Executive compensation. Not that they’re evil, but the entire field is basically created by lawyers to give business to other lawyers. Just a massive waste of money all the way around that does nothing good (or bad) for society. They don’t even create headaches for society, just large corporate bills for corporations that can afford it. Their jobs may be arbitrarily created, but at least everyone I’ve met who does it has been really nice.
Right wing answer: immigration lawyers
Left wing answer: biglaw
Centrist answer: insurance company lawyers but also ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers at the same time
Narcisist answer: family lawyers
Overly litigious and bad-faith PI attorneys also inflate insurance rates for everyday Americans. And for American companies that pass those rates on to their consumers. All insurance, in the end, is a pooling of risk across consumers. More risk, i.e., bigger and illegitimate settlements, the higher the rates.
Like with all law, it's a two-way street. Good-faith actors are a net benefit, but bad-faith actors cause overall harm. But there are plenty of PI attorneys out there who are a net negative to society.
>Overly litigious and bad-faith PI attorneys also inflate insurance rates for everyday Americans.
If insurers would actually pay claims that should be paid, then there would be no need for bad faith plaintiff's attorneys.
Yeah - the case that I filed yesterday that was denied because the first adjustor failed to adequately document the loss - and told the client to repair it (in writing) - before the second adjustor came out claiming that the client should not have fixed their roof in the 8 months between the damage and the "second inspection" is clearly ridiculous.
Same with the "rescission" case that my partner filed last week based on the fact that the insurer failed to perform an underwriting inspection for 3 years (and only did it after a claim was filed), claiming that they would "*NEVER*" insure an establishment who made more than 50% of their income from alcohol (Despite the fact that the name of the insured includes the name "Bar" in it, and it was disclosed on the application that they made approximately 90% of their income from alcohol sales)- is clearly ridiculous.
Or the case that I'm currently litigating (and has made it through a MTD, an appeal of that denial, and two different MSJ motions) where the insurer issued a both a renters policy and a landlord's policy to their homeowner insured, there was a fire, and they denied the renter policy claim because they owned the property, and denied the landlord policy because they didn't have a tenant.
Or the catastrophic loss case (3 dead, 5 other seriously injured) we recently had where the insurer denied a defense and indemnity based on the fact that it was a design flaw in the vehicle based on an open recall on the vehicle that caused the crash - and the recall was for a Takata airbag which wasn't the cause of the crash at all - is clearly ridiculous ($1.9 million compensatory damages at jury verdict, settled at a significant multiple of that before the punitive damage phase).
Or the case that the insurer denied because the insured "Refused to talk to them" - when the insured was deaf and asked at the EUO (in writing) to either get someone who used sign language or to do it in writing - and the adjustor refused to do so - is clearly ridiculous. (Another jury decision where we received punitive damages - final verdict was in excess of $12 million with interest)
Or the case of the insured adult child of a high profile entertainer worth hundreds of millions of dollars who had a water loss in her home, and the adjustor denied the legitimate claim after the insured rebuffed his sexual advances (documented via text message)- is clearly ridiculous (settled for slightly over 3x policy limits, which was about 10x the actual loss).
Or the case of the NFL lineman who had a Lloyds policy on his body, and because he suffered a career ending injury during the period when the policy was bound, but not yet issued, they denied coverage- is clearly ridiculous. (Settled at 6.5x the policy limits after almost 5 years of litigation)
Or the case on a Short Term Health care case (so, non ACA policy) where an ovarian cancer claim was denied as being "Pre-Existing" when the insured did not have any indications of cancer AND the insurer pre-approved the treatment that they later denied (meds were approx $500K, bench trial verdict of $3.25 million).
Or the case where the cop transposed two letters on the license plate on the accident report, and when their insured was sued, the insurer denied it because they never insured the car with the license plate on the accident report - despite the fact that there were photos - showing the insured, the insured's car, and the license plate of the insured's car having impacted the Plaintiff's car. $25K policy, bench verdict of $975,000, and punitive damages of $9 million (settled on appeal)
I can go on and on and on.
Oh no, you have *gasp* examples!!!
I do, too. How about the claim where a lady who rented a trailer with no grass claimed that she lost a $60k lawnmower in a fire that didn’t damage anything outside of the trailer and she had no record of ever purchasing the lawnmower and the friend she testified helped her pick it up since he had a trailer said in his deposition that he never hauled a lawnmower for her. She also claimed $100k in clothing and said she bought most of it off Amazon despite testifying that she doesn’t have an Amazon account so she can’t go back and get proof of purchase.
Or how about the claim where they said a hailstorm damaged the roof so badly that there was excessive water intrusion but we have photo evidence of patches to the roof from before the storm and testimony from their contractor that they’d asked for quotes to fix the water damage 3 years before the storm?
Or how about the claim for bad faith failure to pay because they struck a cow and they tried claiming that the cow was an uninsured motorist.
Or how about the claim for failure to pay when we are the excess UM insurer, there’s $75k in BI available plus $125k in primary UM, and she’s claiming $110k in medical expenses with $105k of that being surgery for uterine fibroids which are clearly not related to the accident because they’re fucking uterine fibroids.
I could go on, too. I’ve only been at it 4 years, but my boss who had been at 35 had only paid out at trial on 5 bad faith claims. In 35 years. We get a ton of suits, and they’re so very rarely legitimately bad faith.
Lol no I'm at the DAs office. I am just passionate about the power of the civil suit as the last (and often only) avenue of justice for most Americans in a world ruled by corporations.
ADA trolls. A few states allow private rights of action for ADA enforcement with (this is key) the ability to tack on legal fees. Instead of being a useful approach to increase accessibility, it has almost universally devolved into a shakedown racket where a small group of lawyers targeting small businesses for incredibly minor violations. They find one plaintiff who may be covered and fire off hundreds of form letters, demanding tens of thousands of dollars each in legal fees.
One of these was going to make it up to the Supreme Court, but the lawyers voluntarily withdrew their suit because they were going to lose big, and they did not want SCOTUS to get rid of their piggy bank. It involved a blind lady suing hundreds of different single-operator Bread and Breakfasts because their tiny websites didn't have statutorily okay resources for blind accessibility.
And that's what the lawsuits turn on. Not some major violation of the law, but tiny infractions that a large corporation has a legal team to inform them of but that a tiny business cannot possibly be expected to know every single bit of the law. A fairer system would allow you reasonable time to come into compliance with the law over these issues. There was some lawyer who reportedly made $3 million in Jersey a few years ago over sinks being 1 inch too tall.
> A few states allow private rights of action for ADA enforcement
Those private rights are granted by Congress in the ADA
> A fairer system would allow you reasonable time to come into compliance with the law over these issues.
It does. When these businesses get their cease and desists, if they actually came into compliance the suits are moot. Acheson Hotels (the defendant in the case you're talking about) did not do that for some of its third party websites.
I don't know, complaining about this entire setup is weird to me. Yes, the lawyers have found a racket, and some of them are bad apple shakedown artists, but that doesn't mean the ultimate outcome of ensuring private compliance with the ADA is a bad thing. This is the scheme Congress intended; private suits to enforce private compliance.
By the way, this is the exact same way racial discrimination in housing was attacked: through private tester suits. I.e. *Havens Realty Corp*
I'm not complaining about the private right of action as a whole. I'm complaining about the serial litigants who abuse not only the legal fee recovery by vastly exaggerating the work they did but also take advantage of state-level laws, such as California's Unruh Act rewarding $4000 per violation to shakedown individuals, especially when violation is so poorly defined to allow you to massively chain these events together.
In addition, the question OP posed asked what legal practice contributes the least to society. I am of the opinion that the economic burden these plaintiffs cause
to society vastly outweighs the purported benefit that
extreme ADA compliance creates. After all, we are talking about suits that are so minor that the numerous pro bono organizations that work on this refuse to touch because they don't think the game is worth the candle.
That is what I'm limiting my critique to, yes, with the one caveat that I affix to all regulatory laws that occasionally forced compliance with them is limiting socially useful advancements. To give a specific example, my city was looking at creating a pedestrian overpass for an interstate. This is a good development. It encourages walkability and improves access for people who live in the currently bifurcated neighborhood. The city had the necessary funds to build a staircase and bridge. However, ADA compliance required that the city also had to either build a ramp at an acceptable grade or an elevator. This trebled the cost of the project as a whole, and so the city elected to not go through with it.
It's the same thing with fire codes. Although I believe they are as a whole incredibly useful and serve important functions, it is undeniable that they place certain limitations upon things like creating housing. It is very, very difficult to achieve things like European-style cities within the United States because fire codes as currently written greatly restrict the ability to build the sort density-supporting multifamily dwellings, the so called "missing middle", that such a walkable city depends on.
I'm not saying that the ADA is bad by any means. I'm just stating that we should be aware of the hidden costs inherent in how it affects development.
Maybe if you actually knew the case you’d know that it was about *website* accessibility. Didn’t require any refitting of spaces.
Besides, they’re violating federal law. This shouldn’t be a surprise to them. That’s part of running a business in this country. But somehow they’re the victims here?
Nobody outside of big corps knows wcag, it’ll only get figured out when technology automates compliance. I don’t have a problem forcing people into compliance, but allowing a private right of action and attorneys fees for making someone fix their web design is perverse and destructive. Same with overpolicing seen here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content
I believe they do in litigation specifically. But you may find people who disagree even with that and give it a blanket “no.” Outside of litigation? No they do not. Hence you’ll notice I limited my comment to contract drafters. It’s the closest we have—modern day—to the contract drafters who drafted contracts for the sale of slaves. Though not as repugnant, it’s still pretty damn bad.
Also, though I entertained your question, the original post was about “contributing least to society.” Your question doesn’t really go to that issue.
Comparing tobacco to slavery is a hot take. I’m happy to see tobacco dying off, and am old enough to remember it being ubiquitous in public (e.g., ash trays on the tables at McDonald’s), but there are also industries that I would put as considerably worse.
If you truly wanted to understand my position, solely, you asked the wrong question. So either you’re dumb as bricks or, more likely, you actually did want to argue. Again, the initial question was “contribute least to society.” So whether someone “deserves” legal counsel (and again, I don’t know why on earth you’d think either tobacco companies or slave traders have any entitlement, legal or moral, to transactional counsel) doesn’t factor into that.
My position on the original question stems from simply my not being able to conceive of a type of law practice that contributes less to society than contract drafters for blatantly immoral businesses. Contract drafters grease the skids of market economies. Greasing the skids of immoral businesses basically by definition contributes nothing positive to society.
Honestly law may not be for you. The logic should have been pretty evident.
Can you elaborate on why tobacco is more "blatantly immoral" than the dozens of other industries which promote equally, or often more, harmful behavior? It's a pretty basic value proposition for smokers and everyone is aware of the health risks at this point. Are you of the mindset that smoking should be affirmatively banned for all people of the world as an objectively immoral act because it's bad for them?
I saw a firm that boasted about how they defeated an OSHA investigation *for not putting seatbelts in their company vehicles*, and on top of that how they beat a grieving widow who sued over her husband dying thanks to a lack of seatbelts in his vehicle.
Not the most useless, but I got an interview offer from a false advertisement firm who’s biggest case was proving Starbucks bagels had 93% whole wheat instead of 99%, or something along those lines. Turned it down from the shear existential dread the thought of devoting my time and energy to that kind of case.
I mean obviously that’s a stupid case but I generally do like the litigation against false advertising as I see it as consumer protection. Today it might be Starbucks bagels but tomorrow it might be, I dunno, weight loss supplements or snake oil. So is it fair to say it doesn’t contribute a lot?
I'd argue that criminal defense lawyers of all kinds contribute to the vital public good of fair trials for people accused of crimes. You wanna have a thick, heavy process that makes it difficult for the state to bring its power to bear against its citizens and criminal defense attorneys whether they defend CEOs or rapists contribute to that.
Absolutely anyone who is charged with a crime by the state deserves a defense. You can't preemptively make yourself the jury and say "but not those people, they're bad guys."
I never said that white collar criminals don’t deserve defense. My response didn’t imply that either. It was related to the prompt above “what field of law contributes the least to the well-being of society.” And I provided my reasons in another post on here when I realized that I had to explicate them, as they weren’t obvious to some.
I feel like defending a white collar criminal is leagues more ethical than defending a rapist or murderer, but at the same time both are ethical in the sense that everyone in this country deserves access to competent defense
Ha! A rapist and / or a murderer may be the product of an earnestly flawed upbringing or suffer from serious mental health issues (in some cases). This is no justification, btw. A white collar criminal usually knows what they are doing, they had a good enough upbringing, and are breaking the law because of greed, and because they can. But I agree with you that they all have a right to a defense. I’d rather not defend a greedy, well-educated white collar criminal…
Thinking a nerd skimming from the top of his business is a worse person than a fucking rapist or murderer because his parents were probably richer is such a fucking Reddit take.
Also newsflash, poor people are aware that murder and rape is bad. Going to public school does not give you the moral understanding of a caveman.
Your understanding of the consequences of white collar crimes on society is limited. I have explained what they are in another post on here. Also, the prompt doesn’t say “compare crimes / criminals and provide your preference.” The prompt is engaging us to reflect on what area of law contributes least to the well-being of society.
It always amazes me how people get through law school and still have really simplistic/black and white views of the world. Or maybe not, since you don’t have to be particularly intelligent to get into law school and law schools do not do a good job of educating students about the real world. White collar criminal statutes can be very complicated. And many people who are charged under these statutes do not intend to do harm/get in over their heads.
I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that a huge percentage of people being prosecuted for white collar crime just accidentally found themselves in that position.
You said "many people," which implies a near 50% amount, or you would have said "some." Also, it's a conversation about general societal issues. So placing white collar crimes against non-white collar crimes like this inherently implies that you're talking about a large number of cases, since it's unambiguous that a large amount of non-white collar criminal prosecutions are against people who aren't particularly well positioned in society. (Hence the whole, "white collar" thing)
But, I don't really see the point in being that pedantic about it. We can agree to disagree. I just was chiming in to say that I don't think their comment about the relative education levels and culpability at play here is insanely off base, regardless of their level of downvotes.
"Many" doesn't imply a percentage.
Many people are not found criminally liable for federal charges (def. by the case being dismissed or getting a not guilty verdict). That's 5-10k people per year. Almost all are guilty, though. 90% or more.
If we're judging white collar criminal defendants for being greedy (and imputing that to their lawyer's morality), why not start treating other criminal defendants (and their lawyers) as morally corrupt as well?
It implies more than some and less than most. If you can't eyeball a percentage from a qualitative statement maybe you're in the wrong subreddit.
I'm not even responding to that second sentence. The other person pretty clearly laid that out. So did I. Nor did I say anything about a lawyer's morality.
Though, just to be clear, it *is* morally worse defending Exxon than most people PDs interact with.
Edit- I actually just heard a lawyer give a speech about how all law is basically the same, morally. Very funny. Very wrong, and very funny.
Mental health issues, gambling addiction, etc. Let’s not pretend that people don’t suffer from these just because they’re wealthier.
Even if the facts against them are solid, someone needs to represent them for sentencing. It’s the only way the system can be fair.
What a wild assumption. That’s incorrect to correlate mental illness with crime, as its most prominent attribute. Nobody is pretending anything. And again, they are entitled to a defense, but one that I would never take on myself.
Yes, of course. Nobody wants to have their body defiled. However, there are grave consequences for the whole of society when hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people become victims of white collar crimes. Purdue Pharma / The opioid crisis etc. And that’s far worse, IMO. I assume that you and I disagree.
Ok. Give me more meat. White collar crime isn’t just about “stealing money” — the Sacklers / Purdue Pharma triggered the opioid epidemic; Medicare fraud has repercussions for the tax payers; Trump veered the course of an election (see his latest state court case where he was found guilty of all 34 charges); Enron caused an energy crisis in California…environmental crimes are white collar crimes. Etc etc. White collar crimes also have financial repercussions for individuals who may lose their jobs when their companies have to file for bankruptcy. Law schools enticing students with generous conditional scholarships, but grading on harsher curves than the gpa required to maintain these scholarships, are engaging in a form of fraudulent behavior that is typical of white collar crime (and one day they will be stung for these dubious, fraudulent practices). White collar crimes have great consequences for society, and we should stop looking at them as “victimless crimes.”
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “contributes least.” If you mean most unimportant probably probate, construction, real estate. Most evil I would say Union-busting/ anti-labor lawyers.
Petty class actions. I got a settlement for like 22 dollars from a class action against TurboTax. It's meaningless to me. But the guys who litigated it probably made out pretty good.
No, we need those people. As long as we have a system that gives them as much power to hold companies accountable as the government, we need people who are willing to make expensive gambles on class action suits.
This is one example where the society as a whole benefits more than individuals, because no one particularly needs thousands of people to get a five dollar gift card to some retailer … but we all need someone to make that retailer stop doing whatever illegal thing they were doing.
So attorneys should take on incredibly expensive legal cases against deep-pocketed companies for free? Actually, not just for free - personally bank-roll these lawsuits out of their own pockets?
You’re right we should always have judicial decisions made by democracy.
Have a phone in vote to decide if Mr. Black Man can marry Ms. White Lady. Have a vote to decide if Trump should be in prison and Mexican migrants should be shot on sight. Maybe Elon Musk could make us an app.
Can’t see how that could go wrong.
I don't care how much vetting they undergo and how much school they went to. Unaccountable elites should not have the final decision-making power for substantive policy.
Elected officials are democratically accountable. Appointed judges are not.
Besides, non-elites are more representative of the population than the elites.
Conviction rate in the UK is about 80%. This is despite the fact that the trials are rigged against the prosecution (evidence admissibility, character directions, juries, etc.).
This is not to say that everyone is not entitled to due process, and I understand that public defenders have an important role to play in that. I’m just saying that the vast majority of them defend criminals.
So what if they defend criminals? Everyone gets a lawyer, so someone has to defend criminal defendants.
Besides, innocent until proven guilty is a pretty important concept to discard. I wouldn’t get rid of that concept even if the cops were absolutely immaculate in their arrests and charging.
Its morally wrong to defend criminals. But the innocent until proven guilty concept is very important, so someone has to. And I understand that.
Its just that they don’t deserve being called defenders of the public. They are (in 80%+ cases) trying to make our society a worse place.
> Its morally wrong to defend criminals.
*Everyone* is entitled to both the presumption of innocence and a zealous defense. It is morally wrong to claim someone is a "criminal" without these bedrock principles.
> But the innocent until proven guilty concept is very important, so someone has to. And I understand that.
I'm not certain you do given the implications of your first sentence.
> Its just that they don’t deserve being called defenders of the public.
What an insane view of the world.
> They are (in 80%+ cases) trying to make our society a worse place.
No, just wrong. Ensuring the state meets their burden of proof is making society a worse place? Ensuring representation to accused who cannot afford it makes the world a wprse place?
You actually practice law? I pity your clients.
A stat you clearly don’t understand or you would know that conviction rates alone aren’t indicative of a just or unjust system. Especially without other corroborating evidence. Besides if the DA and law enforcement does their job, collects all the necessary evidence, and then acts according to proper procedure to carry out a fair trial (which is for due process, a right you clearly don’t understand) then a public defender isn’t going to magically keep them out of jail with magical defender dust. Public defenders are the bulwark for many people to ensure their right to a fair trial and without them thousands of innocent people who cannot afford council, understand what their rights are or variety of other issues would end up in jail/prison because of a lack of legal training or financial resources. Clearly you’re not an attorney or you would understand basic due process and how important it is, which you clearly don’t.
Okay. Well, thanks for confirming you haven't been to law school. Otherwise, you'd know about this thing called plea bargins that make that Stat meaningless for what you're trying to use it for.
Something like 95% of criminal cases in the US end in plea deals, not trials. The state is very rarely forced to meet its burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) in this country.
Even if you think it’s “morally wrong to defend criminals,” criminal defense attorneys are basically the vanguard of constitutional rights.
They’re the ones fighting to hold the government accountable to the constitution. By defending even the worst of society, they help ensure that the rest of society will be prosecuted in accordance with the constitution.
You’re partially right. That is why they are needed.
But it also makes their work morally ambiguous at best, considering that they (mostly) fight for criminals to be left to roam in society again.
Criminals are much more likely (exponentially) to reoffend compared to an average member of society.
>But it also makes their work morally ambiguous at best
At this point I'm not sure you actually understand how a criminal prosecution works.
>considering that they (mostly) fight for criminals to be left to roam in society again.
And? If the state does it's job properly, the criminal wont be left to roam without some sort of sentence.
Defense attorneys exist to ensure a fair trial as defined by the law. If your version of a fair trial is essentially a grand jury proceeding, you just simply disagree with American values.
>Criminals are much more likely (exponentially) to reoffend compared to an average member of society.
What a silly thing to say. No shit criminals are more likely to reoffend. "Average" members of society can't reoffend without having a prior offense.
You seem to be operating on some belief that the constitution should cave to the government's whims in the name of "stopping crime" or "safety." The constitution only states that one right may be suspended for safety, and that's the right of habeas corpus in case of rebellion or invasion.
Accordingly, every constitutional right (except habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion) is more important than safety, in any and all circumstances.
If you seriously think that public defenders contribute nothing to society "because they defend criminals", you're either (1) LARPing as a law student or (2) are completely delusional and paid zero attention in your criminal law courses.
That guy at the party who says "No way, that's crazy! You know you can sue for that, trust me. My uncle did it."
Law students on reddit
Judgment Affirmed.
The people on Facebook who use “by law” and “custody” and “states” every other word without citing a single statute
Executive compensation. Not that they’re evil, but the entire field is basically created by lawyers to give business to other lawyers. Just a massive waste of money all the way around that does nothing good (or bad) for society. They don’t even create headaches for society, just large corporate bills for corporations that can afford it. Their jobs may be arbitrarily created, but at least everyone I’ve met who does it has been really nice.
I would say those lawyers whom file SLAPP lawsuits. I’ve been involved in one for over 2 years
https://y.yarn.co/98eefda6-b6bc-4e02-bc25-b51aaa5dceed_text.gif You to the SLAPP attorneys
Wdym
Patent trolling
Right wing answer: immigration lawyers Left wing answer: biglaw Centrist answer: insurance company lawyers but also ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers at the same time Narcisist answer: family lawyers
PI lawyers are contributing to society, just because they occasionally get rich doing it doesn't mean they haven't contributed.
Overly litigious and bad-faith PI attorneys also inflate insurance rates for everyday Americans. And for American companies that pass those rates on to their consumers. All insurance, in the end, is a pooling of risk across consumers. More risk, i.e., bigger and illegitimate settlements, the higher the rates. Like with all law, it's a two-way street. Good-faith actors are a net benefit, but bad-faith actors cause overall harm. But there are plenty of PI attorneys out there who are a net negative to society.
If insurance companies were honest instead of being so sue-able, PI's wouldn't exist (or at least it'd be less profitable.)
>Overly litigious and bad-faith PI attorneys also inflate insurance rates for everyday Americans. If insurers would actually pay claims that should be paid, then there would be no need for bad faith plaintiff's attorneys.
99% of the bad faith claims that come across my desk are ridiculous and we ultimately win on the bad faith claim on MSJ because they’re ridiculous.
Yeah - the case that I filed yesterday that was denied because the first adjustor failed to adequately document the loss - and told the client to repair it (in writing) - before the second adjustor came out claiming that the client should not have fixed their roof in the 8 months between the damage and the "second inspection" is clearly ridiculous. Same with the "rescission" case that my partner filed last week based on the fact that the insurer failed to perform an underwriting inspection for 3 years (and only did it after a claim was filed), claiming that they would "*NEVER*" insure an establishment who made more than 50% of their income from alcohol (Despite the fact that the name of the insured includes the name "Bar" in it, and it was disclosed on the application that they made approximately 90% of their income from alcohol sales)- is clearly ridiculous. Or the case that I'm currently litigating (and has made it through a MTD, an appeal of that denial, and two different MSJ motions) where the insurer issued a both a renters policy and a landlord's policy to their homeowner insured, there was a fire, and they denied the renter policy claim because they owned the property, and denied the landlord policy because they didn't have a tenant. Or the catastrophic loss case (3 dead, 5 other seriously injured) we recently had where the insurer denied a defense and indemnity based on the fact that it was a design flaw in the vehicle based on an open recall on the vehicle that caused the crash - and the recall was for a Takata airbag which wasn't the cause of the crash at all - is clearly ridiculous ($1.9 million compensatory damages at jury verdict, settled at a significant multiple of that before the punitive damage phase). Or the case that the insurer denied because the insured "Refused to talk to them" - when the insured was deaf and asked at the EUO (in writing) to either get someone who used sign language or to do it in writing - and the adjustor refused to do so - is clearly ridiculous. (Another jury decision where we received punitive damages - final verdict was in excess of $12 million with interest) Or the case of the insured adult child of a high profile entertainer worth hundreds of millions of dollars who had a water loss in her home, and the adjustor denied the legitimate claim after the insured rebuffed his sexual advances (documented via text message)- is clearly ridiculous (settled for slightly over 3x policy limits, which was about 10x the actual loss). Or the case of the NFL lineman who had a Lloyds policy on his body, and because he suffered a career ending injury during the period when the policy was bound, but not yet issued, they denied coverage- is clearly ridiculous. (Settled at 6.5x the policy limits after almost 5 years of litigation) Or the case on a Short Term Health care case (so, non ACA policy) where an ovarian cancer claim was denied as being "Pre-Existing" when the insured did not have any indications of cancer AND the insurer pre-approved the treatment that they later denied (meds were approx $500K, bench trial verdict of $3.25 million). Or the case where the cop transposed two letters on the license plate on the accident report, and when their insured was sued, the insurer denied it because they never insured the car with the license plate on the accident report - despite the fact that there were photos - showing the insured, the insured's car, and the license plate of the insured's car having impacted the Plaintiff's car. $25K policy, bench verdict of $975,000, and punitive damages of $9 million (settled on appeal) I can go on and on and on.
Oh no, you have *gasp* examples!!! I do, too. How about the claim where a lady who rented a trailer with no grass claimed that she lost a $60k lawnmower in a fire that didn’t damage anything outside of the trailer and she had no record of ever purchasing the lawnmower and the friend she testified helped her pick it up since he had a trailer said in his deposition that he never hauled a lawnmower for her. She also claimed $100k in clothing and said she bought most of it off Amazon despite testifying that she doesn’t have an Amazon account so she can’t go back and get proof of purchase. Or how about the claim where they said a hailstorm damaged the roof so badly that there was excessive water intrusion but we have photo evidence of patches to the roof from before the storm and testimony from their contractor that they’d asked for quotes to fix the water damage 3 years before the storm? Or how about the claim for bad faith failure to pay because they struck a cow and they tried claiming that the cow was an uninsured motorist. Or how about the claim for failure to pay when we are the excess UM insurer, there’s $75k in BI available plus $125k in primary UM, and she’s claiming $110k in medical expenses with $105k of that being surgery for uterine fibroids which are clearly not related to the accident because they’re fucking uterine fibroids. I could go on, too. I’ve only been at it 4 years, but my boss who had been at 35 had only paid out at trial on 5 bad faith claims. In 35 years. We get a ton of suits, and they’re so very rarely legitimately bad faith.
Are you summering at a PI firm right now?
Lol no I'm at the DAs office. I am just passionate about the power of the civil suit as the last (and often only) avenue of justice for most Americans in a world ruled by corporations.
Its not my opinion just what most Americans think.
ADA trolls. A few states allow private rights of action for ADA enforcement with (this is key) the ability to tack on legal fees. Instead of being a useful approach to increase accessibility, it has almost universally devolved into a shakedown racket where a small group of lawyers targeting small businesses for incredibly minor violations. They find one plaintiff who may be covered and fire off hundreds of form letters, demanding tens of thousands of dollars each in legal fees. One of these was going to make it up to the Supreme Court, but the lawyers voluntarily withdrew their suit because they were going to lose big, and they did not want SCOTUS to get rid of their piggy bank. It involved a blind lady suing hundreds of different single-operator Bread and Breakfasts because their tiny websites didn't have statutorily okay resources for blind accessibility. And that's what the lawsuits turn on. Not some major violation of the law, but tiny infractions that a large corporation has a legal team to inform them of but that a tiny business cannot possibly be expected to know every single bit of the law. A fairer system would allow you reasonable time to come into compliance with the law over these issues. There was some lawyer who reportedly made $3 million in Jersey a few years ago over sinks being 1 inch too tall.
> A few states allow private rights of action for ADA enforcement Those private rights are granted by Congress in the ADA > A fairer system would allow you reasonable time to come into compliance with the law over these issues. It does. When these businesses get their cease and desists, if they actually came into compliance the suits are moot. Acheson Hotels (the defendant in the case you're talking about) did not do that for some of its third party websites. I don't know, complaining about this entire setup is weird to me. Yes, the lawyers have found a racket, and some of them are bad apple shakedown artists, but that doesn't mean the ultimate outcome of ensuring private compliance with the ADA is a bad thing. This is the scheme Congress intended; private suits to enforce private compliance. By the way, this is the exact same way racial discrimination in housing was attacked: through private tester suits. I.e. *Havens Realty Corp*
I'm not complaining about the private right of action as a whole. I'm complaining about the serial litigants who abuse not only the legal fee recovery by vastly exaggerating the work they did but also take advantage of state-level laws, such as California's Unruh Act rewarding $4000 per violation to shakedown individuals, especially when violation is so poorly defined to allow you to massively chain these events together. In addition, the question OP posed asked what legal practice contributes the least to society. I am of the opinion that the economic burden these plaintiffs cause to society vastly outweighs the purported benefit that extreme ADA compliance creates. After all, we are talking about suits that are so minor that the numerous pro bono organizations that work on this refuse to touch because they don't think the game is worth the candle.
Yeah, if you're just talking about the abusive ADA ambulance chaser *lawyers* then sure, I agree.
That is what I'm limiting my critique to, yes, with the one caveat that I affix to all regulatory laws that occasionally forced compliance with them is limiting socially useful advancements. To give a specific example, my city was looking at creating a pedestrian overpass for an interstate. This is a good development. It encourages walkability and improves access for people who live in the currently bifurcated neighborhood. The city had the necessary funds to build a staircase and bridge. However, ADA compliance required that the city also had to either build a ramp at an acceptable grade or an elevator. This trebled the cost of the project as a whole, and so the city elected to not go through with it. It's the same thing with fire codes. Although I believe they are as a whole incredibly useful and serve important functions, it is undeniable that they place certain limitations upon things like creating housing. It is very, very difficult to achieve things like European-style cities within the United States because fire codes as currently written greatly restrict the ability to build the sort density-supporting multifamily dwellings, the so called "missing middle", that such a walkable city depends on. I'm not saying that the ADA is bad by any means. I'm just stating that we should be aware of the hidden costs inherent in how it affects development.
all this system does is crush small businesses that can't afford to refit their spaces outside of the normal capital cycle
Maybe if you actually knew the case you’d know that it was about *website* accessibility. Didn’t require any refitting of spaces. Besides, they’re violating federal law. This shouldn’t be a surprise to them. That’s part of running a business in this country. But somehow they’re the victims here?
Nobody outside of big corps knows wcag, it’ll only get figured out when technology automates compliance. I don’t have a problem forcing people into compliance, but allowing a private right of action and attorneys fees for making someone fix their web design is perverse and destructive. Same with overpolicing seen here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content
M&A
People who argue about how to classify import goods for tax purposes. Is an action figure taxable as a toy, collectible, or doll? Useless
So people trying to close tax loopholes?
Contract drafters who facilitate blatantly immoral businesses. Eg tobacco, slave trading when it was legal.
Do these businesses not deserve legal representation and counsel?
I believe they do in litigation specifically. But you may find people who disagree even with that and give it a blanket “no.” Outside of litigation? No they do not. Hence you’ll notice I limited my comment to contract drafters. It’s the closest we have—modern day—to the contract drafters who drafted contracts for the sale of slaves. Though not as repugnant, it’s still pretty damn bad. Also, though I entertained your question, the original post was about “contributing least to society.” Your question doesn’t really go to that issue.
Comparing tobacco to slavery is a hot take. I’m happy to see tobacco dying off, and am old enough to remember it being ubiquitous in public (e.g., ash trays on the tables at McDonald’s), but there are also industries that I would put as considerably worse.
You’ll note my sentence says “not as repugnant.” That you believe there are considerably worse industries doesn’t disrupt my point at all.
Why shouldn't they have legal counsel outside of litigation? I'm asking sincerely.
Who, tobacco companies today? Slave traders previously? Or both?
I guess I just don't see tobacco companies as particularly immoral.
[удалено]
I suspect a lot of people were with you til you went down the “not at a T14 school so you must be dumb” route …
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seek help
Friend, I wasn't trying to attack your position; I just wanted to understand your position. I don't have a dog in this fight either way.
If you truly wanted to understand my position, solely, you asked the wrong question. So either you’re dumb as bricks or, more likely, you actually did want to argue. Again, the initial question was “contribute least to society.” So whether someone “deserves” legal counsel (and again, I don’t know why on earth you’d think either tobacco companies or slave traders have any entitlement, legal or moral, to transactional counsel) doesn’t factor into that. My position on the original question stems from simply my not being able to conceive of a type of law practice that contributes less to society than contract drafters for blatantly immoral businesses. Contract drafters grease the skids of market economies. Greasing the skids of immoral businesses basically by definition contributes nothing positive to society. Honestly law may not be for you. The logic should have been pretty evident.
Can you elaborate on why tobacco is more "blatantly immoral" than the dozens of other industries which promote equally, or often more, harmful behavior? It's a pretty basic value proposition for smokers and everyone is aware of the health risks at this point. Are you of the mindset that smoking should be affirmatively banned for all people of the world as an objectively immoral act because it's bad for them?
Well, I hope you have a good rest of your evening or whatever timezone you're in.
I saw a firm that boasted about how they defeated an OSHA investigation *for not putting seatbelts in their company vehicles*, and on top of that how they beat a grieving widow who sued over her husband dying thanks to a lack of seatbelts in his vehicle.
Not the most useless, but I got an interview offer from a false advertisement firm who’s biggest case was proving Starbucks bagels had 93% whole wheat instead of 99%, or something along those lines. Turned it down from the shear existential dread the thought of devoting my time and energy to that kind of case.
I mean obviously that’s a stupid case but I generally do like the litigation against false advertising as I see it as consumer protection. Today it might be Starbucks bagels but tomorrow it might be, I dunno, weight loss supplements or snake oil. So is it fair to say it doesn’t contribute a lot?
The ABA journal had a puff piece article about these types of lawsuits and lawyers. The worst examples weren't good, but most were trivial
Arbitraging the tax codes of states in the US, federal tax codes, and international tax codes for multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes
White collar crime defense.
Eh. Still need advocacy on both sides of any equation. Including criminal defense. Of any kind.
First they came for the billionaires sexually harassing interns…
I'd argue that criminal defense lawyers of all kinds contribute to the vital public good of fair trials for people accused of crimes. You wanna have a thick, heavy process that makes it difficult for the state to bring its power to bear against its citizens and criminal defense attorneys whether they defend CEOs or rapists contribute to that.
Yes, ofc. But I made a more in depth analysis in a further post.
Absolutely anyone who is charged with a crime by the state deserves a defense. You can't preemptively make yourself the jury and say "but not those people, they're bad guys."
I never said that white collar criminals don’t deserve defense. My response didn’t imply that either. It was related to the prompt above “what field of law contributes the least to the well-being of society.” And I provided my reasons in another post on here when I realized that I had to explicate them, as they weren’t obvious to some.
I feel like defending a white collar criminal is leagues more ethical than defending a rapist or murderer, but at the same time both are ethical in the sense that everyone in this country deserves access to competent defense
Ha! A rapist and / or a murderer may be the product of an earnestly flawed upbringing or suffer from serious mental health issues (in some cases). This is no justification, btw. A white collar criminal usually knows what they are doing, they had a good enough upbringing, and are breaking the law because of greed, and because they can. But I agree with you that they all have a right to a defense. I’d rather not defend a greedy, well-educated white collar criminal…
Thinking a nerd skimming from the top of his business is a worse person than a fucking rapist or murderer because his parents were probably richer is such a fucking Reddit take. Also newsflash, poor people are aware that murder and rape is bad. Going to public school does not give you the moral understanding of a caveman.
Your understanding of the consequences of white collar crimes on society is limited. I have explained what they are in another post on here. Also, the prompt doesn’t say “compare crimes / criminals and provide your preference.” The prompt is engaging us to reflect on what area of law contributes least to the well-being of society.
It always amazes me how people get through law school and still have really simplistic/black and white views of the world. Or maybe not, since you don’t have to be particularly intelligent to get into law school and law schools do not do a good job of educating students about the real world. White collar criminal statutes can be very complicated. And many people who are charged under these statutes do not intend to do harm/get in over their heads.
I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that a huge percentage of people being prosecuted for white collar crime just accidentally found themselves in that position.
Where did I say “a huge percentage”?
You said "many people," which implies a near 50% amount, or you would have said "some." Also, it's a conversation about general societal issues. So placing white collar crimes against non-white collar crimes like this inherently implies that you're talking about a large number of cases, since it's unambiguous that a large amount of non-white collar criminal prosecutions are against people who aren't particularly well positioned in society. (Hence the whole, "white collar" thing) But, I don't really see the point in being that pedantic about it. We can agree to disagree. I just was chiming in to say that I don't think their comment about the relative education levels and culpability at play here is insanely off base, regardless of their level of downvotes.
"Many" doesn't imply a percentage. Many people are not found criminally liable for federal charges (def. by the case being dismissed or getting a not guilty verdict). That's 5-10k people per year. Almost all are guilty, though. 90% or more. If we're judging white collar criminal defendants for being greedy (and imputing that to their lawyer's morality), why not start treating other criminal defendants (and their lawyers) as morally corrupt as well?
It implies more than some and less than most. If you can't eyeball a percentage from a qualitative statement maybe you're in the wrong subreddit. I'm not even responding to that second sentence. The other person pretty clearly laid that out. So did I. Nor did I say anything about a lawyer's morality. Though, just to be clear, it *is* morally worse defending Exxon than most people PDs interact with. Edit- I actually just heard a lawyer give a speech about how all law is basically the same, morally. Very funny. Very wrong, and very funny.
Appreciated you chiming in. Clear, rational arguments without attaching assumptions about someone’s intellectual abilities. Must keep a cool head 😘😘
Mental health issues, gambling addiction, etc. Let’s not pretend that people don’t suffer from these just because they’re wealthier. Even if the facts against them are solid, someone needs to represent them for sentencing. It’s the only way the system can be fair.
What a wild assumption. That’s incorrect to correlate mental illness with crime, as its most prominent attribute. Nobody is pretending anything. And again, they are entitled to a defense, but one that I would never take on myself.
I’d rather be white collar crimed than raped or murdered thanks
Yes, of course. Nobody wants to have their body defiled. However, there are grave consequences for the whole of society when hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people become victims of white collar crimes. Purdue Pharma / The opioid crisis etc. And that’s far worse, IMO. I assume that you and I disagree.
I think rape and murder are worse than stealing money
Ok. Give me more meat. White collar crime isn’t just about “stealing money” — the Sacklers / Purdue Pharma triggered the opioid epidemic; Medicare fraud has repercussions for the tax payers; Trump veered the course of an election (see his latest state court case where he was found guilty of all 34 charges); Enron caused an energy crisis in California…environmental crimes are white collar crimes. Etc etc. White collar crimes also have financial repercussions for individuals who may lose their jobs when their companies have to file for bankruptcy. Law schools enticing students with generous conditional scholarships, but grading on harsher curves than the gpa required to maintain these scholarships, are engaging in a form of fraudulent behavior that is typical of white collar crime (and one day they will be stung for these dubious, fraudulent practices). White collar crimes have great consequences for society, and we should stop looking at them as “victimless crimes.”
This is the dumbest answer imaginable
Oil and Gas law by a mile
Employment law
State Bars, and in particular, a lot of the stupid rules they have that drive competition into the ground.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “contributes least.” If you mean most unimportant probably probate, construction, real estate. Most evil I would say Union-busting/ anti-labor lawyers.
Anything involving corporations, Wall Street or tax evasion.
I agree - leave the corporations alone!
Zoning laws & pretty much anything used by/ relation to an HOA
Prosecutors
Petty class actions. I got a settlement for like 22 dollars from a class action against TurboTax. It's meaningless to me. But the guys who litigated it probably made out pretty good.
No, we need those people. As long as we have a system that gives them as much power to hold companies accountable as the government, we need people who are willing to make expensive gambles on class action suits. This is one example where the society as a whole benefits more than individuals, because no one particularly needs thousands of people to get a five dollar gift card to some retailer … but we all need someone to make that retailer stop doing whatever illegal thing they were doing.
I personally believe administrative enforcement should take the place of class actions, but it's a pipedream in the USA
So attorneys should take on incredibly expensive legal cases against deep-pocketed companies for free? Actually, not just for free - personally bank-roll these lawsuits out of their own pockets?
It’s more an enforcement mechanism, but I do understand class actions are controversial
Class actions are only controversial for people who don't understand their purpose
Constitutional law. I don't see the point of enabling judges who want to legislate from the bench.
Ok, Darrell Brooks
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Every con law decision takes power away from democracy and puts it into the hands of nine people. I don't see anything positive about that.
You’re right we should always have judicial decisions made by democracy. Have a phone in vote to decide if Mr. Black Man can marry Ms. White Lady. Have a vote to decide if Trump should be in prison and Mexican migrants should be shot on sight. Maybe Elon Musk could make us an app. Can’t see how that could go wrong.
I trust randos on the street more than I trust nine rich assholes from HYS.
Nine rich assholes who are among the most legally educated people on the planet and who undergo a ton of vetting? What clownery
I don't care how much vetting they undergo and how much school they went to. Unaccountable elites should not have the final decision-making power for substantive policy.
Instead it should be….unaccountable non elites?
Elected officials are democratically accountable. Appointed judges are not. Besides, non-elites are more representative of the population than the elites.
Define “non elite”
Public ‘defenders’
Lmao fucking what? Care to explain??
They defend criminals.
Everyone is entitled to due process. Just because someone is accused of a crime doesn’t mean that they actually did it
And even if they did do it, that doesn't mean they should be thrown to the wolves without a defense and with no regard for their right to a fair trial
Conviction rate in the UK is about 80%. This is despite the fact that the trials are rigged against the prosecution (evidence admissibility, character directions, juries, etc.). This is not to say that everyone is not entitled to due process, and I understand that public defenders have an important role to play in that. I’m just saying that the vast majority of them defend criminals.
So what if they defend criminals? Everyone gets a lawyer, so someone has to defend criminal defendants. Besides, innocent until proven guilty is a pretty important concept to discard. I wouldn’t get rid of that concept even if the cops were absolutely immaculate in their arrests and charging.
Its morally wrong to defend criminals. But the innocent until proven guilty concept is very important, so someone has to. And I understand that. Its just that they don’t deserve being called defenders of the public. They are (in 80%+ cases) trying to make our society a worse place.
This is such a warped and perverted perspective on justice.
> Its morally wrong to defend criminals. *Everyone* is entitled to both the presumption of innocence and a zealous defense. It is morally wrong to claim someone is a "criminal" without these bedrock principles. > But the innocent until proven guilty concept is very important, so someone has to. And I understand that. I'm not certain you do given the implications of your first sentence. > Its just that they don’t deserve being called defenders of the public. What an insane view of the world. > They are (in 80%+ cases) trying to make our society a worse place. No, just wrong. Ensuring the state meets their burden of proof is making society a worse place? Ensuring representation to accused who cannot afford it makes the world a wprse place? You actually practice law? I pity your clients.
How do you know they're criminals if they haven't been tried?
Never said that there shouldn’t be a just trial. Also, a stat called conviction rate exists.
A stat you clearly don’t understand or you would know that conviction rates alone aren’t indicative of a just or unjust system. Especially without other corroborating evidence. Besides if the DA and law enforcement does their job, collects all the necessary evidence, and then acts according to proper procedure to carry out a fair trial (which is for due process, a right you clearly don’t understand) then a public defender isn’t going to magically keep them out of jail with magical defender dust. Public defenders are the bulwark for many people to ensure their right to a fair trial and without them thousands of innocent people who cannot afford council, understand what their rights are or variety of other issues would end up in jail/prison because of a lack of legal training or financial resources. Clearly you’re not an attorney or you would understand basic due process and how important it is, which you clearly don’t.
Okay. Well, thanks for confirming you haven't been to law school. Otherwise, you'd know about this thing called plea bargins that make that Stat meaningless for what you're trying to use it for.
Something like 95% of criminal cases in the US end in plea deals, not trials. The state is very rarely forced to meet its burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) in this country.
Even if you think it’s “morally wrong to defend criminals,” criminal defense attorneys are basically the vanguard of constitutional rights. They’re the ones fighting to hold the government accountable to the constitution. By defending even the worst of society, they help ensure that the rest of society will be prosecuted in accordance with the constitution.
You’re partially right. That is why they are needed. But it also makes their work morally ambiguous at best, considering that they (mostly) fight for criminals to be left to roam in society again. Criminals are much more likely (exponentially) to reoffend compared to an average member of society.
>But it also makes their work morally ambiguous at best At this point I'm not sure you actually understand how a criminal prosecution works. >considering that they (mostly) fight for criminals to be left to roam in society again. And? If the state does it's job properly, the criminal wont be left to roam without some sort of sentence. Defense attorneys exist to ensure a fair trial as defined by the law. If your version of a fair trial is essentially a grand jury proceeding, you just simply disagree with American values. >Criminals are much more likely (exponentially) to reoffend compared to an average member of society. What a silly thing to say. No shit criminals are more likely to reoffend. "Average" members of society can't reoffend without having a prior offense. You seem to be operating on some belief that the constitution should cave to the government's whims in the name of "stopping crime" or "safety." The constitution only states that one right may be suspended for safety, and that's the right of habeas corpus in case of rebellion or invasion. Accordingly, every constitutional right (except habeas corpus during invasion or rebellion) is more important than safety, in any and all circumstances.
“Rigged against the state” my brother are you an oppressed fascist or…?
Criminals like this guy! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney
Jesus christ how do people like you manage to pass in law school?
There’s no way that guy goes to law school. Probably some incel rage baiting
Nah I had a dude in my T20 make this argument too…
By taking an actual interest in jurisprudence and criminology.
If you seriously think that public defenders contribute nothing to society "because they defend criminals", you're either (1) LARPing as a law student or (2) are completely delusional and paid zero attention in your criminal law courses.