"It's Easier to Bury a Tradition Than a Child"

[N80]

I think the comments about lawyers in this thread gives the impression that we as a group ( although not me) seem to have forgotten what a lawyers job. A lawyer does not work for the legal system.

First off....YOU'RE A LAWYER! OMG this is rich. It all becomes clear now. (Warning, you have just been subjected to harmless humor, do not get undies in wad.)

Second, what do you mean a lawyer doesn't work for the legal system? What is a public defender? What is an attorney general? A state prosecutor? A judge? They are all lawyers that work for the legal system. Am I wrong? Maybe you need to send me back to civics class.

While I see some attorneys actions as being questionable I do not forget that their very first duty is to their client. They are ethically, morally, and legally bound to do the very best that they can for their client.

You'll take me to school on this I'm sure, but I'm not so sure about the "legally bound" part. I recall some cases we studied in Criminal Justice classes in college in which lawyers took this idea too far, were supported by the BAR but were still legally wrong.

Furthermore, doing their best for a client does not necessarily mean having a jury find a guilty man innocent. There is more to a trial than that right?

And, if the Bar and/or any attorney justifies lying or hiding the truth in order to have a guilty man be found innocent, no one is or should excuse such behavior as doing one's duty. No one else gets that kind of free pass to distort truth and justice in the name of that very cause.

And if you feel like I'm taking the gloves off, well, sorry. I've put myself out there as an MD and taken my lumps and pot shots in these forums. If you are going to do the same, then you're fair game man!

When we see an attorney who is doing whatever it takes to defend their client we are seeing an attorney who is doing their job.

Let me re-visit my concerns above. Is it okay for an attorney to lie, steal, obscure truth to serve a client?

I am sure that if a prison brought a child molester to george for treatment and george saved their lives no one would make caustic remarks about george for doing his job and saving the life.

Well, we're obviously sparring here (which is fine, I like it and I'm learning things) but that may be the worst analogy I've ever seen.

There is nothing in my role as a doctor that puts any obligation on me to execute justice or interpret laws. My obligation is to save the life. That's all. His criminal status is of no consequence to me. Not saving him would be the only course that would be morally and legally wrong. So I would have conflict of interest in saving him. None.

But let's say you know for a fact that he is a child molester, and knowing so you know that if he is found innocent he will harm another child. Are you obligated to distort truth in order for him to be found innocent? If you say yes than you have my greatest sympathy and i mean this sincerely. The ONLY way you could do so without pain would to be either amoral or a moral relativist. I am neither, so if I was legally bound to distort truth so this man can molest another child.....I guess I'd be in jail.

And holy cow man, it just blows me away that you would see a conflict on interest with an all doctor jury while ignoring that conflict of interest of an all lawyer court room! Wow!

 

[gemini5362]

I think you're being far too forgiving of and sympathetic to Patrick. Patrick made himself available for ridicule. Not me. And I don't think he'll find any sympathy outside of yours.

Here is what HE said:



First, its an age old internet ploy. Its the equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you don't like how the game is turning out. Its a parting shot with the expectation that it cannot be returned. Its sour grapes. Dirty pool.

It is intended to cripple a discussion. How can the opponent respond when one has declared that he is no longer playing. Patrick made accusations for which he had no basis and no support. Just because he has made a parting shot and left the playing field does that mean that he is beyond being challenged to defend his accusations. Of course not.

So as you can see, I've done nothing deplorable. I didn't ask or expect Patrick to sulk away as if HE were the victim. He did that himself. This isn't chess. He can move his king into check and when he does so his opponent is not obligated to pass on checkmate to avoid being branded deplorable.

actually whether or not you have done something deplorable is a decision that people reading your post will make for themselves. I have not asked pat if he intended to cripple the discussion and take a parting shot and leave the playing field. Since pat and I occasionally spend the night at each others house if we are going through that part of the country I am fairly confident in my assessment of his remarks that was not his intent. I have no problem with your answering his remarks with whatever comments that you felt were necessary. The last line of your statement is where I have a problem. He indicated that he would not be posting in this thread any more. You could have responded to his comments in your post and go on. Instead the last line of your post was a device to give you or anyone else a chance to ridicule him if he did respond to your post. It is exactly what you accused him of. It crippled his chance to make a response to your post and allowed you to make your remarks unimpeded. I believe that kind of response is deplorable.

 

[N80]

I do not know if you are aware that several states have made legislative ceilings to the amount of damages that can be awarded in a tort claim. Since a considerable portion of the countries legislatures are made up of attorneys I can only assume that there is not an act of collusion by them to increase the revenue of other attorneys.

Well, my cynical nature would just say that the will of the people was so obvious and overwhelming that it overrode desires for self interest.

I believe that the people in your profession are some of the more vocal proponents of tort limitations.

You betcha. And for all the obvious reasons, we doctors are hardly beyond self interest. But there was something greater than that leading to that change. In many communities, particularly in the south and southwest, doctors were leaving. There were whole geographic regions in some states in which there were no obstetricians to deliver babies because the tort laws (and thus malpractice insurance) of that state were so unfavorable to physicians. They just left. They had to.

Not being able to find a doctor to deliver your babies will motivate the voting public. And it did.

 

[N80]

actually whether or not you have done something deplorable is a decision that people reading your post will make for themselves.

It would appear that the 'people' have already spoken. 'Deplorable' is a ridiculous hyperbole.

I have not asked pat if he intended to cripple the discussion and take a parting shot and leave the playing field.

You don't need to ask him. Read what he said. It is perfectly transparent. No creative interpretation needed.

Since pat and I occasionally spend the night at each others house if we are going through that part of the country

I kinda felt like I was getting tag-teamed for a while there.

I am fairly confident in my assessment of his remarks that was not his intent.

Okay. You put his quote in your next post and give us your honest assessment of it.

I have no problem with your answering his remarks with whatever comments that you felt were necessary. The last line of your statement is where I have a problem. He indicated that he would not be posting in this thread any more. You could have responded to his comments in your post and go on.

Wrong. Patrick left unfinished business on the table. He made unfounded accusations. He has to answer for that. Declaring that he is leaving hardly makes him immune...although it would appear that this was his intention.

Instead the last line of your post was a device to give you or anyone else a chance to ridicule him if he did respond to your post. It is exactly what you accused him of. It crippled his chance to make a response to your post and allowed you to make your remarks unimpeded. I believe that kind of response is deplorable.

Sigh. I feel like I have to say everything twice. PATRICK crippled his own chance to make a response. This is a forum. He made a post with points and arguments in it and then says he will no longer respond. If he is being honest then no matter what anyone else says HE is still the one that ended his participation. So there was nothing for me to cripple. Right (If you're going to argue this point, THIS is what you need to address.)

But let's just take this 'deplorable' act out of contention. I'll admit it. Its all my fault. It was a cheap shot. A war crime. Guilty as charged. My reputation is ruined.

With that being the case, where does that leave Patrick. He accused more than one of us of being shirkers of our civic duty. He has no evidence to support such a slur. He is asked several times to substantiate or revoke the claim. In a multitude of subsequent posts he fails or refuses to do so. Then, he takes one last pot shot and claims immunity by walking away.

Do you have a word for that. If what I did was actually "deplorable" then I'd guess you are scrambling for the thesaurus right now!

 

[N80]

I did a quick bit of research and I cannot find anything that says clearly that punitive damages go to the state in the UK. It might be true but at this point its just something I heard once...and nothing more.

I did happen on some actual awards in England tort cases and suffice it to say that they are far, far lower than what you see in the US...by a magnitude of ten or more, roughly.

 

[gemini5362]

First off....YOU'RE A LAWYER! OMG this is rich. It all becomes clear now. (Warning, you have just been subjected to harmless humor, do not get undies in wad.)

Second, what do you mean a lawyer doesn't work for the legal system? What is a public defender? What is an attorney general? A state prosecutor? A judge? They are all lawyers that work for the legal system. Am I wrong? Maybe you need to send me back to civics class.



You'll take me to school on this I'm sure, but I'm not so sure about the "legally bound" part. I recall some cases we studied in Criminal Justice classes in college in which lawyers took this idea too far, were supported by the BAR but were still legally wrong.

Furthermore, doing their best for a client does not necessarily mean having a jury find a guilty man innocent. There is more to a trial than that right?

And, if the Bar and/or any attorney justifies lying or hiding the truth in order to have a guilty man be found innocent, no one is or should excuse such behavior as doing one's duty. No one else gets that kind of free pass to distort truth and justice in the name of that very cause.

And if you feel like I'm taking the gloves off, well, sorry. I've put myself out there as an MD and taken my lumps and pot shots in these forums. If you are going to do the same, then you're fair game man!



Let me re-visit my concerns above. Is it okay for an attorney to lie, steal, obscure truth to serve a client?



Well, we're obviously sparring here (which is fine, I like it and I'm learning things) but that may be the worst analogy I've ever seen.

There is nothing in my role as a doctor that puts any obligation on me to execute justice or interpret laws. My obligation is to save the life. That's all. His criminal status is of no consequence to me. Not saving him would be the only course that would be morally and legally wrong. So I would have conflict of interest in saving him. None.

But let's say you know for a fact that he is a child molester, and knowing so you know that if he is found innocent he will harm another child. Are you obligated to distort truth in order for him to be found innocent? If you say yes than you have my greatest sympathy and i mean this sincerely. The ONLY way you could do so without pain would to be either amoral or a moral relativist. I am neither, so if I was legally bound to distort truth so this man can molest another child.....I guess I'd be in jail.

And holy cow man, it just blows me away that you would see a conflict on interest with an all doctor jury while ignoring that conflict of interest of an all lawyer court room! Wow!

I actually am going to love saying this. I have never said or implied that I was a lawyer. I said that I defend people that are guilty. There are other fields that defend people besides lawyers. I actually as one of my part time union functions represent people in Arbitrations. I believe if you want to take the time to look back at my previous posts I at one point made reference to my not having an advanced degree. I believe a JD is considered an advanced degree and you have to have a JD to take a bar exam.

I will agree with you that I was mistaken A judge is a lawyer who works for the legal system. The rest of the professions you mention are lawyers who work for a client in the case of an attorney general or a prosecutor the client is the state but that is still a client.

Actually there are a lot of incidents where an attorney is told that the client performed the act that they were charged with the attorney is forbidden by law from divulging that information to the authorities or the judge in the trial. You seem to be bothered by an attorney getting a free pass as you call it if he hides the truth to get his client off but one of the ways for a defendent to get a new trial is by proving his council did not do an adequate job of defending him. The law pretty much dictates that attorneys do everything in their power to defend their client.


Obviously I did not make the point I was trying to make with my analogy. If a lawyer manages to get a child molester found not guilty just by doing his job (for the course of this analogy lets assume that there is a procedural defect that would allow the child molester to be acquitted.) The lawyers does his job and the child molester goes free. For the sake of arguement the child molester is acquitted and as he is walking across the street in front of the courthouse he is hit by a car. An ambulance rushes him to your clinic for emergency treatment (once again this is strictly a hypothetical situation) You treat him and manage to save his life. If either you or the attorney in this situation failed to do your job the child molester would not be back out on the street. No one is going to think one thing about you doing your job and saving the molester but the attorney who just did his job is going to be a monster who let this molester back on the street. Either one of you had the power to not do their job and keep the molester off of the street, both of you took an oath to do your job so who is the bad person in that scenario. This is the point I was trying to make

 

[gemini5362]

It would appear that the 'people' have already spoken. 'Deplorable' is a ridiculous hyperbole.



You don't need to ask him. Read what he said. It is perfectly transparent. No creative interpretation needed.



I kinda felt like I was getting tag-teamed for a while there.



Okay. You put his quote in your next post and give us your honest assessment of it.



Wrong. Patrick left unfinished business on the table. He made unfounded accusations. He has to answer for that. Declaring that he is leaving hardly makes him immune...although it would appear that this was his intention.



Sigh. I feel like I have to say everything twice. PATRICK crippled his own chance to make a response. This is a forum. He made a post with points and arguments in it and then says he will no longer respond. If he is being honest then no matter what anyone else says HE is still the one that ended his participation. So there was nothing for me to cripple. Right (If you're going to argue this point, THIS is what you need to address.)

But let's just take this 'deplorable' act out of contention. I'll admit it. Its all my fault. It was a cheap shot. A war crime. Guilty as charged. My reputation is ruined.

With that being the case, where does that leave Patrick. He accused more than one of us of being shirkers of our civic duty. He has no evidence to support such a slur. He is asked several times to substantiate or revoke the claim. In a multitude of subsequent posts he fails or refuses to do so. Then, he takes one last pot shot and claims immunity by walking away.

Do you have a word for that. If what I did was actually "deplorable" then I'd guess you are scrambling for the thesaurus right now!

Ok lets see if I can respond to your posts. I guess to you it is perfectly transparent what he meant. I actually thought he was being sarcastic and basically did not want to waste his time responding to your posts. I have been in other threads with you and felt the same way about your ideas. It was a waste of my time to argue them. I am responding to you this time because I am bored and it is less boring than the other things I am doing.


For you to be getting tag teamed if that was what you were indirectly implying we would probably have to be deliberately coordinating our comments. We are not doing that we just both happen to think you are wrong on several points.

I am glad you admit it was deplorable for you to make your final comment in that particular post. I am not sure he claimed immunity and then walked away. I dont believe that he did anything to keep you from responding to his comments and as a point of fact you did comment on him. As far as where that leaves patrick I believe it leaves him in Oklahoma on his farm. If he is of the opinion that you were a shirker ( I believe without looking at the earlier posts that I remember what made him think that. You might look at some of your earlier posts and see if any of your comments could be construed in that manner) As we have just seen in earlier posts one of my comments made you think that I was an attorney even though I am not even close to being a member of that profession. Sometimes we all misunderstand what people say.

 

[gemini5362]

I felt really bad for the lawyer defending the teller with the 'mysterious' money that suddenly appeared in her client's account. Money that was entered into her account from her computer when she was at work. The client's defense was, "God must have put it there." Poor lawyer did the best she could with what she had to work with. I saw her defend two cases that week. Both with client's that offered very, very little in the way of a defense. She did what she could...

I think a lot of people view lawyers like a cop... they moan and complain about them until they need one.

Remember, for the most part, the only lawyers most people see are the Personal Injury Lawyers with the, "One call, that's all," tag line in their poorly produced commercials. That really isn't representative of the whole... but it is what we, as the general public, are most exposed to.

I can understand the best with what you had to work with arguement. Because our arbitrations are based on contractural issues some of the rules are different than legal statutes. One of the things that is very similar but still a bit different is new arguement. By the time I dend someone they are have been three attempts at settling the differences through a grievance procedure. When the grievance rises to arbitration all arguements are fixed at the time the grievance is certified for arbitration. Nothing is more frustrating than have a really good case but not able to use the apropriate arguement because someone in an earlier step did not include that in their arguements. I had a really good case for someone that was terminated in violation of Family Medical Leave Act. laws. The people handling the case at lower levels did not argue FMLA violation. I started argueing FMLA violation right off the bat, the advocate for the other side immediately objected that it was a new arguement (which is not allowed) The arbitrator ruled they were right and would not let me present that arguement. I dont know if I have won on my other arguements yet or not because I have not gotten the arbitrators decision back but if I could have made my FMLA arguement it would have been a slam dunk. If however I lose the person can file a lawsuit based on FMLA violations but that will cost them money and more time.

 

[Soundguy]

I'd even go a bit further here. Though I don't have any statistics to quote. I'd wager that the bad to good ratio.. of any profession, is quite low.. however.. as the old saying goes.. it only takes 1 bad apple to spoil the whole bunch.. IE.. a single bad experience with a lawyer ( enter profession here ).. and you may feel negative towards the group en masse. I had a friend who had a friend that was a cop.. I later found out this cop got arrested for breaking into peoples cars... nice huh... I'm an engineer... the bulk of other engineers I meet turn me off... dunno.. I think it is the 'institutionalized' feeling i get... no outside the box thinking in some cases.. often people apply to rigid of though processes where flexible ones would fit.. for no other reason, than that is the way it has always been done...

All stereo types.. but it's easy to see why... anybody that has a bad experience is sure to talk about it. If I have a bad experience with a ( lawyer for instance ).. I probably tell 15 people about it while I complain... on the toher hand.. if I have a good experience.. I probably smile.. and walk away.. and maybee tell 1-2 people and that's it.. IE.. positives are under-reported.. thus the negatives seem like they are the bulk of the 'sample group'

soundguy

soundguy

I felt really bad for the lawyer defending the teller with the 'mysterious' money that suddenly appeared in her client's account. Money that was entered into her account from her computer when she was at work. The client's defense was, "God must have put it there." Poor lawyer did the best she could with what she had to work with. I saw her defend two cases that week. Both with client's that offered very, very little in the way of a defense. She did what she could...

I think a lot of people view lawyers like a cop... they moan and complain about them until they need one.

Remember, for the most part, the only lawyers most people see are the Personal Injury Lawyers with the, "One call, that's all," tag line in their poorly produced commercials. That really isn't representative of the whole... but it is what we, as the general public, are most exposed to.

 

[N80]

Ok lets see if I can respond to your posts. I guess to you it is perfectly transparent what he meant. I actually thought he was being sarcastic and basically did not want to waste his time responding to your posts.

Sigh. At whom do you think his sarcasm was directed? And if he is claiming that responding to my post is a waste of time then you have just defined him taking one last shot and then walking away. I'm sorry but there is no other way to interpret that.

I have been in other threads with you and felt the same way about your ideas. It was a waste of my time to argue them.

I think it is funny that the first one to quit after endless reparte' is going to accuse the other guy of wasting his time. That is rich indeed. That's like the pot calling the kettle black, no? I'm mean really? Unbelievable.

I am responding to you this time because I am bored and it is less boring than the other things I am doing.

That's not insulting at all. No offense taken. Hah. What a joke. My arguments are a waste of time for you yet you reply to them like clock work and then defend the OBVIOUS irony by saying that you're bored.

I'll posit another theory, my arguments become a 'waste of time' for you and Patrick when you can no longer defend your point. Again, the sour grapes.

For you to be getting tag teamed if that was what you were indirectly implying we would probably have to be deliberately coordinating our comments. We are not doing that we just both happen to think you are wrong on several points.

Lighten up man. I guess I need to use more smiley faces. Tag-team is a professional wrestling thing. Professional wrestling is fake....and funny. Get it? There is clearly a humor disconnect here. I'm sure its my fault.

I am glad you admit it was deplorable for you to make your final comment in that particular post.

Good. If you can wade through that much sarcasm unaffected then more power to you.

I am not sure he claimed immunity and then walked away.

What is it that you are unclear about? Is is, thus far, undeniable that he walked away. And if he didn't claim immunity for himself then you are certainly his mouthpiece for it.

If he is of the opinion that you were a shirker ( I believe without looking at the earlier posts that I remember what made him think that. You might look at some of your earlier posts and see if any of your comments could be construed in that manner)

Show me. You know I find myself asking for that a lot. Show me. Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. If someone makes a slur against another, it is not incumbent on the slurred party to provide evidence against the slur. I have already said, point blank, that I'm not a shirker and can prove it. How Patrick or you "construe" my comments are irrelevant if you can couple the assumption with more proof than a mis-construed statement of mine. You know better than that. I aksed Patrick to back up his insult a number of times before he sulked away. No reply.

As we have just seen in earlier posts one of my comments made you think that I was an attorney even though I am not even close to being a member of that profession. Sometimes we all misunderstand what people say.

And that being the case, I am here, right now, apologizing for my mistake. If I hurt your feelings by suggesting that you were an attorney, then I deeply apologize. Makes me wonder why others can fess up to similar mistakes.