Editorial, Originally Published: 12 October 2005
I got a fair number of responses to a letter writer from Case 94 who noted, “I’m starting to understand Shakespeare’s ‘Kill all the lawyers.’”
Several were from lawyers objecting that the line is actually a “tribute” to lawyers. Yet another lawyer (as lawyers are wont to do) took the other side. Sort of!
Robert in Michigan: “I am a lawyer and as a member of that profession was dismayed to read David in Maine’s comments. My first reaction to this widely overused, misused and often abused quote was to contact you to set the record straight regarding the actual meaning and context of the quote.
I always believed and understood that the quote was attributed to a character in Shakespeare’s play, King Henry VI, who was involved in the overthrow of civil government and the establishment of a dictatorship. I was under the belief that this statement reflected Shakespeare’s recognition and appreciation of the important role lawyers play in maintaining the rule of law and an orderly civil society and that therefore, the phrase paid tribute to lawyers. That is, until I read [this illuminating blog post].
As you will see, lawyers were seen as protecting the privileged and corrupt establishment, as part of the resistance to needed social change and justice. Fair enough. That may have certainly been true during Shakespeare’s time. Yet if people in this day and age dislike lawyers, the context for people’s attitudes towards lawyers has, in my opinion, changed dramatically. That is, I don’t believe that the profession as a whole can be viewed as serving the interests of a privileged and corrupt establishment as the basis for the perceived animosity.
Indeed, the animosity towards lawyers these days seem to arise from the opposite: litigation that actually serves to meet social change and justice. I’m talking about class action lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits, personal injury cases and products liability cases for instance. In those cases, it is usually the consumer, i.e., the working class, that seek redress for wrongs committed against them by large corporations, insurance companies, and negligent doctors (i.e., the establishment). This is society’s sole means of redress against these imposing institutions.
Yet the people such litigation is there to protect nonetheless complain that these types of lawsuit raise insurance premiums, the cost of goods and services and an exodus of doctors from the medical profession, and they naturally blame the lawyers. That is, until a defectively designed or manufactured product results in the loss of limb; or a doctor makes a mis-diagnosis which results in the death of a family member; or a drug company manufactures and sell medicine that is supposed to ease the pain of arthritis and ends up causing your grandmother to die of a heart attack.
Yeah, let’s kill all the lawyers and see what happens then. No, it’s my proposal to only kill the bad lawyers. Like any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. Good doctors, bad doctors. Good cops, bad cops. Let us not assign the attributes of a few bad and desperate practitioners across the board to all lawyers. As a practical matter, I have found that while people generally dislike lawyers, when they need legal help, they usually like their lawyer. Lawyers can be and often are an engine for social change and justice; not just some boob looking for his next meal ticket. Maybe you should provide awards for lawyers who have truly made a profound positive impact on society. They are out there.
This isn’t just to Robert in Michigan: it’s a reply to all who wrote regarding the Shakespeare bit.
Most people simply blame lawyers, which only recognizes part of the real problem. The True Stella Awards is not a campaign against lawyers. Most lawyers are good and decent people who are trying to do the best they can for their clients and the ideals of justice.
On the other hand, some of their peers just don’t get it, and defend their even their most outrageous actions by claiming “everybody hates lawyers until they need one.” That’s not true at all: most people hate lawyers even then.
The problem is that we need lawyers. People can’t simply and reasonably explain their cases to judges and have them hand down a decision based on reason or logic — or even common sense. The American legal system has been so manipulated and convoluted by lawyers that we need lawyers to navigate our way through the complexities of the legal system — complexities they themselves created.
People need doctors, too, but we don’t hate them as a profession because doctors are not in the business of curing diseases that they themselves created.
Is that fair? You bet: lawsuits can accurately be called an industry in the United States. The lawsuit industry is estimated to bring in more than $50 billion per year in legal fees to lawyers out of over $250 billion in total cost to the litigants (2004 estimate).
That’s a huge drain on the country’s economy: it represents well over 2 percent of the USA’s Gross Domestic Product. By comparison, the United Kingdom’s ‘lawsuit load’ is less than 1 percent of its GDP.
And it’s a growing industry: as of 2001 (the most recent year that data is available), the 30-year trends are: U.S. population: up at a 1.1 percent annual rate. The consumer price index: up 5 percent annually; the GDP: up 7.6 percent annually. And tort costs? Up 9.1 percent annually — and it was up by 14.3 percent in 2001. This industry’s growth is not only staggering, it’s accelerating.
And that $50 billion figure is for lawsuit income only; it does not include anything else lawyers do, doesn’t include any collected percentage of punitive damages, and doesn’t even include their take from the “tobacco settlement,” for which the 86 law firms involved have billed the states a whopping $30 billion.
But don’t say they don’t have a heart: they’re graciously allowing the states to pay those fees over 25 years. And some of those firms say they’ve been ‘ripped off,’ that they deserve much more! Yet when you divide the billings of one firm by the total estimated hours they spent working on this case, it comes out to more than $22,000 per hour! Other firms are ‘only’ getting around $10,000 per hour. And you know they’re billing for plenty of hours.
So at least one segment of the U.S. economy is booming even while as a whole Americans are struggling. One thing to ponder: perhaps that’s a cause and effect situation.
And Then There’s This
Robb in New Hampshire: “Whenever I read these tales of ridiculously low levels of intelligence, I always wonder if you ever hear from the plaintiffs reading about, commenting on, or even admitting to how stupid their suit seems. Just curious.”
No, not that I’m aware of. But I figure that someday, someone will want to collect their “Award”.
- - -
No new cases are being published, so please don’t try to submit cases.
My Flagship Email Publication This is True continues to come out with new stories every week. It’s “Thought-Provoking Entertainment” like Stella, but uses weird-but-true news items as its vehicle for social commentary. It is the oldest entertainment newsletter online — weekly since 1994. Click here for a This is True subscribe form.
5 Comments on “Editorial: “Kill All the Lawyers!””
If we really did ‘kill all the lawyers’ then we would lose John Grisham, who has written a few very good social justice novels on his profession, such as A TIme to Kill (and its recent sequel). This does not mean i find all of his novels great. It means Grisham has a great message to get out to the reading-and-thinking public: good lawyers are the ones who make sure good laws hold and bad laws are stopped while bad lawyers are the ones who ensure good laws get stopped and bad laws hold and they get well paid.
One thing many do not understand is in every court battle there are two sides. And thus at least 2 lawyers. One lawyer is defending our rights and the other attacking. (Does not matter if Criminal or Civil)
You hire a top Criminal lawyer to “Get you off” and the prosecutor still convinces the jury that conviction sticks like super glue.
You get an ineffective lawyer. You get 30 years, and a couple years later you appeal based on Representational ineffectiveness or incompetence. They re-try you but key witness has moved on or “Moved on” (Died of natural causes or accident or illness) and you walk.
So even the sleezey ones are important to the Justice Process.
And may all criminals get a lawyer good enough to insure it STICKS.
I’ll put my solution here that I believe solves 95+ percent of the issues (rarely does any solution solve 100%):
Professional juries, trained in logic and reasoning and trained to ignore emotion.
Loser pays all fees with a bond put up for all expected fees prior to trial. Bond can be put up by the litigant or the lawyer for the litigant.
While there have been quibbles no one has ever suggested any reason why this wouldn’t work.
The usual argument against the second is that poor people with a super good and clear case are disenfranchised because they couldn’t possibly put up such a bond, and their lawyer wouldn’t either because there’s unacceptable risk. -rc
When my son was about 10 he and a friend of mine got along really well. I was talking to him one day and for whatever reason I mentioned that he was a lawyer. My son got this horrified look on his face and said “No. Chuck’s too nice to be a lawyer!” Chuck still tells that story every once in a while and still laughs over it.
‘But I figure that someday, someone will want to collect their “Award”.’
…and then probably sue you upon finding out that there’s no valuable physical, much less monetary, “award” to be had….
Not at all! I’d make a custom signed certificate available …for them to buy. -rc