Article: Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money

[chrpai]

Well said. IMO, the difference between an evil lawyer and a good lawyer is which one represents you!

 

[gypsyjim]

Well said. IMO, the difference between an evil lawyer and a good lawyer is which one represents you!

There is way too much truth in that statement for comfort.

When facing a divorce many years ago now, I hired a lawyer who I knew as a customer, not because I particularly wanted him as my lawyer, but because I realized that if I did not hire him, I would be facing him, as my soon to be X had expressed admiration in the past for his tactics.

This was a nasty lawyer who really did make things worse than they needed to be, but I knew I that made the correct move (since he would have been in that courtroom either way), when the X let it slip that I "hired him before she could". (in her own words).

 

[mblazer]

Well said. IMO, the difference between an evil lawyer and a good lawyer is which one represents you!

Well, at least we're not arguing about HOG products.

With respect to the subject at hand, I'll say first that I've been a trial lawyer for 31 years. I don't do personal injury work, but I know plenty who do. I've lost count of the number of clients that I've turned down because their "claim" was either baseless or because, even if it had merit, there was some other reason why it would not be successful. I'm quite sure most of those people found other lawyers who were more than willing to take their money. It's with that background in mind that I can with great confidence tell you the fundamental difference between an "evil" lawyer and a good lawyer - it's the same as with regular people - some are good and some are "evil". Some are in it to do the best job they can for their clients, and some are in it just for themselves. I've dealt with both kinds and, in my experience, the good outnumber the "evil". There are a lot of reasons why the bad ones do what they do ("evil" is just too biblical in this context), most fundamentally the fact that our system of justice and human nature allow for it, and the vast majority of judges, at least at the state court level, are unwilling to do anything about it. On the flip side, too heavy a filter on lawsuits could also prevent the litigation of cases that are trying to break new ground or change bad precedent.

With all that said, John Chatterton's story about his friend is one that I've heard and witnessed countless times. Do I consider it a rant? No, it's an expression of frustration at a system that allows this sort of thing. I've never met Chatterton, but I've read the books about him and even communicated with him with questions about his advanced wreck class. From everything I've read and heard from those who have met him, he is a decent, stand-up guy. I also appreciate the fact that he has a forum like this to post his story -- tossing stones about his relationship with a moderator is just plain asinine.

But even that is not the point of what is now becoming my rant. I've heard all the lawyer jokes you can think of, and some you probably can't, in my 31 years. Is this attitude deserved? Sadly it often is, because it's the scumbags who routinely get all the press...just like the bad DMs and instructors. You rarely hear about the good ones, because there is nothing notorious about what they are doing. But when you start to trash the entire profession, just think about where this country would be without the lawyers who came before us -- like, for example, your right to rant on a public forum. There a good saying that some of us share - the American legal system is the worst in the world, except for all the other ones.

Regarding liability releases and their binding effect, I can only tell you that I have litigated that issue and they are effective. I can't speculate about what happened in this case, but it was after all in Texas, so who knows? Rant over.

 

[Wookie]

Regarding liability releases and their binding effect, I can only tell you that I have litigated that issue and they are effective. I can't speculate about what happened in this case, but it was after all in Texas, so who knows? Rant over.

My insurance company (who happens to be Richie's insurance company) believe that Texas is a Plaintiff's state, meaning, the jury sides with the plaintiff more often than the defendant. For Richie to have received a positive outcome in Texas means that he had a great lawyer, and that the case was baseless. Jury selection took almost a week, I'm told.

 

[doctormike]

just think about where this country would be without the lawyers who came before us -- like, for example, your right to rant on a public forum. There a good saying that some of us share - the American legal system is the worst in the world, except for all the other ones.

Regarding liability releases and their binding effect, I can only tell you that I have litigated that issue and they are effective. I can't speculate about what happened in this case, but it was after all in Texas, so who knows? Rant over.

+1

First of all, I have great respect for John Chatterton (I had the privilege of meeting him on a dive boat last season), and his story of what Richie had to go through was terrifying. I can't imagine ANYONE having true liability for a death like that, certainly not the organizer of a dive trip, but that call is above my pay grade. I'm glad that he took the time to write it up and to let us know what's out there.

I just want to caution against people who read stories like that and make sweeping conclusions about liability in general and the legal profession's approach to personal injury.

I'm a surgeon. I'm certainly not predisposed to have a lot of love for plaintiffs lawyers, but I have to say that people really DO get injured through negligence - by doctors, by scuba instructors, by manufacturers, by drug companies, even by other lawyers. And lots of time people who suffer real damages, with real world costs (monetary and otherwise) never get any relief.

I'm just saying that it's SO easy to say that ALL personal injury litigation is a scam, and that ALL lawyers are crooks, because most of us don't really see what goes on in ordinary lives every day. It's an cheap shot for stand up comics, politicians and ranters everywhere to just say that the answer is simply tort reform, if we stop all of these frivolous lawsuits, everything will be fine. And I do agree that for TRULY frivolous cases, the plaintiff SHOULD be on the hook for the defendants costs. But we only hear about the egregious ones, and we don't hear about the good that some of these cases actually do.

Reminds me of the late, great George Carlin's piece about politicians (another easy target):

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. **** Hope.'"​

​

 

[rhwestfall]

there are good and bad ones????? Good god, which one did I marry????? :nailbiter:

 

[gypsyjim]

there are good and bad ones????? Good god, which one did I marry????? :nailbiter:

Hopefully, the one you wanted to let get that close to you, til death......

 

[Dr. Lecter]

We will never see any sort of Torte Reform

Mmm, delicious torte.

I'll preface my only other remark with an acknowledgment that while I really like diving, especially deep wrecks, my profession is litigation generally and financial institutions’ criminal defense/investigation more specifically. While I have nothing but respect for Chatterton's ability as a diver generally and admiration for his approach to deep wreck diving specifically, the article reaffirms the basic truth of the old saying "let the shoemaker stick to his last!”

Nothing about litigation is as badly unfair as this article makes it out to be, and if the author prefers a 'loser pays' legal system, leaving America and returning to the Crown is always his option. And in an echo of the Carlin quote above, the people to blame for this kind of potential liability are neither the lawyers, nor the judges, nor the plaintiffs: the ones to blame are the mouth-breathers on the juries that have kept voting in favor of expanded liability for stuff nobody but the poor sod who died should be left holding the bag for.

 

[HowardE]

Ah, argument of authority and attack the person not the opinion. Connections? Yes.... your personal dive buddy.

I don't really weigh your opinion in much regard at all to be honest chrpai. Quite frankly, there are many authors of articles that are posted on the homepage of ScubaBoard. John is one who has that privilege. He certainly doesn't need help from me in attaining notoriety or gaining privilege on ScubaBoard now does he? Whether I was here or not, and if John wasn't my personal friend or not; His articles would most likely appear on the homepage, if he had the desire to share them. Perhaps he DOES have the desire to share them BECAUSE we're friends, which... isn't that a benefit for all those on SB whom have read it?

I mean, over 2000 people have read his blog today alone (on his website) and yet, the only seagull I see is you.

Thanks for keeping it real.

 

[Wookie]

I don't really weigh your opinion in much regard at all to be honest chrpai. Quite frankly, there are many authors of articles that are posted on the homepage of ScubaBoard. John is one who has that privilege. He certainly doesn't need help from me in attaining notoriety or gaining privilege on ScubaBoard now does he? Whether I was here or not, and if John wasn't my personal friend or not; His articles would most likely appear on the homepage, if he had the desire to share them. Perhaps he DOES have the desire to share them BECAUSE we're friends, which... isn't that a benefit for all those on SB whom have read it?

I mean, over 2000 people have read his blog today alone (on his website) and yet, the only seagull I see is you.

Thanks for keeping it real.

Well, there ya go. I took the thread in a whole different direction, and you had to bring it right back in the ditch.