite sucking the life and common sense out of medicine....Additionally, the cost to insure against liability is a huge and hidden tax on everything.

    We have become a nations not of laws but of lawyers.
    Excellent post, Doc. Let's hear the lawyers straighten out the good Doctor and explain how lawyers help all of us by suing anything that moves....

    How come Harry Reid made sure Obama Care didn't have one of the largest cost savings available, tort reform? Couldn't be because he got his start suing doctors? His law firm is the biggest ambulance chasing firm in Nevada.

  100. #100
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,774
    Why the lawyer hate? Isn't this a leading question? Wasn't it asked to stir emotion? This is a key problem with lawyer-they contribute nothing to the pot of soup except stoking the flame, giving it an occasional stir, and then stealing all the meat and leaving only a watery broth for the rightful owner.
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  101. #101
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Are all roadies lawyers? ...

    Or are all lawyers roadies ?
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  102. #102
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Enough hate, roadie hate, politician hate, lawyer hate, Pedestrian hate, hiker hate. Screw hate, there ain't enough hate that we (emphasis on we) have to pollute the OC with this sh!t? I challenge the lot of you to bring something positive to the OC. Peace.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Enough hate, roadie hate, politician hate, lawyer hate, Pedestrian hate, hiker hate. Screw hate, there ain't enough hate that we (emphasis on we) have to pollute the OC with this sh!t? I challenge the lot of you to bring something positive to the OC. Peace.
    This is silly. Sometimes there can be no peace. What you're advocating is that we "live and let live" but why should we? Naturally if you're a lawyer you'd prefer to not be criticized at all. This would be a victory for you.

    But some things need to be opposed, sometimes stridently, sometimes violently. Part of getting our truly ridiculous legal system under control is to make people aware of the problem...or am I only allowed to raise awareness for "safe" things like Breast Cancer?

    "Hate" is a legitimate position. You sound like a lawyer who, after suing me and costing me thousands of dollars and many hours of my limited free time, has the nerve to say, "Hey Doc, it's nothing personal."

    I bet you have one of those stupid "Coexist" bumper stickers on your car.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Not silly, he's just saying give peace a chance, you may like it, for a change. The hating is getting old. Besides, there's way too much generalizing going on. All lawyers are @#$%, roadies are @#$$, drivers are #$&%, should I continue, cause you know what they say about folks from Louisiana right.
    Round and round we go

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,321
    $250/hr.......

  106. #106
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    This is silly. Sometimes there can be no peace. What you're advocating is that we "live and let live" but why should we? Naturally if you're a lawyer you'd prefer to not be criticized at all. This would be a victory for you.

    But some things need to be opposed, sometimes stridently, sometimes violently. Part of getting our truly ridiculous legal system under control is to make people aware of the problem...or am I only allowed to raise awareness for "safe" things like Breast Cancer?

    "Hate" is a legitimate position. You sound like a lawyer who, after suing me and costing me thousands of dollars and many hours of my limited free time, has the nerve to say, "Hey Doc, it's nothing personal."

    I bet you have one of those stupid "Coexist" bumper stickers on your car.



    That's it, I knew you could be counted on to be part of the solution.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    But some things need to be opposed, sometimes stridently, sometimes violently. Part of getting our truly ridiculous legal system under control is to make people aware of the problem...
    Oh Yes! And right here, right now on an obscure mountain bike forum is where it starts. This is where we make our stand. This is where we draw a line in the sand and shout with all the power that righteous indignation can muster "You shall not pass!". Here, at the MTBR forum, shall be our Agincourt. We few, we happy few, we band of...

    ...continued on page 17.

  108. #108
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    The Bar passer used the word HATE in his opening blog for crying out loud..

    Stop hating the haters guys, whats with this 'peace n love' bulls**t, the world is full of frictions n fractions and its bloody entertaining, a hell of alot more entertaining than peace n love..
    Hippies get nothin done in this world apart from bore the s**t outa people,
    FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT HATE HATE HATE, Thats what gets thing done.......
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  109. #109
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Ailuropoda, you might feel better if you-
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  110. #110
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    Ailuropoda, you might feel better if you-
    LOL Jon, only a lawyer would wear that shirt
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  111. #111
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    LOL Jon, only a lawyer would wear that shirt
    You never know, could be a Doctor

  112. #112
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Has anyone ever had the pleasure of mtn biking in S. Louisiana? Its probably about the only place in the US where you fall off the trail and can get eaten by an alligator... I've heard its even harder to get your foot out of his mouth than it is to unclip from your eggbeaters.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  113. #113
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    Has anyone ever had the pleasure of mtn biking in S. Louisiana? Its probably about the only place in the US where you fall off the trail and can get eaten by an alligator... I've heard its even harder to get your foot out of his mouth than it is to unclip from your eggbeaters.
    BIGABIGD, mate you wouldnt be drawing some line between lawyers and Alligators would you
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  114. #114
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    Has anyone ever had the pleasure of mtn biking in S. Louisiana? Its probably about the only place in the US where you fall off the trail and can get eaten by an alligator... I've heard its even harder to get your foot out of his mouth than it is to unclip from your eggbeaters.



    Can't say that I have but I'm not allowed to leave the U.S.

  115. #115
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Enough hate, roadie hate, politician hate, lawyer hate, Pedestrian hate, hiker hate. Screw hate, there ain't enough hate that we (emphasis on we) have to pollute the OC with this sh!t? I challenge the lot of you to bring something positive to the OC. Peace.
    AZ im very disappointed in you mate, you used to be one of the cool kids
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  116. #116
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    BIGABIGD, mate you wouldnt be drawing some line between lawyers and Alligators would you
    What's a lawyer?
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  117. #117
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    AZ im very disappointed in you mate, you used to be one of the cool kids



    Sorry to disappoint but you'll see, this site and users will benefit from a bit less hostility.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Is "livewrong" not espousing hatred towards Mr. Armstrong?

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    That's it, I knew you could be counted on to be part of the solution.
    "Coexisting" and embracing the status quo is not a solution. I bet if a white supremacist group picked your neighborhood to set up their national headquarters you wouldn't be so blase about things and want to "give peace a chance."

    But that's how it is nowadays..people only oppose safe things that cause them no trouble or controversy.

  120. #120
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Sorry to disappoint but you'll see, this site and users will benefit from a bit less hostility.
    Im really confused, i dont understand, its cold and dark and im scared.........
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....:cool:

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by nuffink View Post
    Oh Yes! And right here, right now on an obscure mountain bike forum is where it starts. This is where we make our stand. This is where we draw a line in the sand and shout with all the power that righteous indignation can muster "You shall not pass!". Here, at the MTBR forum, shall be our Agincourt. We few, we happy few, we band of...

    ...continued on page 17.

    Aw hell, Dude. I'm very active politically. Believe me.

  122. #122
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by jackbombay View Post
    Is "livewrong" not espousing hatred towards Mr. Armstrong?



    It's just a play on words that sums up the way I lived a good portion of my life. I feel no particular feelings one way or the other about Mr. Armstrong as we don't run in the same circles so he has zero impact on me or my life.

  123. #123
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    "Coexisting" and embracing the status quo is not a solution. I bet if a white supremacist group picked your neighborhood to set up their national headquarters you wouldn't be so blase about things and want to "give peace a chance."

    But that's how it is nowadays..people only oppose safe things that cause them no trouble or controversy.



    You are making a huge leap from anonymous interaction on the internet to confronting a group that has guaranties afforded by the first amendment. This will be my last reply to you as you wish to continue this a combative vein.

  124. #124
    banned
    Reputation: roadie scum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    "Coexisting" and embracing the status quo is not a solution. I bet if a white supremacist group picked your neighborhood to set up their national headquarters you wouldn't be so blase about things and want to "give peace a chance."

    But that's how it is nowadays..people only oppose safe things that cause them no trouble or controversy.


    How about you carry out you're revolution somewhere else? You're landing on the wrong side of this one considering that this is a mtb site not the Che Guevarra supporters org. that you surely are accustomed to trolling.

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by roadie scum View Post
    How about you carry out you're revolution somewhere else? You're landing on the wrong side of this one considering that this is a mtb site not the Che Guevarra supporters org. that you surely are accustomed to trolling.

    Wait a minute..this is the Off Camber forum, right? A question was asked, it was answered and elaborated on and now you don't like what you heard.

    First rule of medicine and the law: Don't ask a question if you aren't prepared to deal with the answer. I think the OP expected some easy-to-discount reasons for the general dislike of the legal profession such a "Lawyerz Suck" or "Layerz Charge Way 2 Much Money."

  126. #126
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Wait a minute..this is the Off Camber forum, right? A question was asked, it was answered and elaborated on and now you don't like what you heard.
    Surely you realize that you've held your end of the discussion through the bias of your perspective dealing with how lawyers have impacted the field of medicine. We've not yet been told what type of law the OP practices. How is it then you fail to recognize that after having provided your perspective you continue hijack the thread from a much broader discussion sharing your opinion in a manner that suggests you refuse to relent until all nod in agreement with you.

    If we are playing the generalization game then I submit your behavior is precisely what I would expect from someone having a title in front of their name believing it to make them equal with the Almighty.

    But hey, more power to you
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  127. #127
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    I can't say I find the discussion to be very broad. But this is how things go on online forums, people have different opinions and they are noted over and over again. Actually, if you go through this whole thread you'll not find that many ideas...

  128. #128
    banned
    Reputation: random walk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    I challenge the lot of you to bring something positive to the OC. Peace.

  129. #129
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    I can't say I find the discussion to be very broad. But this is how things go on online forums, people have different opinions and they are noted over and over again. Actually, if you go through this whole thread you'll not find that many ideas...
    The idea I meant to convey is that of a broader subject. The OP seemed naively perplexed by the negative connotation connected to lawyers. Ailuropoda has focused on one example that does indeed contribute to the overall image litigators have with sustained fever ad nauseam. Something else that happens on forums is folks becoming unnerved by overbearing opinions amidst a light, off topic discussion.

    I was wondering where you went, You seemed to dropadrop out after post #84
    Last edited by Jon Richard; 08-21-2012 at 01:58 PM.

  130. #130
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Hah, this thread is funny, I'm getting negative rep calling me a layer scumbag

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pete Otis Towns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    226

    I'll take that challenge- lawyer joke

    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Enough hate, roadie hate, politician hate, lawyer hate, Pedestrian hate, hiker hate. Screw hate, there ain't enough hate that we (emphasis on we) have to pollute the OC with this sh!t? I challenge the lot of you to bring something positive to the OC. Peace.
    A lawyer opened the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along and hit the door, ripping it off completely. When the police arrived at the scene, the lawyer was complaining bitterly about the damage to his precious BMW. "Officer, look what they've done to my Beeeemer!!!", he whined.

    "You lawyers are so materialistic, you make me sick!!!" retorted the officer, "You're so worried about your stupid BMW, that you didn't even notice that your left arm was ripped off!!!"

    "Oh my gaaad....", replied the lawyer, finally noticing the bloody left shoulder where his arm once was, "Where's my Rolex???!!!!!"
    Without rules, we all might as well be up in a tree flinging our crap at each other. Red Foreman - That 70's show.

  132. #132
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    I was wondering where you went, You seemed to dropadrop out after post #84
    Well I got the picture that people wanted to concentrate on the symptoms of the problem rather then the cause. Besides, I don't have enough reputation to make a lot of posts on the thread..

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    I believe this is appropriate
    Attached Images Attached Images

  134. #134
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    "Layerz Charge Way 2 Much Money."
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    Hah, this thread is funny, I'm getting negative rep calling me a layer scumbag
    I'm confused, I thought we were talking about lawyers

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Apparently the tough guy who has given me negative rep forgot to include his name.

  136. #136
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    Well I got the picture that people wanted to concentrate on the symptoms of the problem rather then the cause. Besides, I don't have enough reputation to make a lot of posts on the thread..
    The bigger picture is where I was going with that post in response to your remarks. I thought you fancied yourself a real idea man, don't let a couple red pock marks hold you back. Here, I'll pos rep you for the sake of boosting your moral and exonerate myself from possibly being indicated as one of the neg reppers.

  137. #137
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Richard View Post
    I'm confused, I thought we were talking about lawyers
    It's all the same to me

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by jackbombay View Post
    Thats great, but can you ride a bike worth a ****? A short video of you hopping your bike over an ice chest will suffice.
    Oh yes, I definitely love riding. How about this journey I took last March.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/passion/my-ep...er-800051.html

    I'm also trying to figure a route to commute to work through the mountains of North Phoenix......I think I may have just found the route. (Although I'll take a bus for the last part just so that the Judges I work with won't think that I'm crazy.)

    When I lived in DC, I used to commute by bike along the W and OD Canal Road. Those were the best parts of my work day.
    Last edited by BCTJ; 08-21-2012 at 04:08 PM.

  139. #139
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,889
    No hate for this Lawyer.



    Oakley - The Official Site

  140. #140
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Otis Towns View Post
    A lawyer opened the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along and hit the door, ripping it off completely. When the police arrived at the scene, the lawyer was complaining bitterly about the damage to his precious BMW. "Officer, look what they've done to my Beeeemer!!!", he whined.

    "You lawyers are so materialistic, you make me sick!!!" retorted the officer, "You're so worried about your stupid BMW, that you didn't even notice that your left arm was ripped off!!!"

    "Oh my gaaad....", replied the lawyer, finally noticing the bloody left shoulder where his arm once was, "Where's my Rolex???!!!!!"
    LMAO!!! best laugh I had all day!
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    I guess reading through these posts, it give me an understanding of why the hatred is out there. However, what you must ask yourself is this....is it really a reflection of faults in the legal system or faults in human nature. Let me provide you an example. One of the posters on here mentioned that the threat of constant lawsuits has led to constant threat of being sued which drives up costs. A solution to the problem would be to put caps on the amount of recovery in a malpractice suit. Personally, this is something I would agree with and which I also think is necessary, as the costs of medicine is extremely and unjustifiably high due to the trial attorneys. (I'm not a trial attorney, by the way) But ask yourself this, if your child was born with permanent brain damage and could never function beyond the level of a 3 year old because of an error your physician made during delivery, would you be satisfied with a $200,000 cap on damages. It wouldn't even pay the first year of medical expenses most likely. So, my point is that people complain about the faulty legal system, until they are the ones that might potentially suffer as a result of a reformed system. My belief is that ultimately, medical malpractice reform has to come and, unfortunately, some unfortunate individuals are going to have to pay the price for the greater good. But will these individuals accept their sacrifice as part of the greater societal good or will they bitterly challenges tort reform in courts, further clogging an already clogged lawyer system. As for the trial lawyers, they seemed pretty entrenched on no reform taking place as that is their livelihood, but, this attitude comes across as selfish and dishonorable to me. But, you shouldn't hate all lawyers because there are bad ones out there. As the proverb goes, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  142. #142
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,149
    Denise Barton of California Files $1.7 Billion Claim Alleging 'Smart' Meters Making Her Sick | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

    this is why the lawyer hate. Someone took this suit. Some lawyer somewhere took it upon themselves to represent this woman. If lawyers stood up and said "sorry but this is ridiculous and frivolous and we are not taking your suit" ...ever lawyer she tried then people like this would stop bring these insane money and time wasting suits to court and people would begin to see lawyers as having a set of morals.

    Sadly I know this will never happen. People are people.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCanyonTrailJunkie View Post
    I guess reading through these posts, it give me an understanding of why the hatred is out there. However, what you must ask yourself is this....is it really a reflection of faults in the legal system or faults in human nature. Let me provide you an example. One of the posters on here mentioned that the threat of constant lawsuits has led to constant threat of being sued which drives up costs. A solution to the problem would be to put caps on the amount of recovery in a malpractice suit. Personally, this is something I would agree with and which I also think is necessary, as the costs of medicine is extremely and unjustifiably high due to the trial attorneys. (I'm not a trial attorney, by the way) But ask yourself this, if your child was born with permanent brain damage and could never function beyond the level of a 3 year old because of an error your physician made during delivery, would you be satisfied with a $200,000 cap on damages. It wouldn't even pay the first year of medical expenses most likely. So, my point is that people complain about the faulty legal system, until they are the ones that might potentially suffer as a result of a reformed system. My belief is that ultimately, medical malpractice reform has to come and, unfortunately, some unfortunate individuals are going to have to pay the price for the greater good. But will these individuals accept their sacrifice as part of the greater societal good or will they bitterly challenges tort reform in courts, further clogging an already clogged lawyer system. As for the trial lawyers, they seemed pretty entrenched on no reform taking place as that is their livelihood, but, this attitude comes across as selfish and dishonorable to me. But, you shouldn't hate all lawyers because there are bad ones out there. As the proverb goes, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    Once again, with feeling....it is not the cost of the occasional huge settlement nor the cost of malpractice insurance that drives up the cost of medicine but rather the cost of defensive medicine to prevent the lawsuits that, while probably in value to the plaintiff much less than the caps in the states that have caps, economically and emotionally devastating to physicians nonetheless.

    Additionally, the caps are in all cases for "non-economic damages" such as "pain and suffering." There are no caps on economic damages, for example. If I were maimed by a doctor and couldn't work I could sue for the sum of my total expected wages for my lifetime as well as the cost of my medical care even if it exceeds the caps.

    But once again..it is not the occasional huge case that drives up costs. I have been sued twice and both are and were for very trivial things in which no harm came to the plaintiff...who will lose the case if and when the one outstanding suit ever goes to trial but in the meantime it has sucked so much money and time out of me that I have irrationally changed the way I practice (ordering unnecessary testing) to avoid having it happen again.

    It is the frivolity of the the law that is the problem. It takes nothing to sue. In fact, the plaintiff's attorney on one case "blanket-sued" every doctor who saw the patient in the hospital as well as for three months prior to the event (a routine hospital complication that was treated and resolved without incident). I wasn't even involved in the patient's care but merely made the mistake of taking them seriously and admitting them.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    Are all roadies lawyers? ...

    Or are all lawyers roadies ?
    Nah, some of us just have better things to do than argue with people who already have their mind made up. Where is the fun in that, unless there is a judge to decide who is right?
    '19 Ibis Ripmo
    '13 Felt Z4

  145. #145
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    it is not the occasional huge case that drives up costs.
    I can vouch for this.

    my wife is a veterinarian and has required the services of lawyers that her employers must keep on retainer because of clients suing for ridiculous things.

    one tried to sue because her dog had a difficult resistant infection that took a lot of work (and money) to treat. my wife treated it, but the lady was upset about how difficult it was to do (and how expensive). client hired lawyer so wife needed to bring in a defense lawyer. case never went to court and no settlement was provided, but the lawyer had to be paid. costs go up.

    another tried to sue because they were cheap bastidges. they had a whole litter of puppies that they failed to vaccinate on time, and consequently the whole litter got parvo. they refused to bring them all in for treatment because they were crappy backyard breeders with no money. then they refused to pay their bill, took their remaining animals to another veterinarian (where the rest died), and they tried suing my wife. again, wife had to bring in a lawyer. clients tried suing under some clause that would have resulted in immediate dismissal and a fine for the client. somehow the lawyer realized they screwed up by threatening that course of action, so then they took the case to the state veterinary board. they made a lot of ridiculous claims and it took a year for the state board to toss the case. but a lawyer needed to be brought in to defend my wife's license. it got tossed in the end, and now the clients are liable for felony check fraud and they even skipped town to avoid paying their lawyer. bills have to be paid and costs go up.

    Someone took this suit. Some lawyer somewhere took it upon themselves to represent this woman. If lawyers stood up and said "sorry but this is ridiculous and frivolous and we are not taking your suit" ...ever lawyer she tried then people like this would stop bring these insane money and time wasting suits to court and people would begin to see lawyers as having a set of morals.
    it's because of crappy lawyers that don't do their homework before accepting a case to find out if there's actually EVIDENCE to support a solid case.

  146. #146
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Denise Barton of California Files $1.7 Billion Claim Alleging 'Smart' Meters Making Her Sick | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!

    this is why the lawyer hate. Someone took this suit. Some lawyer somewhere took it upon themselves to represent this woman. If lawyers stood up and said "sorry but this is ridiculous and frivolous and we are not taking your suit" ...ever lawyer she tried then people like this would stop bring these insane money and time wasting suits to court and people would begin to see lawyers as having a set of morals.

    Sadly I know this will never happen. People are people.
    Expecting lawyers to stand up like that in union will of course never happen. Even if 99 out of 100 did, the last one would be laughing all the way to the bank while representing everyone who so wishes.

    But tell me this... Earlier there was an example of somebody injuring themselves on a swimming pools plank and suing, and this being an example of how lawyers are evil, but wouldn't it be a jury deciding that compensation has to be given, and the judge deciding how much that compensation is? They are the ones who said that it was correct to make the claim, and rewarded both the "victim" and the lawyer in a way that will ensure the lawyer takes the next case too.

    Sure in our dreams lawyers would just throw out 90% of their customers, bankers and investors would never game the system and politicians would only act in the best interest of their voters. In the real world lawyers will try to get people to raise court cases with stupid claims, but the court is the place who decides if those claims had merit and how much to reward. If stupid cases where thrown out even close to as often as they should, and rewards really reflected damage their would be a lot less people in law school, and lawyers would consider twice before picking a case.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by dropadrop View Post
    But tell me this... Earlier there was an example of somebody injuring themselves on a swimming pools plank and suing, and this being an example of how lawyers are evil, but wouldn't it be a jury deciding that compensation has to be given, and the judge deciding how much that compensation is? They are the ones who said that it was correct to make the claim, and rewarded both the "victim" and the lawyer in a way that will ensure the lawyer takes the next case too.
    Lawyers are the point people in lawsuits, and therefore typically the scapegoats (and deservedly so, for the most part -- they are the most visible, and make the money doing it). But for every "dumb" verdict that was rendered, there was a jury of 6-12 people that found facts to support it, and a judge who approved it. There was an expert or 2, industry insiders, I might add, who testified and produced reports and so forth to convince the jury that a standard of care had been established, or violated, or whatever the case is. So it isn't just the lawyers making stuff up.

    Re: med malpractice issues, lawyers could agree not to take bad cases. Similarly, doctors could agree to stand together and not to testify regarding malpractice, standards of care, and so forth, there wouldn't be many med mal cases, either. Ironically, it is doctors themselves who have established, through years of expert testimony, opinions and reports, the protocols, tests, standards about which many doctors complain, not lawyers -- not one lawyer has ever testified as to an applicable standard of care or protocol which should be followed in providing medical care. We just take the standard that is established through case law, which again is based on a doctor's opinion or testimony, and apply it to subsequent cases. If doctors don't like the standards that have been established, they are as much to blame as the lawyers are! Same goes for engineers, scientists, and all of that.

    Not defending my profession, per se -- it isn't perfect. But there are other gatekeepers and people responsible for some of the outcomes that occur, not just the lawyers.
    '19 Ibis Ripmo
    '13 Felt Z4

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    it's because of crappy lawyers that don't do their homework before accepting a case to find out if there's actually EVIDENCE to support a solid case.
    I think that stronger allowances for attorneys fees awarded to defendants in many cases would be very helpful to discourage this as well. As it stands, the bulk of the large cases that people complain about are brought by plaintiffs with nothing to lose. They almost never have to pay attorneys fees if they lose. In most states, you only get fees if there is a contract or a statute awarding fees; I'm not aware of any state with a statute awarding fees to a prevailing defendant in a PI case.

    In theory, the attorney is the gatekeeper, especially if he takes on a contingency case -- he wont last very long if he takes many contingency cases that are losers. But many cases are brought not with an expectation of winning at trial (they know they'll lose), but the expectation that the defendant (or the defendant's insurance company) will settle long before the case ever reaches trial. That is because the defendant has 2 options -- pay an attorney big money to defend the case if it has to go all the way to trial, with no hope of recovering attorney fees if they win, or settle for a fraction of the claim, and not have to pay their attorney money that will never come back. So it is lose-lose either way for the defendant, and also gives the plaintiff substantial leverage, even if their case is marginal at best.

    If defendants and insurance companies had a possibility of recovering their fees from the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney) if the defendant wins, they would be far more likely to say "screw you, you don't have a good claim, and I'm gonna make you pay me to prove it." This would require passage of a statute (again, by legislators, not lawyers!). I think it could be very helpful in keeping bad cases out.
    '19 Ibis Ripmo
    '13 Felt Z4

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Tystevens View Post
    Lawyers are the point people in lawsuits, and therefore typically the scapegoats (and deservedly so, for the most part -- they are the most visible, and make the money doing it). But for every "dumb" verdict that was rendered, there was a jury of 6-12 people that found facts to support it, and a judge who approved it. There was an expert or 2, industry insiders, I might add, who testified and produced reports and so forth to convince the jury that a standard of care had been established, or violated, or whatever the case is. So it isn't just the lawyers making stuff up.

    Re: med malpractice issues, lawyers could agree not to take bad cases. Similarly, doctors could agree to stand together and not to testify regarding malpractice, standards of care, and so forth, there wouldn't be many med mal cases, either. Ironically, it is doctors themselves who have established, through years of expert testimony, opinions and reports, the protocols, tests, standards about which many doctors complain, not lawyers -- not one lawyer has ever testified as to an applicable standard of care or protocol which should be followed in providing medical care. We just take the standard that is established through case law, which again is based on a doctor's opinion or testimony, and apply it to subsequent cases. If doctors don't like the standards that have been established, they are as much to blame as the lawyers are! Same goes for engineers, scientists, and all of that.

    Not defending my profession, per se -- it isn't perfect. But there are other gatekeepers and people responsible for some of the outcomes that occur, not just the lawyers.

    You make excellent points. But the standard of care itself has now become almost completely irrational because of the need to defend against layers and, as you pointed out, expert witnesses.

    That's kind of my point. The standard of care has now become (or is rapidly becoming) to run every test and every imaging on everybody even with the vaguest of complaints which is contrary to ethical, cost-effective, and evidence-based medicine. This represents a huge cost to you and everybody who will ever need medical care but find it severely rationed in the future because we threw so much needless money at it there will be none left.

    Literally I could send eighty percent of my patients home with no workup whatsoever based only on history and an inexpensive physical exam with instructions to return in 24 hours if they become worse at which point we can go crazy. Very few would come back (because even in the Emergency Department most of what we see are either chronic problems or relatively midl, self-limiting things that require no treatment at all. In fact, I am rarely surprised by the results of a test because, like most doctors, I bat close to a thousand in determining who is really sick and who isn't.

    We don't practice like this, of course. Make one mistake, even if no harm comes to the patient, and you're screwed...

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Tystevens View Post
    I think that stronger allowances for attorneys fees awarded to defendants in many cases would be very helpful to discourage this as well. As it stands, the bulk of the large cases that people complain about are brought by plaintiffs with nothing to lose. They almost never have to pay attorneys fees if they lose. In most states, you only get fees if there is a contract or a statute awarding fees; I'm not aware of any state with a statute awarding fees to a prevailing defendant in a PI case.

    In theory, the attorney is the gatekeeper, especially if he takes on a contingency case -- he wont last very long if he takes many contingency cases that are losers. But many cases are brought not with an expectation of winning at trial (they know they'll lose), but the expectation that the defendant (or the defendant's insurance company) will settle long before the case ever reaches trial. That is because the defendant has 2 options -- pay an attorney big money to defend the case if it has to go all the way to trial, with no hope of recovering attorney fees if they win, or settle for a fraction of the claim, and not have to pay their attorney money that will never come back. So it is lose-lose either way for the defendant, and also gives the plaintiff substantial leverage, even if their case is marginal at best.

    If defendants and insurance companies had a possibility of recovering their fees from the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney) if the defendant wins, they would be far more likely to say "screw you, you don't have a good claim, and I'm gonna make you pay me to prove it." This would require passage of a statute (again, by legislators, not lawyers!). I think it could be very helpful in keeping bad cases out.
    Exactly so. Which is why even if a doctor has his malpractice insurance paid by the hospital (which I do), it is sometimes necessary to hire your own attorney to keep the hospital from settling the claim. It's no big deal to the hospital but it goes on our "permanent record" and can impair our ability to get a job. In Florida you can't practice medicine if you have three lawsuits settled against you.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    65
    I have a few friends that are lawyers. I know a lot of lawyers I would never call friends. The difference between my honest friends who are lawyers and the lawyers I have worked with (who I consider shady) is amazing. Fortunately, this world hands out justice in mysterious but predictable ways and my honest lawyer friends have both married, ride their bikes and have beautiful families. All in all they are straight up good guys and they love and enjoy life. My other lawyer acquaintances don't ever seem to be in good moods or situations and are always scheming on how to get the $, regardless of the situation. I hug my lawyer friends. I avoid the others like the plague.
    If it doesn't include a hike a bike, it isn't a ride.

  152. #152
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Tystevens View Post
    I think that stronger allowances for attorneys fees awarded to defendants in many cases would be very helpful to discourage this as well. As it stands, the bulk of the large cases that people complain about are brought by plaintiffs with nothing to lose. They almost never have to pay attorneys fees if they lose. In most states, you only get fees if there is a contract or a statute awarding fees; I'm not aware of any state with a statute awarding fees to a prevailing defendant in a PI case.

    In theory, the attorney is the gatekeeper, especially if he takes on a contingency case -- he wont last very long if he takes many contingency cases that are losers. But many cases are brought not with an expectation of winning at trial (they know they'll lose), but the expectation that the defendant (or the defendant's insurance company) will settle long before the case ever reaches trial. That is because the defendant has 2 options -- pay an attorney big money to defend the case if it has to go all the way to trial, with no hope of recovering attorney fees if they win, or settle for a fraction of the claim, and not have to pay their attorney money that will never come back. So it is lose-lose either way for the defendant, and also gives the plaintiff substantial leverage, even if their case is marginal at best.

    If defendants and insurance companies had a possibility of recovering their fees from the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney) if the defendant wins, they would be far more likely to say "screw you, you don't have a good claim, and I'm gonna make you pay me to prove it." This would require passage of a statute (again, by legislators, not lawyers!). I think it could be very helpful in keeping bad cases out.
    Absolutely. And this strategy would apply across the board, not just with cases that have a medical association.

    Take, for example, the groups that sue land management agencies over land management decisions. More often than not, they file lawsuits to stop land management decisions (timber cutting in a diseased forest to thin out the trees and cut down on beetle kill, for example) simply because they don't like what needs to be done. I've worked for the USFS and seen this happening. Totally spurious lawsuits are filed with hundreds of pages of "facts" which are actually misquoted from scholarly journals. The groups know they filed BS and they know that the case will eventually get thrown out. They do it because proving that their case is crap will tie up the feds for years and prevent them from doing whatever. And they do it because they don't have to pay up if they lose.

    It costs the government a lot of money to do all of this.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    Literally I could send eighty percent of my patients home with no workup whatsoever based only on history and an inexpensive physical exam with instructions to return in 24 hours if they become worse at which point we can go crazy. Very few would come back (because even in the Emergency Department most of what we see are either chronic problems or relatively midl, self-limiting things that require no treatment at all. In fact, I am rarely surprised by the results of a test because, like most doctors, I bat close to a thousand in determining who is really sick and who isn't.

    We don't practice like this, of course. Make one mistake, even if no harm comes to the patient, and you're screwed...
    I am a lawyer in a family of 4 docs (3 brothers and my dad), so I understand better than most what you are dealing with. In a way, I'd like to rip up previously established standards and protocols, many of which are based on obsolete science, and start fresh, with new standards of care established by medical boards, not experts in trial settings, and go from there. Not sure how that will ever happen in the real world.
    '19 Ibis Ripmo
    '13 Felt Z4

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    Absolutely. And this strategy would apply across the board, not just with cases that have a medical association.

    Take, for example, the groups that sue land management agencies over land management decisions. More often than not, they file lawsuits to stop land management decisions (timber cutting in a diseased forest to thin out the trees and cut down on beetle kill, for example) simply because they don't like what needs to be done. I've worked for the USFS and seen this happening. Totally spurious lawsuits are filed with hundreds of pages of "facts" which are actually misquoted from scholarly journals. The groups know they filed BS and they know that the case will eventually get thrown out. They do it because proving that their case is crap will tie up the feds for years and prevent them from doing whatever. And they do it because they don't have to pay up if they lose.

    It costs the government a lot of money to do all of this.
    Yep. I worked on both sides of this issue in law school -- originally intended to be an environmental or gov't lawyer working on natural resources issue. A summer clerkship w/ the DOJ Div. of Nat Resources and a semester working with the litigation clinic (which was through WELC, who make the Sierra Club look middle of the road, but they were the only option if you wanted to do the clinic and get any court time), and I didn't want any part of it anymore. Just a mess, and a frustrating system where you can't get anything done but fight useless lawsuits.
    '19 Ibis Ripmo
    '13 Felt Z4

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.