I am presently in divorce in Massachusetts ( a no-fault divorce state) and I can honestly say that lawyers are the scum of the earth. Their ability to bend the law to their will and schedule is amazing. Their lies are unchecked. I am rapidly losing faith in our legal system. Has anyone found a way to address this kind of a problem (without a weapon)?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
why aren't lawyers regulated?
- Thread starter bwanaaa
- Start date
Contact the state bar and file a complaint. Oh, this is against all lawyers? Can't help you there.
PS: They are regulated. They (most) follow the laws of practice, if you don't like those laws or think they can be interpreted in a mis-construed way, contact you representative and let them know how you feel. Lawyers are just following the rules and trying to benefit the person that hired them in anyway they can, that is why you hire them.
PS: They are regulated. They (most) follow the laws of practice, if you don't like those laws or think they can be interpreted in a mis-construed way, contact you representative and let them know how you feel. Lawyers are just following the rules and trying to benefit the person that hired them in anyway they can, that is why you hire them.
I have indeed contacted the state bar-it is a joke, even in a lawyer rich state like MA. Compared to the malpractice awards against physicians, attorneys are getting off scott-free. We need attorneys for real estate transactions, divorce, inheritance. Their behavior has no guideline or code that is concrete. They function according to their own interpretation of the law. Timetables mean nothing to them. Accountability is something they let their accountants handle.
This is highly technical because attorneys have managed to evade responsibility with a sleight of hand that is no less than miraculous.
This is highly technical because attorneys have managed to evade responsibility with a sleight of hand that is no less than miraculous.
Lawyers are regulated, and they do not get off scott free. People think that physicians are being slapped with frivilous suits, but if that were true then the physicians would get off. Why? Well obviously, if the suit is frivilous then it will be thrown out. If it is not frivilous, then a jury of around 12 people will decide the outcome - so it's normal people like you and me who are determine liability of a physician and they are the ones who decide on the damage award. Further, the only times physicians lose in excess of a few million is when there was gross negligence - like leaving a spounge in a patient; or removing the wrong patients breasts; or giving a dying 12yr old girl in need of a heart transplant the wrong blood type and she dies. Those are the incredible damage awards you hear about, and those damages are at least in my opinion justified.
Lawyers are free to interpret the law as they see fit; but it is the judge who determines if their intepretation is correct or not. It's a lot less of a "free-for-all" than one would think.
Additionally, timetables do indeed mean something to lawyers. If a lawyer files a claim late after the statute of limitations has run, he is liable for malpractice and also has violated his ethical duty to his client. Lawyers also don't have accountants. They handle accountability ourselves. If another lawyer has violated one of the state's ehtics rules, it is a fellow lawyer's duty to report that violation, and in some cases if he fails to do so he too can be sanctioned.
And bwanaaa, it is the lawyer's duty to his client to zealously represent him to the full extent of the law. Any less than that is an ethical violation, which results in dicipline. But the most important thing to keep in mind again is simply that lawyers do not make the law. The legislature does. Lawyers intrepret it and present the judge with their interpretation and it's up to the judge to decide if that interpretation is correct or not.
HERE is a link to the MASSACHUSETTS rules of professional conduct which every lawyer licensed in that state must follow. Failure to follow them can result in sanctions and fines. Don't try to use this though. You should talk to your current lawyer regarding any ethical violations of your spouses lawyer. I've simply posted it to show you that lawyers do indeed have rules they must follow.
And quoting from R1.3 The lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law.
You forget, the state bar is full of lawyers, like they will be any help.
Solution, hope to god Bush can get some kinds of Tort reform in before 2008. This will not stop all lawyers, but it will be a good shot over the bow as a warning to the rest of them. Because if he doesn't do it, no one will, not the Democrats of course because their largest PAC is the Trial Lawyers Association.
Solution, hope to god Bush can get some kinds of Tort reform in before 2008. This will not stop all lawyers, but it will be a good shot over the bow as a warning to the rest of them. Because if he doesn't do it, no one will, not the Democrats of course because their largest PAC is the Trial Lawyers Association.
I think that speaks for itself. This is the problem. Attorneys protect themselves through obfuscation. Any legal dispute is really a dispute of pocketbooks, and attorneys know that. Run out of money and your own attorney will take away your house to get his fees. No physician denies care for inability to pay.
Physician reimbursement is set by the government (medicare) and HMOs follow their price schedule as well. Attorneys charge >$250/hour (>$400/hour in Boston) with a $7,500 to $10,000 retainer up front to handle a divorce. In the US, >60% marriages end up in divorce. Fewer people require heart surgery, mastectomy, and appendectomy combined.
I am sorry for the moderator who probably feels like he should ban me for this OFF TOPIC rant and I apologize. I was hoping that some truly computer literate genius would find a HIGHLY TECHNICAL way to measure and mete out justice. Because our justice system is broken.
Well, my wife is lawyer, and I can honestly say that I'm proud to be married to her *because* of the profession that she is in, and more accurately, the way that she conducts herself within that field of practice.
Frankly it's as irresponsible to make sweeping generalizations such as "all lawyers are scum of the Earth", as it is to classify ANY group of people based on their profession, color, religion, etc. Are there jerks and sleeze out there that fit your description? Sure. But there are plenty of others that actually DO follow a code of ethics and represent their clients to the best of their ability without playing games or "bending the law to their will".
irwincur - yeah, Texas' limit to "frivelous lawsuits" over medical malpractice is great isn't it ? Oops, the doctor removed a limb instead of removing my tonsils --- well, at least that doctor is protected by a monetary limit ($250,000) to what he can sued for --- I'm SURE he'll be more careful next time, and that $250,000 sure does compensate me for the loss of an arm or leg.
Tort reform can easily lead to lack of accountability if not implemented correctly, and can only serve to protect insurance companies.
Frankly it's as irresponsible to make sweeping generalizations such as "all lawyers are scum of the Earth", as it is to classify ANY group of people based on their profession, color, religion, etc. Are there jerks and sleeze out there that fit your description? Sure. But there are plenty of others that actually DO follow a code of ethics and represent their clients to the best of their ability without playing games or "bending the law to their will".
irwincur - yeah, Texas' limit to "frivelous lawsuits" over medical malpractice is great isn't it ? Oops, the doctor removed a limb instead of removing my tonsils --- well, at least that doctor is protected by a monetary limit ($250,000) to what he can sued for --- I'm SURE he'll be more careful next time, and that $250,000 sure does compensate me for the loss of an arm or leg.
Tort reform can easily lead to lack of accountability if not implemented correctly, and can only serve to protect insurance companies.
@irwincur
And judges are lawyers too; what's your point? Bush is an idiot by the way - I'm sorry, but he simply is. I'm clueless why 50+ million people voted for him. I watched the debates. He told me 100 times that (1) the war was going great; (2) the economy is doing great; (3) we have tons new jobs; (4) iraq was an imminent threat to us... and incredibly, 50+ million people believed this. I'm not for any party; I just vote for intelligent people. And bush just didn't come across as too inteligent and truthful.
Anyway, tort reform will do little. Again, you read about these multimillion cases, but they are few and far between. Plus think about it. You are being sued for leaving a fork in someone's chest. You have millions so you hire an expensive attorney. The attorney the victim will need will work on contingent basis for roughly 40%. The doctor's lawyer will try his best to prove his doctor is not liable and it will end up costing a lot of money in fees - which is only normal due to the nature of the case. Let's say the victim wins 10million. Instantly, he must pay about 50% in taxes. That drops him to 5million. Then he has to pay 40% to his laywer, which is 4 million. And that leaves him with about 1million. The lawyers then have to pay the lawyers who worked on the case. For a high profile case like that about 4 lawyers worked on it. Give them all 1mill each for this case which took about 2yrs to complete. They then pay taxes on 50% bringing it down to $500k each. Then they pay the firm a good 50%, bringing their grand total for this case for 2yrs of work to 250k each. If you consider you are a high profile lawyer working on a case for 2 years (granted you have other cases) that's not an incredibly high amount; it's a lot ($125k / yr) but it's nothing incredible.
@bwanaaa
$400hr for a divorce action seems INCREDIBLY high. Granted if you hire OJ's lawyer then sure, you're going to be paying that much. But you don't need someone like that for divorce case. Honestly, you should easily be able to find a lawyer for under or around $200hr for it. And regarding the retainer, yes it may seem like a lot, but it's all used towards the fees. So if you pay a $10k retainer, and only get 10hrs of work, then he will owe you $8k back assuming $200hr. But anway, you need to look harder if you can't find a lawyer for a divorce action under $400/hr.
I do not debate that there are good people lured into careers that are monetarily driven without real benefit to their clients. I just do not think lawyers serve their clients.
Do you think, for example, that women's rights are the result of affirmative action or legal efforts? At the turn of the 20th century women were a terrible employment risk - pregnancy with a 20% mortality, recurrent urinary infections and gynecologic disorders -made them useless in jobs that required timely, reliable appearance at work. Without modern antibiotics, modern healthcare and without improvements in the workplace, women would still be at a biologic and physical disadvantage in the workplace. Law had nothing to do with it. Laws stated the obvious.
What I am hoping from this forum (is it true the word forum comes from the Roman "a room to watch people die"?) , is a TECHNICAL solution to solving the problem of the wolves guarding the henhouse-which is where we are with lawyers and the law.
Do you think, for example, that women's rights are the result of affirmative action or legal efforts? At the turn of the 20th century women were a terrible employment risk - pregnancy with a 20% mortality, recurrent urinary infections and gynecologic disorders -made them useless in jobs that required timely, reliable appearance at work. Without modern antibiotics, modern healthcare and without improvements in the workplace, women would still be at a biologic and physical disadvantage in the workplace. Law had nothing to do with it. Laws stated the obvious.
What I am hoping from this forum (is it true the word forum comes from the Roman "a room to watch people die"?) , is a TECHNICAL solution to solving the problem of the wolves guarding the henhouse-which is where we are with lawyers and the law.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
