Corporate Lobbyist vs. Trial Lawyers?

When was the last time a corporate lobbyist held a corporation responsible for killing people with a defective product? :eyes:

Trial Lawyers are traditionally progressively-minded, and are focused upon preserving fundamental rights for all.

and I am in awe of the work that the majority of them do (and unfortunately...so much of the work they do is pro bono x()

Have you taken the bar? Are you practicing yet?

why you would`t have him if he was`t :rofl:

That's sort of an odd thing to say.

People need help and my husband isn't in the habit of turning people away for the inability to pay him. Other times people just choose not to pay their bill. Not all trial lawyers are wealthy and I can attest to rough times paying our bills b/c even though we are working for people we are not getting paid for that work.

Does that clear things up?

No, I'm an older mom (non-practicing graduate, and retired social worker, I should say) who homeschools our daughter (she does very well in her current program, but not so well in the conventional classroom); so, I'm dedicated to her welfare. I used to the law degree to get the real estate license, and I'm enjoying doing some investing with my family (believe it or not, we'll doing well).

I did take the bar (didn't pass) a few times; however, it's just too expensive, too political, and too stressful on the family to do it again. By political, I'm referring to the bitter fights between the law firms and the state over the difficulty of the test.

I'm 49-1/2; I'm too focused on other avenues.

That having been said, I really appreciate your husband's work (and that of his friends); please tell him so.

Good luck to you and your family :hi:

Take care!

Keep on fighting the good fight, please!

:hi: :hug:

...trial lawyers are whores who will advocate any position in order to win for their client - which is exactly what are system needs them to be.

They are not crusaders, they are not social activists - they are advocates.

For every trial lawyer who won a case against a corporation, there was another trial lawyer who was defending the corporation.

I believe that what we need right now is an effective advocate ... and he's been very clear (Edwards) about what and for whom he will be advocating. Like I said, I'm a retired social worker, and a good judge of character, if I do say so myself. Edwards appears to be very sincere about advocating for the poor and middle class; I believe that he will be a very effective advocate there.

...but he is still a trial lawyer who will advocate the position that best serves his purpose.

I'm not interested in an advocate as a President - I'm interested in an executive willing to sacrifice for the common good.

by using the presidency as a 'bully pulpit,' if you will. I want a president who talks constantly about the need for certain types of legislation, and signs those bills when they come to his or her desk.

I don't need an executive who sacrifices personally ... I need one who sacrifices his or her time by constantly raising the issues and the solutions.

An 'advocate' is not the same as a 'liar;' an advocate is effective at articulating a point-of-view. I'm hoping that Edwards will become our next president, and educate all about what needs to be passed.

no one has ever said that about me (far from it).

The situation will, obviously, involve mutual education and discussion.

I'll let Mr. Debi know that he's a whore. :eyes:

There are good and bad in every profession and obviously the legal profession isn't immune to that. But EVERY trial lawyer isn't a shark and not every attorney lacks values and morals. You go ahead and speak for your self on that front.

Every attorney has the ability to say "no" to a case they don't agree with. There is no rule set that every case has to be accepted. And every case does not involve a corporation or financial gain.

...if not, nobody would ever represent murderers, rapists, etc.

As for them being whores - I thought I said that was exactly what they should be.

represent many people who others may opt not to represent.

However, a private practicioner has the option to say yes or no.

...and I don't like many of the people I advocate for, and most of them have no real case, but I advocate for them anyway.

Yes, a private practitioner may say yes or no, but if they all said no to cases they didn't like, the system would fail.

so he has a little more freedom in the cases he takes/turns down. However he does quite a bit of work at no cost that would end up in the Public Defender's office or on the Court Appointed list.

most state bar ethics codes support an attorney not taking a case if that attorney will not be an effective advocate due to his or her belief system.

Moreover, all of the attorneys I know do place themselves in a position in which they will be taking certain kinds of cases or not taking them.

I would not call any of my trial lawyer friends 'whores;' they take the cases that they believe in (by positioning themselves in certain jobs or practices), and they zealously fight for their clients' interests. This involves passion, COMpassion and commitment, not typically the traits of 'whores.'

...yeah...that sounds "progressive" as hell.

Do me a favor next time you want to opine about the wonderful trial lawyers making millions in frivilous suits against the evil corporations - first, go down to your local legal aid office and see what those guys think of the "social crusaders" taking on big business.

I've volunteered for Legal Aid for quite some time.

I've never an ill word spoken of the trial lawyers (for being trial lawyers, per se; some are not well-liked due to personality issues). Everyone rightfully sets their personal boundaries; as a Master's in Psychology, I would encourage that. To fail to do that would be harmful to others, as well as oneself.

I never mentioned 'evil corporations;' you did. I own several corporations (small ones). That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the unparalleled greed of top officers in many mutinational corporations. Plus, my hubby worked in the oil and gas industry for decades, and I worked for defense contractors for a number of years. We are very aware of the attitudes of top officers in those corporations (the typical attitudes), and would truly enjoy seeing money redirected towards ending poverty in this nation (as opposed to building questionable weapons systems and using our military personnel as ExxonMobil's private oil army).

Plus, I'm not focusing in on those who make millions or upon frivolous lawsuits. You are. I've never heard an attorney refer to 'frivolous' lawsuits ... the ones I know are aware of the rather high bar most lawsuits must meet to continue. Interesting viewpoint you have there.

Oh, well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The interests of trial lawyers and the interests of the people are not the same.

It is extremely dishonest for trial lawyers to claim that they are somehow better than any other special interest.

How are trial lawyers interests NOT the interests of those who they represent?

Actually both are special interests in many senses, but the hospitals at least are not making false claims here.

and harms them. Or a surgeon injures or kills a patient on the operating table. Or when a mistake is made and the medical professional 'lies' on the patients chart (or worse go back and change what they charted to 'cover their tracks'). Do you mean when a hospital administration fights against their nurses or support staff so that the 'corporation' that the hospital is can make a profit at the expense of the patients that the hospital is responsible for?

And what false claims are you talking about?

And actually lawyers make the hospital more dangerous

In the normal complaint a patient may have against the hospital, any legal recourse is not financially viable. It is only the extraordinary complaints that proceed. This gives the hospital every incentive to be secretive. Quality control can only be practiced with an open policy and lawsuits preclude an open policy.

:eyes:

I have many friends who are trial lawyers. I'm left of Kucinich ... yet all my trial-lawyer friends make me look centrist!

They are about sticking up for their clients' fundamental rights. Period.

a RW attack. :eyes:

Silliness at its silliest!

were Democrats.

It sucks what the RW asshats have done to a proud and progressive minded profession. Anyone that believes we should first kill all the lawyers, needs to study context.

Lawyers get such an unjustified bad rap.

Tort reform, making filing law suits more difficult and caps on damages awards.

A lot of the negative "trial lawyer" speak comes from the Big Guys!