The American Spectator

R Martin| 2.15.10 @ 8:53AM

I think Shakespeare knew best how to deal with lawyers...especially those who work in the "public interest".

Cutch| 2.15.10 @ 11:05PM

As a lawyer, I can say with accuracy, there are good ones and bad ones. The bad ones have no honor. But others are there for the right reason. I would ask you to keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and 22 of the 56 signers of it, John Adams pushed for independence and pushed for Washington as commander, Patrick Henry demanded liberty or death, James Madison pushed for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most of the members of the U.S. Constitutional Convention delegates, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln (although as a Southerner I must admit to mixed feelings on this one!) - all lawyers. What is important, my friends, is that every man possess righteousness, and the greater the ability to influence others, the greater the need for the right internal compass. Alliance Defense Fund, American Center for Law and Justice, Christian Legal Society, Thomas More Law Center - all lawyers. Law in the hands of a man with courage and knowing what is right should be encouraged. It may sometimes be the only way to fight for freedom, so I would ask you not to lump us all together.

Joe Bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:33PM

Cutch you are right on target. What's more, how many people do as much free work as lawyers? How many free haircuts are there? I bet I easily spend 150-200 hours a year for no pay helping some schmoe who wont even help themselves. Bet smart ash R supra and Charles infra wouldnt do that. They are failssssss.

Charles Stevens| 2.15.10 @ 9:46AM

My God, what do I care about one of this country's most destructive elements, lawyers? We now have a society that is bureaucratically frozen, with a legal system that creates conflict in order to get its cut no matter who wins. The bulk of our elected officials are lawyers, when in point of fact no lawyer should be allowed to run for office because they are already agents of the court and therefore should automatically be ineligible for the executive branch. This puts us in a vicious and yet unacknowledged feedback loop, wherein legislators reflexively create enormous amounts of laws and regulatory agencies which then need more lawyers to help litigate the inevitable conflicts that arise. Meanwhile, they all shrug their shoulders and presume to tell us that they are a necessary evil. What a crock of arrogant, sanctimonious lies that is!

It is no accident that Obama and the progressives are in bed with lawyers. They would like this nation to evolve to the following:
40% unionized government employees
50% on government handouts
10% lawyers

Offhand I don't know of anything that will stop this madness. At the moment, all I can say is, God d*&! all lawyers... may they have their ultimate reward in the bowels of h@#!

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:08PM

You got that wrong, Im a lawyer and I assure you, I would take no less than 33%.

T. Harker| 2.18.10 @ 2:57PM

The phrase "in point of fact" can never precede the word "should," as in "in point of fact[,] no lawyer should be allowed to run for office." This is nonsense. I agree that many lawyers create problems, but many non-lawyers create many LEGAL problems, and this reality should not be forgotten.

Charles Stevens| 2.15.10 @ 10:11AM

One other point...
Lawyers have overthrown Constitutional law and replaced it with case studies and precedent, thereby making the Constitution and the traditional framework it represents essentially moot. It is little wonder that our society has devolved into litigious, progressive insanity.

Again I say, God d*&! all lawyers... may they have their ultimate reward in the bowels of h@#!

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:09PM

No, no, no, dont G###3 all the lawyers, you need to wake up, we are going to screw you Charley, mainly bc you are clearly a pr$#%$ck.

Jesus| 2.21.10 @ 12:03PM

I'm with Chuck on this one. Con Law was hard. God damn the Commerce Clause -- dormant or active.

Galen| 2.15.10 @ 11:00AM

I remember a special military draft of M.D.s to serve our armed forces. As we now need to "mirandize" all our foes,shouldn't we draft llbs to go to all the villages in Afghanastan,Iraq etc. to do this vital service?

Patrick| 2.15.10 @ 8:35PM

Provided their uniforms are blaze orange with concentric circles on the chest.

Joe Bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:35PM

the nice thing about being a lawyer is I get to screw Galen and Patricks wives while I am in Afghanistan and Iraq with a big blaze orange concentric circle between their legs.

Dan| 2.15.10 @ 12:27PM

That's good news for current lawyers, but terrible for recent graduates. My wife started law school before the market crash, and finished last summer.

After she passed the bar, along with 98% of her class, they were faced with a real problem which still exists: only 2% of their class had jobs straight out of school (it was 95% a year before) and 60% aren't even working in the legal field at the moment. Firms are downsizing and cutting experienced professionals. And hires that are made can get really experienced lawyers on the cheap. To hire an inexperienced lawyer would be foolish with current market conditions. (For those of you who don't know, law school teaches very little about the business of actually being a lawyer mostly theory.)

My wife lucked out- she was able to share an office with a local lawyer doing general practice work. She'll gain the experience she needs. I'll put it to you this way of the $45k-$50k she and I bring in before taxes, I'm 80%. Not that she in particular wants a job at a big firm, but there are plenty of "warm bodies" that need a little training if they want to fill position when the market picks back up.

For those of you who loath *all* lawyers, keep in mind, they're necessary in any community at the very least to interface with local government on people's behalf. It's a service profession like any other, but they know how to market themselves better than most. Also note that it's going to be a very unattractive position for a while yet, especially with a large field of experienced unemployed professionals. Perhaps the kids who want to get in just for the money will be looking elsewhere for a while yet. Hmm?

John Navratil| 2.15.10 @ 4:51PM

A couple of points...

One, this industry isn't the only one which has seen recent graduates (as has be written many times before) "driving cabs". When it takes several years to receive an education in a chosen field, there is an element of prediction as to what the job market will be. But - So what? The field was chosen for the love of it, right? If it was simply for the pay check, you will be very unhappy, indeed.

Secondly, as you well know, the law embraces many aspects of life. The "service" lawyer who works diligently around contracts and risk mitigation performs a valuable service in support of other industries. As such, these activities contribute positively to the growth of the economy. Litigating to resolves disputes, while unpleasant, does resolve disputes.

Bankrupting Dow-Corning over breast implants, is not such an example. The unmourned John O'Quinn made BILLIONS doing this. Along with Fen-Phen and the Texas tobacco settlement he distributed vast riches into his pockets. But what did he actually do? What did he make? Where did he contribute (anything other than his name) to the general welfare.

One cannot tar the entire profession with that brush, but until real reforms root out these trolls, the professions will continue to be tarred, nevertheless.

Patrick| 2.15.10 @ 8:43PM

Just as bankers of all stripes must endure the reputation forced upon them by jet-setting "financial engineers", lawyers must endure their lumps too. Bureaucrats, elected officials, priests, journalists, and public school teachers must all endure being viewed as the very worst of their ilk. A profession that does not attempt to police its own, is unfit to stand above its reputation.

Joe Bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:36PM

Clearly Patrick, you havent tried to hire a plumber or electrician lately. Talk about lack of policing....

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:12PM

well, John, what those lawyers did was put money in the pockets of the people that Dow Corning, Phen fen adn the tobacco companies have tried to kill or rip off. So... the offshoot is that, like Toyota is about to learn, its the lawyer that keeps big business leery of short cutting product safety and allowing real live citizens, not corporate paper entities, to live more safely, kinda like people like you John, every safety feature in cars is thanks to a lawyer. So dont cry when we get paid for our skill.

Marc Jeric| 2.15.10 @ 12:41PM

This country is the only one among civilized countries where you can sue anybody for anything, and, if you lose you just walk away. That is why we have 1,100,000 lawyers while Germany, Japan, and Great Brittain have only about 40,000. There, you see, the loser must automatically pay all the costs, direct and indirect, of the court and of the defendant. Our eco-nazis have been able to kill millions of industrial projects and why we import trillions of dollars worth of thing made abroad. Well, that and the unions.

Bob| 2.15.10 @ 1:12PM

Marc, while we may disagree on a number of issues, I'm with you on this one. From an economics point of view, an economy like ours, that depends on consumption, legal fees for unnecessary lawsuits, and financial firms who make money and don't produce anything of tangible value, it only hurts our children's future. We need to bring back the manufacturing and product development sectors so we have something to make and export.

I've dealt with both corporate and personal lawyers. Just like the traders on Wall Street, they win no matter who gets the win in court. In many cases, it was cheaper to settle than to win on the merits.

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:15PM

well Marc, if you should know, I would only be happy to have loser pays, do you know why? its the same reason business doesnt want it, or we would have it politically, and that reason is.... my clients dont have a penny or are generally squeeking by in life, but have been screwed by a defendant who can afford and expect to litigate, so....loser pays makes more money for my client, bc they simply dont have any downside, you see, bc they cant be collected from. Oh by the way, show me a crappy frivolous case, and ill show you a crappy lawyer... except, when a new novel theory of law presents itself....

Wha| 3.3.10 @ 7:22PM

Um, the UK and Germany both have about 150,000 lawyers. Japan has only about 20,000, but (i) they are increasing this number and (ii) they are much more restrictive in what a "lawyer" is.

I suppose you'd also propose making "loser pays" costs non-dischargeable in bankruptcy?

Ray| 2.15.10 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Ferguson, I wouldn't brag too much about how someone who makes 60 to 80 thousand dollars a year is, supposedly, finding enlightenment through suffering, as your article implies. I don't know about you, but I would have loved to "suffer" with $60,000 my first year at a job, any job.

Also, I would brag about the unnecessary, and very expensive, habit of legal firms BRIBING their employees to keep them from finding other employment by offering them above average pay for "community service." work they can, and should, do as volunteers. Just who do you think pays for all those redundant "community service" employees the firms are just trying to prevent from becoming competitors? You guess it, the clients. SO, thanks for keeping the legal profession the most expensive service in America.

People claim we need health care reform? HAH! This article tells me we need some serious Legal Profession reform.

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:19PM

sorry you dont make so much, but what does any of that have to do with legal profession reform? We dont make crap while we are in law school and undergrad, while you on the other hand, are making money each and every one of those years, and if you are competent, you get raises and promotions.. meanwhile, we get out and have to repay our loans, rekindle all of our relationships and hopefully keep our families while we study and go to school about 16 hours a day...so I am sorry if you didnt use those years to advance yourself. but I respect every one who works for a living bc really, our society is only as good as the man or woman who cleans our restrooms, greets us at walmart or any other job most people look down on, yet those jobs define companies more than some lame brain arse sucker.

Christopher Scott| 2.15.10 @ 2:09PM

Russ Ferguson is describing a real phenomena. However, there are relatively few recent law school graduates who enjoy being paid for a year to not work for a for-profit law firm. Major law firms have developed a very bad reputation for the way it treats their young lawyers, and this program is designed to improve their public images.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of recent law school graduates are currently unemployable as lawyers and will never be able to work as lawyers. Even before the downturn in the legal market, there were at least twice as many law school graduates as there were entry-level lawyer jobs. Now, the ratio of entry-level lawyer jobs to recent graduates is on the order of ten-to-one.

The bottom line is that law school is a very poor investment of a young person's time and money. It costs approximately $120,000 to earn a juris doctor and three years of lost income while you attend law school. At least one-half of the people who make this sacrifice will enjoy no benefits from this sacrifice. Further, most of the law school graduates who will eventually work as lawyers for some period of time ultimately leave the law for another profession. The hours are very long, there is tremendous career-risk, and the pay is not commensurate with the level of education and risk that must be incurred.

Charles Stevens| 2.15.10 @ 5:39PM

At the risk of presenting a digression to the associated article, I would suggest that the pay and/or entry positions of lawyers is singularly unimportant relative to the damage their profession as a whole is doing to this country. With that in mind, I will attempt to be constructive by proposing a set of laws and principles to address problems that are the result of lawyers now in control of every aspect of our society:

1. No one shall be eligible for public office if formerly a lawyer, until and unless they have resigned from all state and/or national bars for a minimum of five years.
2. Litigants who bring civil suit and lose in the first instance shall be required to pay all costs associated with the suit for both parties.
3. Laws shall henceforth be written in plain English (i.e., NOT in 'legalese'), and shall always consist of only the following parts: primary intent, example(s) of situations for which the law applies, and most importantly limitations on primary intent (with situational examples).
4. The law shall be taught as a theory of hierarchical traditional legality, such that the model consists of a framework of Constitutional original intent, and within the interstices of such framework the next-most subsidiary level of the hierarchy consisting of further explication/examples of applied original intent. Thus the model is a kind of pyramid, and not the shifting amorphous creep away from the Constitution that we now have.
5. So-called 'hate laws' shall be stricken from legal jurisdiction because they are inherently predicated primarily on individual intent, whereas there are already sufficient laws that rely solely on criminal actions per se. Therefore such delineations as 'first degree', 'second degree', 'manslaughter', etc. shall be applied only on the basis of a relative scale of the actions involved, and not on any attempt to criminalize or infer motive. This slippery slope has morphed into a type of thought control, and needs to be crushed at its origin.
6. Constraints on prior restraint shall be placed back into the most basic rungs of the legal hierarchy, and shall not be superseded by any form of the precautionary principle.
7. No regulatory agency shall be allowed to effect regulations until & unless every such regulation is completely reviewed and afterward passed into law by elected legislators. A moratorium on all such regulations and regulatory agencies shall be put in place and back-dated to ten years, until such point as their review and passage into law by legislative process is effected. No further federal regulatory agencies shall be put into place unless acted into law by a supermajority of Congress.
8. A jury of peers shall henceforth mean simply that they are a statistically randomized sample from the entire community over which the jurisdiction applies, and shall NOT mean that they fit within a category denoted by the accused and/or his counsel.
9. No law shall be predicated on any basis of 'self-esteem', disrespect, or offensiveness, since it shall be assumed that the Bill of Rights including freedom of speech is unabridged, and that in such a free society the feelings of an individual are the sole responsibility of that individual. All such existing laws already in extent shall be automatically stricken down.
10. No government agency shall have in absolute numbers more than five percent of its staff as practicing lawyers, no matter what their assumed or assigned responsibilities within that agency. This shall include all consultants, contractors, and others employed on a temporary basis.
11. Judges shall be eligible for appointment based almost entirely on their familiarity with and adherence to the above principles. The electorate should consider judges to be elected on the same basis.
12. (Constitutional Amendment) Supreme Court justices shall be appointed only for one term of 13 years, after which their seat is up for re-appointment.

I care little if the above is considered naive by legal professionals, since they are demonstrably unable to ascertain the forest from the trees. On inspection, it's a mystery why such people have been sucked into the stances they now defend. In summary, I may not have expressed the ideas sufficiently clearly (and believe me, I have more), but they are intended to convey intent and begin useful discussion.

frank may| 2.15.10 @ 8:01PM

Take a deep breath; do it again. You have waaaaay to much time on your hands.

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:23PM

right on Frank, most lawyers I know have incredible amounts of integrity, and usually its the business people that hire them are crooked, want to litigate crooked or dishonest for gains, and I wont even get into the government and its lawyers using eminent domain to grab property for some rich f##ck .

Jasper Phong| 2.19.10 @ 10:30AM

Charles Stevens:

"Unable to ascertain the forest from the trees"? Look at your points #3 and 4, as just one example. You disdain the use of 'legalese' in statutory law, and your very next point states:

"The law shall be taught as a theory of hierarchical traditional legality, such that the model consists of a framework of Constitutional original intent, and within the interstices of such framework the next-most subsidiary level of the hierarchy consisting of further explication/examples of applied original intent."

I mean, come on! What is that, German? When somebody with "Esq." after their name writes complicated language designed to anticipate legal challenges, they're guilty of "legalese," but when you rail off with this drivel, you're somehow a patriot?

Even an occasional reader such as I can tell that you're a self-righteous moron, but did it ever occur to you that you may just have become what you loathe the most? Your logic is akin to stating that the beatings will continue until morale improves.

It's easy to rail off against how lawyers are muddying up everything, creating a bureaucratic mess, and making your life miserable because they are insistent on protecting the rights of your clients as you are about protecting your own. Propose a real, viable alternative that is superior to the age old realization that "truth thrives in the adversarial marketplace of ideas," and maybe you'll have a point. Until then, you're just whining that because you don't get to win all the time, the entire system is screwed up.

Warren Eric| 2.15.10 @ 7:02PM

Mr. Ferguson's suggestion about the very large incoming salaries and bonuses is complete nonsense and an irresponsible analysis. Even in the best of times, that ONLY applied to an extremely tiny fraction of the number of qualified graduates from top-25 ranked law schools. Only those people talented at taking written exams -- and hence who got very high grades -- were ever in that boat. Mr. Ferguson chooses the route that far too many other reporters and journalists have -- imagining a world filled with fantasy stories like that on LA Law. And now the world dramatically crashes around the sexy associates? Give me a break!!!

The REALITY is that there is a HUGE glut of lawyers out there, and this has been the case for a very long time and will be for the rest of our lives, thanks to second-tier law school diploma mills that prey on the fears of college grads who are desparate to do something with their lives but have no imagination. With the likes of Mr. Ferguson in the loop, all these law schools have to do (in addition to LYING about the success rates of their grads) is wait for the fantasy spins... "when the economy gets better, LA Law will once again be reality"!!

Dream on, suckers. The only ones benefitting are the law schools and the student loan sharks.

joe bob| 2.16.10 @ 8:30PM

right on Warren, the fact is most lawyers barely scrape by. but the great surge came after LA Law was on tv and everyone was like, wow, that s easy!! but no.....its aint. MOst lawyers work for other people bc they cant generate the income needed to stay afloat til they make it.

You are right on Warren. Good post.

Alan| 2.17.10 @ 8:03AM

Your right its only for the minority that its all glamorous in this industry

SilentBob| 2.19.10 @ 5:36PM

Russ, you seem to miss the glaringly obvious fact that firms could care less whether you come back or not. Haven't you learned by now that first-year associates (or any junior associates for that matter) are completely fungible?? In fact, I'd bet hard money that most firms expected (and hoped!) many of the deferred associates wouldn't come back.

I'm a class of 09 deferred associate myself, and I can fully admit this. I'm fungible. The firm could care less. So no firm is going to suffer here.

แรน| 4.22.11 @ 12:46AM

Unfortunately, the vast majority of recent law school graduates are currently unemployable as lawyers and will never be able to work as lawyers. Even before the downturn in the legal market.

wow| 10.17.11 @ 1:25PM

Obviously from the responses. You've got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying... actos lawsuit

superclub| 5.25.11 @ 1:01AM

The REALITY is that there is a HUGE glut of lawyers out there, and this has been the case for a very long time and will be for the rest of our lives, thanks to second-tier law school diploma mills that prey on the fears of college grads.

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:48PM

I am happy to find so many useful information here in the post, thanks for sharing it here. I hope you will be adding more.
L Tod Schlosser

Puma x Alexander McQueen| 8.13.11 @ 12:03AM

is good

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 3:05PM

REALLY? DO YOU LIKE THAT BLOG? WHY DO YOU LIKE? PLEASE SHARE RELATED TO THE TOPIC

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 3:53PM

So informative post.I appreciate you for such great and informative post.mesothelioma attorneys

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 2:23AM

Well, that is my very first visit on your weblog! We're a group of volunteers and beginning a brand new initiative in a group throughout the same niche. Your weblog supplied us useful info to work on.

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:53PM

Thank you very much for a nice and cool article. It is an alternative post by you. That is so cute. This is very nice post! I will bookmark this blog
yaz recall

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:48AM

i know this blog is also help for other people and the blog is also the key to success our rank goes to up..

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:09PM

good post Would you please post an article about making templates for new version of blogger Something like your template Regard..

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:33PM

I must say that this is a great post..Really i am impressed from this post.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:50AM

I likeI like to live in my country. Everything is ok and running well. Our government taking care of us in a good way.
Actos side effects

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:48PM

Hi everybody. Interesting topic for a blog. I have been reading a lot of blogs and forums lately. Some are really informative some are entertaining and some are a real crack up.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 3:02AM

And don’t be bothered if these methods seem shady to you:
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:41AM

This is a good piece of writing made for this particular topic. I will link it back to your website though. I was wondering if I could use this write-up on my website.

zoloft lawsuit