Role of Lawyers

[Texsox]

I was thinking about b****'s comments about the lawyer that made him puke in his mouth by filing a lawsuit. Just wondering, but is our system really better off if the lawyers become the judges too? Shouldn't everyone have access to our legal system? We should have a way for a Judge to quickly and cheaply dismiss a case, but I would be uncomfortable if we created a system where it was up to the attorneys to determine if someone has an easy to win case or not.

[kapkomet]

I was thinking about b****'s comments about the lawyer that made him puke in his mouth by filing a lawsuit. Just wondering, but is our system really better off if the lawyers become the judges too? Shouldn't everyone have access to our legal system? We should have a way for a Judge to quickly and cheaply dismiss a case, but I would be uncomfortable if we created a system where it was up to the attorneys to determine if someone has an easy to win case or not.

 

Next topic.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I was thinking about b****'s comments about the lawyer that made him puke in his mouth by filing a lawsuit. Just wondering, but is our system really better off if the lawyers become the judges too? Shouldn't everyone have access to our legal system? We should have a way for a Judge to quickly and cheaply dismiss a case, but I would be uncomfortable if we created a system where it was up to the attorneys to determine if someone has an easy to win case or not.

I think it is the ambulance-chaser type of lawyer that gets people riled up. Yes, people file whacky lawsuits, but alot of those wacky ones are thought up by the lawyers themselves, who then go victim-hunting. Everyone should have access to the legal system, but the judges should be allowed to disniss a case quickly if need be.

[Jenksismyhero]

I was thinking about b****'s comments about the lawyer that made him puke in his mouth by filing a lawsuit. Just wondering, but is our system really better off if the lawyers become the judges too? Shouldn't everyone have access to our legal system? We should have a way for a Judge to quickly and cheaply dismiss a case, but I would be uncomfortable if we created a system where it was up to the attorneys to determine if someone has an easy to win case or not.

 

This is the ultimate divide in the legal profession: how much 'justice' do we sacrifice for the sake of efficiency. Personally I'm more on the efficiency side of the argument. I've spent the last few months working as a Law Clerk for an attorney who owns his own firm and has a good steady amount of general practice cases coming in. You'd be amazed at the amount of calls I get (i'm his first line of defense for client intakes) where people think they can sue for anything and everything and are completely shocked and baffled when I tell them thanks for the call but we're not interested. A few goods ones:

 

A guy calls in and said he was fired without cause. He said he urinated in a bottle in front of co-workers but didn't see what the big deal was. He wanted to sue his employer.

 

Another guy called in complaining about being fired without cause. He was "only" late "ten or fifteen minutes at the most" at least "three to four days a week." And my favorite part: "Come on man! Traffic can be a b****!"

 

A woman calls in on behalf of her brother, who had just been stabbed at a Dunkin Donuts. Apparently her brother received his coffee but it was too cold so he asked for another one. A DD employee decided that instead of giving him a coffee he'd give him a good stab in the stomach. Of course their first thought was, gee, can we sue DD for this?

 

It's a tough call but I'd like to see judges use a little more common sense and throw cases out before proceedings get underway. In reality 95% of all cases either get dismissed or settled, but that's still a ton of taxpayer money going to judges, clerks, staff, etc. to deal with cases before there's a resolution.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

I dont see what the problem with the power a judge currently has. After a lawsuit is filed you can motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons. There is summary judgement, there are pleading deficiencies, etc, but the purpose of our court system is to put the rule of law in the hands of the people if that is what the defendant decides.

 

Therefore while the judge has the power to use summary judgment and grant motions to dismiss, it is 1) only in cases where there really is no argument to be made, 2) it is often not reported because even Westlaw only reports appellate level cases and higher, so you generally do not see a lot of information on the cases that the judge ruled in favor of summary judgment (except for an appeal of the summary judgment but even in those cases it is then rare for that person to go and actually win).

 

And court costs are pretty expensive, just to open a case at Daley Center is like $194 and that is for less than $10k, if you want more money or to go to a more expensive division (ie law which at Daley center just means civil for more money strange how they label things) the court costs alone start to rise. Then you are paying an attorney, etc.

 

I guess I just think that while you could speed things up make them cheaper, you start to erode the entire system. The point is that some times juries, people, will disagree with a judge, and that is why it is imperative to allow even cases with a slim chance to be taken to trial. On the other hand, if it is a bench trial (no jury) then it some times does seem odd to play out the game when the judge already knows the results.

[sox4lifeinPA]

That is the best case of bad customer service ever....

 

"oh, the coffee is too cold?"

 

*STAB*

 

"I bet it's just right, now!"

[Controlled Chaos]

This is the ultimate divide in the legal profession: how much 'justice' do we sacrifice for the sake of efficiency. Personally I'm more on the efficiency side of the argument. I've spent the last few months working as a Law Clerk for an attorney who owns his own firm and has a good steady amount of general practice cases coming in. You'd be amazed at the amount of calls I get (i'm his first line of defense for client intakes) where people think they can sue for anything and everything and are completely shocked and baffled when I tell them thanks for the call but we're not interested. A few goods ones:

 

A guy calls in and said he was fired without cause. He said he urinated in a bottle in front of co-workers but didn't see what the big deal was. He wanted to sue his employer.

 

Another guy called in complaining about being fired without cause. He was "only" late "ten or fifteen minutes at the most" at least "three to four days a week." And my favorite part: "Come on man! Traffic can be a b****!"

 

A woman calls in on behalf of her brother, who had just been stabbed at a Dunkin Donuts. Apparently her brother received his coffee but it was too cold so he asked for another one. A DD employee decided that instead of giving him a coffee he'd give him a good stab in the stomach. Of course their first thought was, gee, can we sue DD for this?

 

It's a tough call but I'd like to see judges use a little more common sense and throw cases out before proceedings get underway. In reality 95% of all cases either get dismissed or settled, but that's still a ton of taxpayer money going to judges, clerks, staff, etc. to deal with cases before there's a resolution.

 

On the DD one, they can sue DD and prolly win correct?? I mean I can see it being a BS lawsuit if they tried suing DD over a random stabbing in their store, but if it was their employee, I would think they have a case.

 

[Soxbadger]

Itd be hard to win on the DD case.

 

Normally the law of respondeat superior states that the principal (employer) is liable for the torts of his agent (employee) while they are working for the benefit of the principal.

 

An exception to this rule is when the tort is outside the ordinary/customary role of the employee, so as not to give the employer unlimited liability. In this case (as compared to a bouncer or some sort of job where physical contact may be required) an employee stabbing another person seems to be so far outside of the scope of his employment that it would be hard to find the DD shop liable.

 

I mean there is a whole huge list of facts that I could go through to perhaps try and find a way to get around the general legal principle that it is outside the scope of employment, but they would have to be facts that were present. IE if the DD employee had a criminal record of violence, then perhaps argue in the alternative that DD negligently hired some one.

 

But generally stabbing is not considered covered (most intentional torts are not good respondeat superior cases).

Edited August 20, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

On the DD one, they can sue DD and prolly win correct?? I mean I can see it being a BS lawsuit if they tried suing DD over a random stabbing in their store, but if it was their employee, I would think they have a case.

 

 

There's an argument to be made I suppose, but it's highly unlikely. Stabbing someone isn't exactly a normal day to day activity of an employee. Unless Dunkin Donuts knew of some severe stabbing problem with this guy I don't see how they could be held liable. But hey, I guarantee some lawyer somewhere in this city is going to try.

 

And reading over the thread I think I took my original post in the wrong direction. I think TexSox you were asking about non-judges giving opinions like judges in what should/should not make it to court, specifically lawyers. I would still argue yes. It doesn't take someone with an IQ of 150 to be a lawyer, but to practice law you do need to learn certain skills and learn precedent. From this a lawyer has a higher knowledge of the law than everyone else. If I work on 200 slip and fall cases in Illinois, I can probably give you a guess of what a judge or jury in Illinois might rule in any particular case, with a high rate of success.

 

I haven't worked on a lot of discrimination/free speech cases, but from what I know of the law, the Rutgers bball player has no case. Sure the lawyer can argue until he/she is blue in the face, but she suffered neither damages nor any loss of reputation over it. I'm not belittling someone who was "singled out" (even though in this case she wasn't alone). I puked in my mouth because it was a perfect example of why this country sucks sometimes. Instead of going after Imus in productive ways, she decides to "collect" on her "misfortune" by suing. What’s worse is that a lawyer actually picked up the case. What's even more worse is that Imus and his lawyers will probably settle just to get her to go away.

 

[Soxbadger]

I dont really see how you could sue Imus. Last I checked insulting some one is not a recoverable offense, not to mention truth is a defense to slander/defamation and what he said while offensive was basically true.

 

Also there are other problems with the lawsuit, id argue that by being basketball players they were in the public eye and therefore Imus would have to have malice in his statements (knowledge of their falsity), etc etc. Not to mention the problem of damages, and it just is a waste.

 

But when racial motives are involved generally cases are not so clear cut.

 

IE

 

If some one called a Walton a ginger or a redheaded whitey, I doubt that anyone would even care.

[Balance]

Itd be hard to win on the DD case.

 

Normally the law of respondeat superior states that the principal (employer) is liable for the torts of his agent (employee) while they are working for the benefit of the principal.

 

An exception to this rule is when the tort is outside the ordinary/customary role of the employee, so as not to give the employer unlimited liability. In this case (as compared to a bouncer or some sort of job where physical contact may be required) an employee stabbing another person seems to be so far outside of the scope of his employment that it would be hard to find the DD shop liable.

 

I mean there is a whole huge list of facts that I could go through to perhaps try and find a way to get around the general legal principle that it is outside the scope of employment, but they would have to be facts that were present. IE if the DD employee had a criminal record of violence, then perhaps argue in the alternative that DD negligently hired some one.

 

But generally stabbing is not considered covered (most intentional torts are not good respondeat superior cases).

 

You forgot about filing a negligent hiring and/or negligent supervision action against DD. That would have a better chance of success than a straight respondeat superior case.

[Jenksismyhero]

You forgot about filing a negligent hiring and/or negligent supervision action against DD. That would have a better chance of success than a straight respondeat superior case.

 

That would hinge on whether he had a prior criminal record. But even then there would have to be proof that he had a sever anger problem and took physical action before. Not just any record will do, it's got to be something related to the stabbing.

[Soxbadger]

I didnt forget it,

 

I mean there is a whole huge list of facts that I could go through to perhaps try and find a way to get around the general legal principle that it is outside the scope of employment, but they would have to be facts that were present. IE if the DD employee had a criminal record of violence, then perhaps argue in the alternative that DD negligently hired some one.

 

As for negligent supervision, I dont really think that this is a case where you could say that some sort of supervision would have prevented it. I mean its not construction, or something where you are evaluating the work done, and bad work could result in injury. This is a person just stabbing some one for really no reason, unless the manager was physically standing between the customer and person, there is nothing they could do.

[Balance]

I didnt forget it,

You're right. I probably sped right past that. Sorry.

[Texsox]

Here is the danger as I see it when attorneys are the first line of defense. If the case isn't profitable, it will probably have a lower chance of making it to court than an equally uphill battle without money. I prefer a system where attorneys and clients have a clear path to a judge, and that judge has an easy and cheap way to dismiss it.

 

"Mr. Brown, I just don't see that you could win this case against the Topeka School Board".

[Soxbadger]

Np I figured you just had skimmed and didnt see it.

 

Im lazy reading posts also.

[EvilMonkey]

"Mr. Brown, I just don't see that you could win this case against the Topeka School Board".

It's hooooooooooot, in Topeka.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here is the danger as I see it when attorneys are the first line of defense. If the case isn't profitable, it will probably have a lower chance of making it to court than an equally uphill battle without money. I prefer a system where attorneys and clients have a clear path to a judge, and that judge has an easy and cheap way to dismiss it.

 

"Mr. Brown, I just don't see that you could win this case against the Topeka School Board".

 

 

But that's how the system works now. You come to me with a problem, I decide if I want to take the case on or not based on a number of factors: how much work, how serious is the case, how much profit will I get, what do I already have on my docket, etc etc. Lawyers make the value judgement of whether a case is good or not as soon as we hear the facts. And to me that's good because we can weed out the crap cases that a lot of people want to bring.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

And most cases you can bring Pro Se, youll most likely get beat down bad, but atleast you can step on the field.

[Jenksismyhero]

And most cases you can bring Pro Se, youll most likely get beat down bad, but atleast you can step on the field.

 

 

Honestly that's my biggest complaint of the "system" thus far. I've got one semester left before I'm done with school, have been a clerk for about 6 months for one guy (so I'm getting 10 times the hands on experience that someone at a big firm is getting) and I've appeared in court 2-3 times a week in those 6 months. Even now when I go to court sometimes I dunno what the hell to do. There's so many steps, so much paperwork, so many procedures that's its difficult for someone like me, with the education and experience, to go do something there. I feel sorry for pro se parties because they don't have a clue what's going on. Luckily there are some judges who will essentially halt proceedings and tell the guy/girl "I can't give you advice, but look at this piece of paper, go call this number or go down to the 13th floor and get yourself some adequate representation."

 

These situations are especially bad in foreclosure and bankruptcy cases. People lose their homes everyday and they always go up against the big banks and their high-priced attorneys. They don't know any of the defenses they can bring, they don't know the time table for foreclosures...they don't know crap, and because the judges have sooooo many cases everyday it's hard for them to be of much assistance. It's sad to watch people lose their homes in 35 seconds. But I suppose that's one reason why you should pay your bills and think before you sign on the dotted line.

[Texsox]

At the root of this, is a very pleasant fact. We have such a complecated system and soooo many attorneys, because we have soooo many rights as citizens. And that is a damn good thing.

 

BTW, I am a big fan of attorneys who work on both sides of the aisle. The system works best when the defendant is able to mount a vigorous defense.