Seems to me that you are responding more like a tort troll than rational rabbit.
First, on lawyers. You avoid my point or perhaps even make it.
(A) They may be investigated by the Bar Association and admonished, censured, suspended, or disbarred;
Does anyone believe that the Bar system is NOT prejudiced in favor of the profession? How does it deal with the common practice of attorneys writing intimidating letters or imposing costs on individuals by forcing them to seek their own attorneys?
Why not place a NON ATTORNEY adjudication system over the legal system?
The legal disparity in our system is way out of hand. I have sat in sessions with corporate types and listened to the lawyers exploain how dissent can be blocked by invoking the fear of legal costs. I have listened to attorneys avoid their own code by claiming that they werfe NOT acting as attorneys while making very sure the targets of their authority knew damn well who had tghe "law" on their side.
(B) Under Civil Rule 11, the judge can impose sanctions that include making the lawyer and/or his client pay the defendant’s attorney fees and other legal costs, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars.
(C) Depending on the nature of the abuse, e.g., suborning or committing perjury, criminal penalties may apply as well.
Roger, you ou use the word defendant. BUT, criminal law is ..as bad as it is .. better than civil law. In a criminal case the State forces someone ot represent even the poorest "defendant." Click here if you think OJ got the same sort of defense as some illegal farmworker charged with rape pr some bozo who loses business because his Mac crashes?
Civil law is FAR worse. The playing field in those courts is loaded on the side of those with the money to buy attorneys. The only exception to thisis the small claims court. I think we should greatkly exand the role of small claims clourse ..btw that would also address some of your comments about medical malpractice.
No comments:
Post a Comment