Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not trust any attorneys (even though I have used them!)
I feel the law should simply be "whats right" and "what wrong", "makes sense" or "complete nonsense". Law is no longer this way. Law is now a complete manipulation of written word and procedure. I've seen it firsthand. Judges too, are at fault (although they fall in the attorney field).
Law is an industry built by attorneys. You shouldn't need a lawyer for everything in life (however you do) If you don't use a lawyer...another lawyer will *********
People fighting to keep criminals out of jail, by any means neccesary, wether it be on legal technicalities or telling clients to shut their trap right as they're about to spill their guts. Lawyers are unethical scum.
Wow, it's nice to know that people like you might end up on a jury someday. Every person accused of a crime has a right to defense. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove that the defendant did committed the crime they are being charged with. I appreciate that people do this job and I'm considering becoming a defense attorney myself. You hate it now but when one of your relatives is accused of a crime I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune. For now, I'm just glad the Constitution stands in the way of people like you who would just as soon execute every person even accused of a crime.
I'm not saying lawyers are not needed. I'm saying it is unethical to seek acquittal for a client you know is guilty. Ovcatto's last sentence leads me to believe he disagrees with that.
I completely disagree with this, and apparently you've never heard of the BURDEN OF PROOF! If you're accusing someone of a crime, you have to have proof: corroboration, circumstantial evidence, etc. If the prosecution doesn't have a good enough case to put someone guilty behind bars then that's their fault, not the defense attorney's. You desperately need a Government 101 course...
Well, you'd have to cite a specific case to make a specific judgment. If the lawyer subverts justice by hiding evidence, pressuring witnesses, or tendering bribes to jurors, that conduct is illegal, and of course it is immoral.
It would be very dangerous, though, for criminal defense attorneys not to do their jobs. That's how you make the whole system weaker, and end up with blatantly wrongful prosecutions and convictions. Both sides are supposed to be vigilant.
Where I'm from, the prosecution is just a likely if not more so to conceal evidence, and one of the top dogs in the DA's office in my hometown has gotten into trouble for doing just that on several occasions. My mom, before she became a judge, was a prosecutor and then became a supervising prosecutor. Anyway, she said that so many of the prosecutors she worked with who were just starting out would want to hide certain evidence or papers so the rule they should be taught but aren't really is that, if they don't want to show something to the defense, that usually means it's something they do need to show them. Unfortunately, some DA's offices in this country have next to no ethics. That's why I appreciate what my dad, a defense attorney, does. I can't tell you how many clients of his I've met who were being overcharged or just flat out falsely charged just because the prosecutors think they can get away with it. Not everything is black and white and not all prosecutors are the ethical lions that some people believe them to be.
Thye troble with that is the trial lawyers have decided that if there is enough money inviolved they can put peoples lifes on trial whether tehrte is any reason at all. What htye hope is the hell the person or companyy is put thru is enouhg to make them pay up by settlihng. This is your so called justice? Trial lawayers have set themselves up as a quasi-governamnt and everybody pays for it in cost of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
I myself have met very few lawyers that I found to be trustworthy people. In fact I absolutely hated every lawyer I ever hired. They are a nessasary evil. Lawyers complicate the most simple of matters and do so out of greed. The more complicated they can make things the more hours they can bill.
Then you have the personal injury lawyers. Taking 45% of the award for themselves. The late night comercials etc. They are quite possibly the lowest of the low.
Hate them all but I accept that I might need one because the system is so complex.
Well, my dad does trials but he consults with each client to decide if it's in their best interest to go to trial or plead out. If they have a video tape of his client robbing a bank, and multiple witnesses, and they found the gun and money in his car, he'd probably plead out. But if his client has a good chance of winning, they go to court.
To tinman, I'm not sure whether you're talking about defense attorneys or personal injury lawyers, but most of the defense attorneys I know do not charge by the hour. They have a set fee for everything. Like a murder trial is this much money, a DUI trial is this much money, a preliminary hearing is this much money, if they plead out, it's much less money than going to trial.
I'm sure that there are a few lawyers that have noble intentions in mind. I can respect most of the criminal law practitioners on both sides.
However, these personal injury lawyers are unethical scum.
The McDonald's case is only one example....
The Phillip Morris case where an individual (not the gov't tobacco case, that's a different case) sued for about $20 billion because she smoked and got cancer.........c'mon
This ex-judge suing for millions over lost pants.....
The list is endless, and instead of a just resolution such as paying the cost of damages and a little more, these cases keep getting blown to epic dollar amounts because the greedy lawyers keep pushing the dollar amounts higher so they can get a bigger cut....
I have much more respect for criminal lawyers than for civil attorneys.
I think people have a lot of misconceptions about the McDonald's case. The coffee was over 180 degrees fahrenheit which can cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds. That same particular McDonald's restaurant where the incident occurred had been warned before about the temperature of the coffee they were serving. The coffee was so hot that when the 79 year old woman spilled it in her lap, her labia fused to her thigh. She then underwent two years worth of reconstructive surgery and skin grafts. She asked McDonald's to pay her $20,000, $11,000 of which was to go towards paying her medical bills. Instead, they offered to pay her only $800 dollars. If they hadn't been so greedy in the first place, she never would have sued. I just thought I'd clear that up for you since so many people use that as an example of sue happy people when that woman actually had a legitimate cause to sue.
Stella Liebeck's coffee was served at between 180 -190 degrees. Regardless of the temperature which was probably down around 170 by the time she was opening the cover to add cream and sugar between her legs (not very smart regardless off the coffee temperature). The Jury found comparative negligence, 80% v Macdonalds and 20% v Ms Liebeck and awarded a verdict of $2.7 million including punitive damages which the judge reduced to $640,000. The case was later settled for something less after the filing of an appeal.
Regardless of the coffee temperature I feel Ms Liebeck's actions were a much greater proximate cause of her injuries than the coffee temp. The comparative negligence numbers should have been reversed, 80% on her and 20% on Macdonalds and a minimal punitive damage award.
I doubt this verdict cost Macdonalds anything. Although insurance probably paid the compensatory damage Macdonalds would have been responsible for the punitive portion of any agreed upon settlement since insurance does not insure punitive. Then Macdonalds increased the price of coffee and we all paid a portion of the verdict and Macdonalds may thank you for your contribution.
Do jurys ever stop to consider who pays for product liability (and other) verdicts, YOU & I.
It wasn't plaintiff atty that arrived at the verdict.
As for attys being scum. That's pretty low. I suggest 5% are top notch and very ethical. 5% are at the other end of the spectrum and probably should not be practicing law and the other 90% are somewhere in between.
.
I think people have a lot of misconceptions about the McDonald's case. The coffee was over 180 degrees fahrenheit which can cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds. That same particular McDonald's restaurant where the incident occurred had been warned before about the temperature of the coffee they were serving. The coffee was so hot that when the 79 year old woman spilled it in her lap, her labia fused to her thigh. She then underwent two years worth of reconstructive surgery and skin grafts. She asked McDonald's to pay her $20,000, $11,000 of which was to go towards paying her medical bills. Instead, they offered to pay her only $800 dollars. If they hadn't been so greedy in the first place, she never would have sued. I just thought I'd clear that up for you since so many people use that as an example of sue happy people when that woman actually had a legitimate cause to sue.
Perhaps that one is controversial. That is why I listed other examples as well, and this list also has some more examples of greedy lawyers and stupid lawsuits:
Perhaps that one is controversial. That is why I listed other examples as well, and this list also has some more examples of greedy lawyers and stupid lawsuits:
I agree that many lawsuits are frivolous. The main point of the OP was that criminal lawyers are the scum of the earth. I happen to disagree with that statement. I saw your post and decided to tell you what I know about that case because for a long time I actually agreed with similar assessments that it was a ridiculous case. Your other examples were good though, I just wanted to give more facts about that particular case because the media and politicians latch onto these things and make them sound ludicrous and then those misconceptions are continually perpetuated until they are accepted as truth.
'Oh theres good and bad in every profession'.. balls, not to the extent of the lawyer profession.
'Oh, its not lawyers that are corrupt, its the system'.. balls, its both.
I dont care about 'ifs and buts'....
Anyone who would financially ruin an innocent man, or fight to keep a guilty man out of jail, is simply the scum of the earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
