The first email I received today was a trackback to our intro post from 'Cynical Joe' who challenged us to stop navel-gazing about blogging and instead write about how 'insurance lawyers' 'compound the problem' and big firms do other bad things, etc.
Well, we had our reasons for choosing those topics first, but Joe has a point. Let's talk about something real.
His post reminded me of something.
Two years ago four of us bloggers (including Denise) were profiled in the ABA. Three of us (not including Denise) had Jewish surnames.
A white supremacist linked to the article on his website and discussed each of us in turn as further proof of What's Wrong With This Country (he had trouble proving that point with me because trademark law isn't one of the real seats of power). If you read between the lines, it seems that he had had some unpleasant run-in with lawyers in his life.
Last year I wrote a piece on the Trademark Blog. The nominal subject was Michael Moore but I was making an arcane point about trademark law.
Although the post didn't express a view on Moore himself, this prompted an email from someone calling me a greedy Jewish lawyer (my guess is that he assumed that I was pro-Moore, which I'm not).
I wrote back, not contesting the Jewish and Lawyer bit but asking him what I had done to make him think I was greedy.
He wrote back and indicated that I was from New York. Touche.
He further argued that (1) Jews should show more gratitude to the U.S. for protecting Israel; (2) the rising price of oil at the time proved that the Bush family did not control the price of oil; and, (3) in his past, he had also had a bad run-in with a lawyer. I dimly recall that in his view, a lawyer had cheated him out of an inheritance.
This from his work email at a large telecommunications company, where he appeared to have a middle-management position.
But, I don't want to talk about the Jewish thing, I want to talk about the lawyer thing.
A couple of years ago a beer company had a commercial that featured 'fantasy' TV shows. One was about lawyer rodeo, where a cowboy roped a lawyer.
Imagine that commercial where instead of a lawyer, any other identifiable member of society, perhaps a minority or a woman, was roped like an animal, and then the implicit hatred behind that commercial becomes apparent.
Is hatred of lawyers socially acceptable because of a belief that they have all the power?
Is hatred of lawyers prevalent because many encounters with the legal system are involuntary, and we resent people benefitting from our misfortune?
Does the hatred 'come with the territory' and we should just suck it up?
Well, to a certain extent, probably.
But socially acceptable hatred of a class isn't good for the hated or the haters.
For example, when proponents of 'tort reform' ram through what they characterize as 'anti-frivolous lawsuit' legislation, they are counting in part that voters will not view the proposals on the merits, but will instead support it because they hate 'the trial lawyers.'
And how many people have used the expression "let's not get the lawyers involved" not because they desired expediency but because, well, because they wanted to screw you.
OK, this blogosphere is inter-active. Let's talk about how and why lawyers are hated.
And let's talk about whether lawyers can, through their blogs, practice and promote judicious thought.
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
1. david giacalone on March 30, 2005 1:02 PM writes...
We sure can't accuse you of asking easy questions, Marty. Having just spent the entire morning at this website (thanks in part to a crash of my computer that ate a long, much-research Comment), I can only point to a posting of mine that addresses many of the issues: First Thing . . . Let's Quell All the Liars.
I'm not optimistic about lawyer weblogs changing many minds -- most folks look for sites that confirm their biases, and the discerning person already knows better than to have broad stereotypes about any group, especially one with over a million members (who play innumerable roles and have vastly varied personalities and values). As I say in my piece, we need more PR: but we don't need more public relations (it often backfires), we need more professional responsibility. And, add Personal Relationships of mutual trust and respect with our clients -- one client at a time.
Permalink to Comment2. Dave! on March 30, 2005 1:20 PM writes...
Good post... but instead of going down the "let's compare lawyer bashing to minority bashing" why not an analogy that's a little closer to home: law enforcement.
Would it be okay to show the commercial of a cowboy roping a cop? Making pig squeal noises at a hog-tied police officer? Probably not.
Well, lawyers, just like police officers, are part of the law enforcement system. Yes, lawyers don't all operate in the criminal realm, but I think many of the same people who laugh at the hog-tied lawyer would be aghast at the same image with a cop.
Then again, the white supremacist movement probably wouldn't have a problem with it, or a black woman, for that matter.
But I think the single best thing lawyers can do to counter-act the image that they are all money grubbing no-goodniks is to be the opposite; serve your clients well. Remember that the law *is* a customer service occupation. That doesn't mean always doing what the customer wants, if what they want is patently ridiculous, it means being an advocate for them, and providing them with the best service you can while being forthright and compassionate. If more people had interactions like that with their attorneys, or even with opposing counsel, they'd be quicker to defend attorneys.
Permalink to Comment3. Brian J. Smith on March 30, 2005 5:13 PM writes...
Just one minor note: I was captivated by your post UNTIL you did the exact same thing that you accused other of doing to lawyers - you bashed big business.
As a potential lawyer myself, I have often wondered if changing career fields was worth the ire of the rest of the world. I wondered if I would just become another lawyer joke. It dawned on me that lawyers are not necessarily lawyers; they are business men whose product is legal in nature. I am convinced that this is correct the more law school classes that I take. So, it seems to me that bashing big business is bashing lawyers too. Or perhaps your comments were directed at the U.S. Congress. But they are mostly lawyers too. If my question is not too obvious by now - were you meaning to bash lawyers too when you made your remark?
Just my two cents - I probably get change back, huh?
Permalink to Comment4. William Wilson on March 31, 2005 8:32 AM writes...
Marty's observations are on target, but the bias against lawyers has been around for so long I am unsure that lawyers working in the blogosphere will have much of an effect. Also, I am unsure how we measure the "circulation" that blogs have among "ordinary" people. To some extent, bloggers could be communicating among themselves (the "echo chamber"), but that does not translate into the market share of a cnn.com.
Permalink to Comment5. Greatest American Lawyer on March 31, 2005 9:09 AM writes...
People hate lawyers in part because it is fashionable, because we are such an easy targets for rhetoric and for legitimate reasons created by direct negative experiences. Just look at the damage the insurance companies are doing to our profession through their tort reform marketing campaign. But lawyers also bring it upon themselves. Hourly billing drives a legal process which is often at odds with the client's interest. Clients know when their lawyer is more interested in collecting money at the end of the billing cycle than solving their particular problem.
Lawyers will evolve through this negative perception only when they become a resource to society and embrace their higher role as professionals. I have written on this previously. People expect more than capitalism from their lawyer.
People who propose tort reform often say they just feel there is something wrong with allowing our justice system to run on the same principles as capitalism as say, an automotive vendor, insurance salesman or store owner. Doesn't the legal profession require something more than profit motive?
When the practice of law is measured by the number of hours billed times an hourly rate, it is easy for the less tangible expectations to get lost. In many firms, 'hourly billing' becomes a standard in itself. The presumption is that only clients who think they received value come back for more legal services. But most people need a lawyer once in their life. They don't have the luxury of taking their next legal case elsewhere. The stakes on a clients one and only case are usually very high. You only get one chance to win your case. There are usually no 'do overs.' The wrong choice can be costly, especially by the hour!
People love it when they find free information listed on legal blogs; when they can educate themselves on their legal rights. Blogs are a great first step to demystify the law and make it more accessible to the masses.
Permalink to Comment6. Cynical Joe on March 31, 2005 10:52 AM writes...
Good morning guys, and by the way I am reading. I get a chance to view blogs and for my money (but they are free, I know I know) the best ones are the seeminly mundane ones. The 702 blog which refers to Daubert rulings & the 10b-5 daily are information driven. I read them each morning. The sctriallaw site works with good information.
It seems to me that if in fact the mission of this joint blog is to show the inner workings, to tear down the wall, then aspiring to something more than blogging and links to other bloggers is in order?
The public generally does not know that USDCT law clerks do much of the heavy lifting for USDCT judges for example. Why is that?
The public I deal with is often shocked at how insurance companies don't pay for medical bills as they are incurred. Why? I tell them there is no legal obligation to do so.
I am just not sure if this blog of yours is aimed to educate and inform the laypeople out there or to attorneys, or to law students.
I'll be reading.
Permalink to Comment7. Denise Howell on March 31, 2005 11:41 AM writes...
Hi Cynical, (may I call you CJ?)
It seems like you'd like to see us take on the role of the Drudge Report of the legal profession. I'm sorry if my intro post somehow led you to believe that's what would go on here, that certainly wasn't my intention. Instead, part of what we're going to do is have conversations here that we might otherwise have had only by email. If you don't like or approve of the subject matter of the conversations, there's not much we can do about that. That's not to say we're going to shy away from tough issues that fall within our areas of interest and expertise. We're glad you're reading and hope you'll continue to do so, it's good to have the reminder to keep things real.
Permalink to Comment8. EK on March 31, 2005 6:03 PM writes...
Lawyers are an important and necessary part of society. But as an ordinary citizen, I've encoutered two aspects of the legal profession I don't much like. Obviously, not all lawyers are responsible for these problems.
* One-Sided Agreements
Most employers have standard contracts, drafted by in-house counsel. Most companies which sell mass-market products have (in the absence of regulation) standard license agreements. These agreements are often non-negotiable, and they're nearly always *ridiculously* one-sided. Some lawyer had to draft these agreements.
To add insult to injury, most of these non-negotiable contracts are unreadable by the average person. This creates the impression that ordinary people are subject to unfair, incomprehensible rules for the benefit of others.
As an occasional client of the legal profession, I've generally asked for my contracts to be drafted in fashion fair to both parties. I won't insult a customer by handing them a raw deal.
* Rent Seeking
There's an old cliche which claims: Politicians are often lawyers, and they write laws which keep lawyers employed. Some of this is simply inevitable. (Who else is going to write laws? Vetinarians?) But there's also a grain of truth here.
Similarly, the ongoing extension of IP law around the globe (software patents, for example) seems to be largely driven by law firms which hope for lucrative new business. But not every possible IP regime is in the public interest, as peer-reviewed economics papers have demonstrated.
These issues aside, I have enormous respect for many lawyers, and most judges. Many times, I've seen judges reason carefully and well about intricate technical matters far outside their own expertise. I've seen lawyers work hard to make sure that the law is correctly applied even to unsympathetic clients. Law can be a noble calling.
Permalink to Comment9. Rich on September 11, 2005 8:28 PM writes...
Yes, I must concede at the very least that Lawyers are an essential part of our society. And I hope you folks out there with law degrees will not take umbrage at what I am about to mention, but I believe in being honest. I am a mere (albeit law abiding) working stiff, and people in your class don't consort with people in my comparatively lowly class. I am speaking from experience as I once struck up a conversation with a woman who turned out to be an Attorney. When we exchanged occupational information, she became rather stiff, if not indignant. And when I asked her out, she looked at me as if I did something inappropriate. I promptly walked away from her. And my encounters with other lawyers of both sexes was hardly pleasant. They were arrogant, rude condescending and downright nasty.
Permalink to CommentTherefore, I have as little to do with you people as possible. No offense, but I doubt if anything you people may say in reply will alter my perception of you.
10. gkeene on September 21, 2005 12:10 AM writes...
I stumbled across this site while doing a search on which Shakespear play contained the quotation that is your site's title.
I admit that you have a good point regarding the "lawyer rodeo". However, lawyers are not the only group that is the object of ridicule.
White men are often targets of ridicule and/or abuse in ways that would be unacceptable if the targets were, say, black or female. A good example would be the Robert Mapplethorpe photograhs from a few years ago that posed as "art". One of the photographs was of a naked white man, siting, with the handle of a whip inserted into his anus, viewed from the back. If the subject had been black or female I am sure Mr. Mapplethorpe would have been excoriated by the entire media rather than just a few right-wing members of the media such as Rush Limbaugh.
Another good example is Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", a photograph of a crucifix in a jar filled with a mixture of blood and urine. If he had placed a photograph of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a jar of blood and urine he would have engendered a far more vehement response across the entire political spectrum than he actually did and the photograph would have been heralded as "art" by no one.
As to why lawyers have been roundly disliked or even hated I do have two hypotheses. The first is that the law is complex and complicated and has become increasingly more complex and complicated since the founding of the republic. Most Americans are befuddled and confused by the law. When people need to involve themselves in legal matters they require a lawyer. Humans in general do not like not being in control of their futures or in the control of other people and at those times when they require a lawyer they feel, and probably quite rightly so, at the mercy of their lawyer, opposing lawyers, judges, and the law in general. The legal system seems capricious, harsh and confusing. Since lawyers are the human face of the legal system they receive the scorn of the populace.
My other hypothesis as to why people hate lawyers is because it is a profession that is viewed as parasites. When a story shows up on the internet about someone suing McDonalds because they spilled hot coffee on themselves people think that the individual is a fool who needs to take responsibility for their own actions but they also view the lawyer, and other lawyers by extension, as opportunistic vultures that will take on any case for money, regardless of how trivial the case is or how much it tears at the fabric of society. Lawyers need to learn some self-discipline and reject cases where some self-destructive fool injured themselves and wants to blame someone else for it or wants to get some quick money from an out-of-court settlement. I am guessing that most lawyers see these types of cases as harmless or a "drop in the bucket" but when the law is used as a sword instead of a shield the society as a whole suffers and the stature of lawyers is diminshed.
I think I'm done now. It's late at night and I am tired. I will bookmark this page and return occasionally.
Permalink to Comment11. DC1066 on September 30, 2006 5:49 PM writes...
EK pegged it: "Politicians are often lawyers, and they write laws which keep lawyers employed."
Let me relate to you one of my latest experiences with the legal system:
Here in my state, Worker's Compensation is becoming an absolute nightmare - for both the employers AND the employees - who does that leave? The insurance providers, the attorneys they retain - and the legislators who have diabolically crafted a system by which these parasites are able to operate with impunity.
Let me ask you, if I sell you a used car for say, $1200.00, take your payment(s) of $100.00 per month for 12 months and give you a receipt for goods exchanged - we're all done, correct?
Absolutely not! Why, shortly thereafter, I become aware that maybe I could have sold that car for more money. I have an appraiser come to you to inspect the car, and any repairs you might have made - not to mention improvements to the garage in which it's kept.
What do you mean you don't want this stranger to come to your house? I really don't care what you want - you're legally bound to let him in. If you fail to do so, I'll have you arrested. Yes, I thought you would be reasonable about this...
He returns his assessment to me and - HEY! I really SHOULD have charged you much more than the agreed-upon price. That's okay - the legislators in my state are big car-buffs and have made it legally possible for me to revisit the sale.
(with me now?)
After the fact, I come to you and inform you that you owe me an additional $1200.00 because I neglected to take certain factors (of which I should have been readily aware) into account.
How did I arrive at that figure? It's none of your concern - it's the law; I'm doing nothing illegal. Explanation? - Get outta here! What? you're going to sue me?
No, no, no - you don't understand. I'm a car dealer and in this state you have virtually no legal recourse against car dealers. You refuse to pay? That's okay. I AM able to file civil suit against you for said monies, interest, and MY attorney's fees and costs of court (all pursuant to applicable state laws mind you).
I've just given you a condensed, metaphoric analysis of Florida State Worker's Compensation Law, and how it is sucking the life out of small business in this state.
Permalink to Comment12. jac on October 27, 2006 8:18 PM writes...
A comment on a hypothesis by gkeene regarding law being complex as a reason lawyers are roundly disliked- Are you serious? The law is pretty straight forward. It is the lawyers who have turned Law into a circus. It's lucrative for lawyers to protray "law difficult to understand" as the lawyer pisses away a client's money playing word games with opposing council. When was the last time you reviewed your contract with a client? Does it look something like this "as soon as you pen this binding contract I will take every cent of your $10,000 retainer, and bill you for more every month. I reserve the right to play games with opposing council and judge in anyway I choose. The minute you question my billing or charges for any time my staff bills, I will then drop you like a bowling ball. I am a lawyer therefore I can do anything illegal WITH permission of the court because I provide a generous portion of my fee to obtain a "fair" judgement (wink-wink) for you should you be able to afford me the entire time your case is pending. I will obtain no fewer than 35 continuences because that allows me to obtain ample time to develop a strategy for your case. Try reporting me to the state or local bar or for that matter the supreme court and see who has the leverage. If you don't like this contract, tough. It's America-land of "democracy" and you know democracy is all about us, lawyers.
Permalink to Comment13. Very Cynical on April 14, 2007 7:55 AM writes...
Denise,
Permalink to CommentFirst let me start out with the fact that I have, in fact, met and know exactly TWO fairly honest lawyers, one of which is even pretty good.
Now, having said that, in dealing with lawyers who specialize in almost every field but particularly in divorce and corporate law, my first reaction would be to round every one of them up and shot them. If Hitler has exterminated lawyers rather than Jews, I do not believe that the world would have cared. I personally have NEVER met a group of people who make up a profession who demonstrate a consistent greed and desire to not even care about a client's needs or the truth of a case, just how long a case could be drug out so that they would have a nice fat check coming in monthly for as long as possible. I have often considered the reason homicide in divorce cases occurs so often is simply lawyers. In the future, I hope that the temporary insanity these people go through is only taken out on the lawyers involved. Most emotional cases are fanned by BOTH the DEFENSE AS WELL AS THE PETITIONING ATTORNEYS. People of and by themselves are often not nearly as overwrought prior to speaking with a lawyer.
Judges and lawmakers also should not allowed to be lawyers, it takes a lawyer to totally convolute a simple statement so that it takes a 7 year degree to guess what it means.
Judges who are lawyers often seem to only care that both people in front of him/her are supporting the legal system, they do not seem to give a damn about the law until you get to the appellate level.
So, yes, lets start with killing all the lawyers.