The root of Lawyer jokes

[NEOWatcher]

Ok; ran across another unscrupulous lawyer.

We can say that Connie started it of in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=57694).

But; this one is just plain greedy.
Lawyer files $65.5M suit against dry cleaner who misplaced his pants (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/lawyer_files_65.html)

The kicker: A lawyer for the cleaners -- who offered at one point to settle the case for $12,000 -- says he has a pair of gray pants in his closet that belong to Pearson.

[tdvance]

what's scary is he's a judge--and one wonders if he makes as much a mockery of the law in his court as he does in his personal lawsuit.

[Larry Jacks]

Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher, the reporter who brought us this gem, quotes from court papers in which Pearson "says he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for 'mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort,' for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit."

Sounds like someone needs to get over himself. Only someone who has a monumental self-image would think something so trivial as a misplaced pair of pants is worth millions. Even the offered $12,000 settlement is excessive and absurd.

[Moose]

Wait. For "leasing a car every weekend for 10 years"? Heck, even if that's a $1000 suit, we're still only talking small-claims court, < $100 in filing fees, and an afternoon of everybody's time, mostly waiting.

What's the civil term for malicious prosecution? I think someone's bucking for disbarment.

[NEOWatcher]

If he was in them, maybe it's the civil case resulting from the kidnapping. :shifty:

[DyerWolf]

Welcome to the joy of dealing with plaintiffs.

No one ever said they had to make sense - instead all they had to do was get the Plaintiffs' Bar elected to the Appellate bench.

Where I live, it's virtually impossible to get a ridiculous suit thrown out on summary judgment.






There's only three lawyer jokes... The rest of the stories are true.

[SockMonkey]

Does he expect to actually get that much? I doubt the dry cleaner has that kind of cash laying around.

[mugaliens]

I think both judges and their decisions should be both peer-reviewed and their performance commented on by the lawyers in their courts - anonymously, so that we'll actually obtain good results.

Then, every five years, the bottom third of all judges should be fired.

Permanently.

[mugaliens]

Of course this goes right along with my take on lawyers. I believe the government needs to set a fixed wage, say, equal to that of their clients, but not higher than $100 an hour. That way, lawyers who were in it to make money would leave, and those who remain would do so because they believe in that line of work.

Oh, and I believe the bottom third of all lawyers should be disbarred, as well.

[Chuck]

I think that plaintiffs ask for big settlements hoping to scare the defendant into settling out of court for more than the jury would be likely award rather than risk having to pay such a huge amount. Also, if it does go to court, the jury has no realistic upper limit on how much it can award which might tend to increase the amount.

One way to combat this would be to not allow the jury to set whatever amount they want. They must choose either the plaintiff's request or the defendant's offer. If the entire jury can't agree on which amount to use then the defendant's offer is used by default. In other words, if the plaintiff doesn't think the defendant is offering enough he must convince twelve people that he deserves more. If he asks for a ridiculously large amount there's almost no chance that all 12 jurors will give it to him. On the other side of the coin, if the defendant offers a ridiculously small amount then he risks having all 12 jurors realize it and use the plaintiff's more reasonable request. Both sides would be motivated to choose reasonable amounts and might end up settling out of court rather than paying huge legal fees.

[Gillianren]

I don't think mass firings will help anyone. For one thing, unemployment is bad enough as it is. Besides, it's hard enough to find a lawyer who'll take certain cases now. (I had to find one a couple of years ago who'd take my disability case on contingency, and no one in all of Olympia would. My lawyer's all the way up in Seattle, and I've never actually met him.)

[SockMonkey]

The way lawyer's fees are set it's becoming a case of justice going to whoever can afford to spend the most. So many cases against wealthy defendants get dropped simply because they can afford a team of lawers drag it out long enough for any settlement to become moot while they go on with their lives as normal.

[mugaliens]

I like Heinlein's approach, wherein one aspect of his future histories was a complete abolition of all lawyers.

[Gillianren]

I like Heinlein's approach, wherein one aspect of his future histories was a complete abolition of all lawyers.

I don't. Lawyers are a necessary part of society, unless you believe that accused criminals don't need trials before being punished and that every person with a legitimate legal claim had the knowledge to fight for it themselves.

[tdvance]

The only time I'd needed a lawyer was because of another lawyer--well, because of a dishonest plaintiff (suing me for $10,000 for a list of random stuff, the maximum for "small claims" in Maryland), but the lawyer took her case despite the lack of merit (as someone said after the fact, even though he knew he'd lose, he'd get court time, which looks good on the resume, and he'd get the fee, so it was a win for him). Of course, the innocent do need lawyers for defense. But when the DC phone book has a lawyer section bigger than my hometown's phonebook...you wonder if there might be too many! I was only happy that my insurance company provided my lawyer and when all was over, I received the bill from him that said "$0.00", the best kind of legal bill there is.

[LurchGS]

Lawyers are there to argue the client's case. Ideally, they have an in-depth knowledge of pertinent law and can therefore do a better job than the client could.

As the system of law stands now, there is absolutely no way to survive without lawyers. However - if the current nightmare of law is replaced with something clean, tight, and objective (as opposed to arbitrary), Lawyers would perforce be history.

Now, is it any surprise that 99% of all lawmakers are lawyers? Can you say "Conflict of interest"?

As for the idjit in the OP.. sadly, he's the exception that proves the rule. I know dozens of lawyers, most of them are actually pretty good people - mostly working to keep one entity from smushing another.

[NEOWatcher]

And; just an example of the promptness of CNN, they just now have the story on their "latest" news. (or is that latest knews?) Not bad, only a week late.

Ok; it could be because it's a fluff piece...but latest news?
(sorry no link, it is scripted)

[Fazor]

Well, there are also plastering this story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/02/kfc.suit.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) up everywhere;
the Judge throwing out (in a rather sarcastic manner) the case against KFC for serving fatty foods. Basically, he said that people already know that fried foods are fatty.

I hope these two cases aren't coincidences, but rather a growing trend to combat the ridiculous frivolous law suits that have plagued our court system. Although two random "fluff pieces" on lawsuits is hardly enough to draw any conclusions.

[NEOWatcher]

Well, there are also plastering this story (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/02/kfc.suit.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories) up everywhere;
I could have sworn that I mentioned this with the clappy smily somewhere.
I hope these two cases aren't coincidences, but rather a growing trend to combat the ridiculous frivolous law suits that have plagued our court system.
Please let it be so.
Although two random "fluff pieces" on lawsuits is hardly enough to draw any conclusions.
Yes; but I've know enough people on enough of these cases, to believe that most low-profile cases are properly decided. Unfortunately, it does take a trial to make that determination.

[Fazor]

I could have sworn that I mentioned this with the clappy smily somewhere. I had figured it would have been mentioned by now (I was going to say something about it yesterday, but had some tech issues with the forums), but I can't see any reference to it.

Yes; but I've know enough people on enough of these cases, to believe that most low-profile cases are properly decided. True. But the problem isn't only how these cases are decided (which is by jury, and the outcomes can be baffling to say the least) but moreso the volume of these kind of cases. In the instance of "Pantsless v. Common Sense, 2007" I think the suitbringer should be fined from here to Jupiter for wasting court time and dockett space on something like this. Same goes for "Fatman v. Duh!, 2007". They need to send the message that the courts are not a get-rich-quick lottery system.

We could go a long way by eliminating compesatory judgements in exchange for jail-time punishments; monetary rewards should be to reimburse for losses, not to make you rich off of someone else's mistake.

[NEOWatcher]

But the problem isn't only how these cases are decided (which is by jury, and the outcomes can be baffling to say the least) but moreso the volume of these kind of cases.
Thus, the point of my "unfortunately". Same thought, different aspect.

[Ilya]

Of course this goes right along with my take on lawyers. I believe the government needs to set a fixed wage, say, equal to that of their clients, but not higher than $100 an hour. That way, lawyers who were in it to make money would leave, and those who remain would do so because they believe in that line of work.

Will never work. As long as good lawyers are much more valuable than average lawyers, rich clients will always find ways to reward good lawyers.

Much more radical idea: get rid of jury trial, at least in civil cases.

In countries where juries do not exist and guilt/innocence is decided by the judge, lawyers make much less money. The reason is this:

1. Judges, being lawyers themselves, generally can not be bamboozled with rhetoric

2. Consequently, lawyer's skill has less weight in the trial, while the evidence has more weight

3. Consequently, a good lawyer is not that much more valuable than an average lawyer

4. Consequently, good lawyer's fees are higher, but not that much higher than average lawyer's

5. Side effect is to make law a less lucrative profession, thus keeping the number of lawyers smaller

[Gillianren]

Much more radical idea: get rid of jury trial, at least in civil cases.

It'll require a Constitutional amendment, and I don't think it'd happen.

Actually, my mother was once on the jury of a civil case, and they gave the plaintiff way less than they were asking for, because while it was clear the guy deserved something, he didn't deserve nearly as much as he was asking for.

[Lianachan]

The whole thing is even more ridiculous for me, because I read it with the UK version of "pants" springing to mind.

[Moose]

1. Judges, being lawyers themselves, generally can not be bamboozled with rhetoric

But a defective judge (and we've had some in province) can cause a lot more harm to the judicial system than a jury of "peers".

[mugaliens]

Will never work. As long as good lawyers are much more valuable than average lawyers, rich clients will always find ways to reward good lawyers.

Much more radical idea: get rid of jury trial, at least in civil cases.

The jury trial was a good idea in it's inception, as it provided a check on the power of the court. Unfortunately jury selection practices render that check largely ineffective.

A better approach would be for a purely randomly selected 63-member jury which would do the following:

Freely deliberate amongst themselves for three hours, without oversight, and by random -1/0/+1 scale ballot, select a quorum of 40 individuals. These 40 would further deliberate for three hours and select a counsel of 12. The twelve would deliberate and select a high counsel of 7, etc., to a tribunal of 3 and to a foreman of 1.

The votes would be as such:

Position Number Votes
Foreman 1 7
Tribunal 3 5
H. Couns 7 4
Counsel 12 3
Quorum 40 2
Body 63 1

This jury would be paid to serve for an entire month, with three restructuring periods allowed (at one week intervals) occurring during that month based upon everyone's perspective of everyone else's performance.

More expensive, yes, but I think the results would speak for themselves, particularly since the lawyers would have absolutely no hand in redefining the jury selection, but rather, a large cross-section of the American public as a whole would have such a hand, through an iterative process which usually minimizes such mob psychology.

As to the rest of your post:

In countries where juries do not exist and guilt/innocence is decided by the judge, lawyers make much less money. The reason is this:

1. Judges, being lawyers themselves, generally can not be bamboozled with rhetoric

2. Consequently, lawyer's skill has less weight in the trial, while the evidence has more weight

3. Consequently, a good lawyer is not that much more valuable than an average lawyer

4. Consequently, good lawyer's fees are higher, but not that much higher than average lawyer's

5. Side effect is to make law a less lucrative profession, thus keeping the number of lawyers smaller

All this holds true in an environment of integrity.

In an environment of corruption, the reverse is true.

Personally, I'd rather have an imperfect system than a system which is perfectly posed to either do the right thing or roast you six ways to Sunday, regardless of the evidence, on a mere whim.

[Doodler]

But a defective judge (and we've had some in province) can cause a lot more harm to the judicial system than a jury of "peers".

There's been the suggestion of professional jurors.

I think a lot of problems with the "peer" system is that jurors tend to be conscripts who look at the job with a healthy dose of apathy. Basically, the Judiciary branch of government has the right to take you out of your life, stick you in a cave with no outside contact, and then fail to adequately compensate you for the time when its over. Then they have the audacity to tell you that you should puff up your chest and be proud of doing your "civic duty".

Not something I'd be thrilled to deal with, and not something I'd suffer quietly.

[Noclevername]

Getting out of Jury Duty was very simple; they asked me "Can you be objective?" (of course not, I'm human) and "If testimony is stricken, can you put it out of your mind?" (Well duh, I'll just hit my delete button. Of course not.)

I was dismissed.

[mugaliens]

I don't. Lawyers are a necessary part of society, unless you believe that accused criminals don't need trials before being punished and that every person with a legitimate legal claim had the knowledge to fight for it themselves.

I believe laws a grossly and very unnecessarily overcomplicated, on purpose. They were written by lawyers in such a way that people would need lawyers.

Simplify the code, and get rid of all lawyers. Let people represent themselves.

[Doodler]

I believe laws a grossly and very unnecessarily overcomplicated, on purpose. They were written by lawyers in such a way that people would need lawyers.

Simplify the code, and get rid of all lawyers. Let people represent themselves.

Re-establish the duelling code as due process. Lethal consequences and all. Teach this generation of Americans to stop peeing its pants at the sight of blood and to be damned sure they really want to press the matter before they get into it.

[Ronald Brak]

Re-establish the duelling code as due process. Lethal consequences and all. Teach this generation of Americans to stop peeing its pants at the sight of blood and to be damned sure they really want to press the matter before they get into it.

Actually the sight of blood is a bad thing as it generally only comes out of people when they've been hurt.

[Doodler]

Actually the sight of blood is a bad thing as it generally only comes out of people when they've been hurt.

You gain wisdom.

If you really want to sue someone, if you're not prepared to cause them severe physical harm, you don't press the matter.

[Gillianren]

I believe laws a grossly and very unnecessarily overcomplicated, on purpose. They were written by lawyers in such a way that people would need lawyers.

But do you have the knowledge of the law to say for sure?

[Doodler]

But do you have the knowledge of the law to say for sure?

I do...

The problem with legal language is its attempt to be so precise that interpretation is either impossible or absolutely necessary.

[LurchGS]

Doodler,

I've thought along those lines, as well - I'm also fully in favor of flogging. The current Society of Friends system we have is flatly not working - public embarrassment is a *wonderful* deterrent

[DyerWolf]

One benefit of the American civil-legal system is the availability of monetary damages.

This arises from a faulty presumption that an injured person (or entity) may be made whole through monetary damages.

While the presumption is faulty, many people find it a better system than some others. Examples:


honor killings,
retributive theft,
'an eye for an eye' (under the Code of Hammurabi, if a building collapsed and killed someone, the builder and his family was executed),
various religious/mystic systems (e.g. The Muavi Poison Ordeal; execution of rape victims because they've been 'dishonored'),
Might makes right,
etc.


The problem is more often the Plantiff, rather than the one who represents the Plaintiff. Too many people are hoping to hit the litigation lottery - or have chosen to abuse the system - as it appears this judge is doing.

[Maksutov]

Ok; ran across another unscrupulous lawyer....Now there's a redundancy.

[SeanF]

One benefit of the American civil-legal system is the availability of monetary damages.

This arises from a faulty presumption that an injured person (or entity) may be made whole through monetary damages.
I think it arises from the presumption that the threat of monetary damages will prevent many of the injuries from occuring in the first place. None of the other systems mentioned would serve to make whole the injured person (or entity), so I'm not sure why one would think this system was intended for that purpose.

[Doodler]

Now there's a redundancy.

Oh yeah, nothing like the rush of Coke in the nostrils... :lol:

[DyerWolf]

None of the other systems mentioned would serve to make whole the injured person (or entity), so I'm not sure why one would think this system was intended for that purpose.

Ah,

I should have clairified. Some of those systems are retributive, whereas we've indeed sought to obtain a remunerative system. Some of the systems also abandon trial on the merits and allow the strong or the lucky to prevail.

We chose to abandon personal retribution through civil trials and tried to level the playing field for both parties. We've tried to create a system whereby (hopefully) the merits of a person's claim, the relative proportions of fault involved and common sense (the basic reason for juries) prevail.

In this case, the judge may be using the system for abusive and harassing purposes. If so, and presuming the business owners obtain a favorable result, they may be able to sue the judge for malicious prosecution.

The edge cuts both ways.


I think it arises from the presumption that the threat of monetary damages will prevent many of the injuries from occuring in the first place.

In any economy which uses money, the potential of losing money for causing harm does indeed have a prohibitive effect. The merits depends upon whose perspective you use. In the 18th century, the injured worker was cut loose and the burden of supporting him placed upon the community - whereas now, if a company injures someone, the company pays - which, some complain, result in higher prices to consumers.

In one measure, the injured worker is recompensed for his loss, the other encourages similarly situated companies to improve their manufacturing processes out of concern for having their own profits invaded.

May not be optimal, but it works.

[NEOWatcher]

Quick update (http://www.newsnet5.com/money/13495119/detail.html)...the case is in trial.


A judge had to leave the courtroom with tears running down his face Tuesday after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.


Wow; He must really be devastated over those pants. :eek::boohoo:

[Trebuchet]

That's a little confusing. We should make it clear that the judge in the story is actually the plaintiff in this case, not the judge for the case. Who should toss it right out.

[Gillianren]

Were those pants handwoven for him by his dying mother? Because if not, he needs to give it up.

[publius]

I could ramble on for ages about what's wrong with the legal system, and the political system behind and around it, but sometimes you've just got to take it to court. My dear mother is having to sue her own little nephew. :eek: And she's sick about it.

Here's the deal. Uncle of mine dies (without a will, and if anyone suggested he ought to make one out, he'd get mad), and his estate is divided up amongst his siblings, none of whom live closer than 50 miles from here. That was a mess. Now, one of my aunts is dead with a number of children. Those got bumped up to get their share of the dead aunts portion. Again, it was mess.

The house and grounds needs to be sold, and my mother just bought out all the others, except for this one nephew who ended with 1/18th of the house. My mother currently has 17/18th of the house, and he has the rest, holding everything up.

He was going to do it, and accepted a check and cashed it, but has refused to sign the papers. This has gone on for two years this month. He has been sent about 5 copies of the papers, several certified and registerd letters, etc, etc, and will not respond. He will not the answer the phone (he's got caller ID apparently, and will not answer the phone from my mother, or anyone else in the family).

Well, what can you do with that but take it to court? He should be getting served some time this month..............those wheels turn slowly.

-Richard

[NEOWatcher]

Case is over...the dry cleaner won (http://www.wkyc.com/news/watercooler/watercooler_article.aspx?storyid=70183).
"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

But; did they really win 54M? That's what the headline says, but the story doesn't really say. I find it hard to believe.

[Spock Jenkins]

Case is over...the dry cleaner won (http://www.wkyc.com/news/watercooler/watercooler_article.aspx?storyid=70183).


But; did they really win 54M? That's what the headline says, but the story doesn't really say. I find it hard to believe.

No, they win reimbursement for the cost of having to hire a lawyer to defend themselves and I would assume other related costs (traveling to and from court, etc).

As far as the Plaintiff leaving the court in tears, did they clarify whether those were tears of laughter as he was trying to maintain his composure while making a case?

[01101001]

Headline had a preposition out of place.
Is:
Dry cleaner wins $54 million in missing pants case
Better:
Dry cleaner wins in $54 million missing pants case

No, they win reimbursement for the cost of having to hire a lawyer to defend themselves and I would assume other related costs (traveling to and from court, etc).

As I heard it, the defendants were awarded court costs. Attorney fees will be decided later.

Ah... like this: Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070625/NEWS07/70625019/0/FEATURES08)

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
[...]
The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs’ attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs’ tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

[Larry Jacks]

I'm pleased that the judge not only found against the plaintiff but ordered him to pay the defendent's legal fees. That happens all to rarely in the US. Some countries have a "loser pays" policy for tort cases. Some claim such a policy cuts down on frivilous lawsuits. The other side argues that it cuts down on a plaintiff's right to sue. Personally, I believe frivilous lawsuits are costing the US so much money that we need to try to restore some sanity to the legal process.

[Fazor]

Personally, I believe frivilous lawsuits are costing the US so much money that we need to try to restore some sanity to the legal process.
Agreed. Nothing frustrates me more than our legal system. It's a good system, in principle, but is soo bogged down right now with stupid lawsuits and uneven criminal procedure that both tort and criminal courts are horribly inefficient or effective.

[Len Deighton]

I think lawyers are vessels into which society pours that which it likes least about itself, so it may then rail in righteous and pure indignation.

[Gillianren]

I think lawyers are vessels into which society pours that which it likes least about itself, so it may then rail in righteous and pure indignation.

I like that. I'm not sure what my lawyer friend would think, though. (Or my disability lawyer, come to that.)