Blogger Larry Sullivan over at the Delaware Law Office writes passionately this morning in a piece captioned Aren’t There At Least Two Trial Lawyers Per Trial?. Larry decries President Bush’s “name calling” over trial lawyers, while calling the President’s tactics “slimy” and “school yard posturing.”
I can’t believe that I’m defending George W. Bush, or that I’m spending time worrying about lawyer civility. However, I have to point out that it is the plaintiffs’ tort, personal injury and 1st Amendment bar itself that has appropriated the term “trial lawyer,” and worked hard to differentiate “trial lawyers” from the pro-corporate “defense bar.” For example, take a look at the website of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, including ATLA’s Action Network and Proud to Be a Lawyer page — where corporate and defense counsel are not exactly welcomed.
It hardly seems deceptive to call a group by the name it has given itself. And it is not surprising or scandalous that a politician would use a catchword that whips up his own political supporters and magically opens their wallets — especially when it also has negative connotations for many people outside his party and social strata.
Of course, I agree when Larry says “But let us work together to improve the judicial system with reforms that really help all of the people, not just the special interest campaign contributors.” I just hope he realizes that both sides (“trial lawyers” and corporate interests) are actively and constantly using campaign contributions to gain special political favors, protection and power — all in the hope of achieving social and political goals, which just coincidentally bring them huge financial rewards. As lawyers, we all need to take off the blinders of financial self-interest and partisan gain, in order to fulfill our professional and civic obligation to craft a better judicial and legal system.
Update (7/23/03): Larry Sullivan of the Delaware Law Office was kind enough to respond rapidly to my remarks above. Here are his comments and my reply (which is admittedly a bit preachy):
LDS: Hi David, Thank you for your comments. I was utilizing the term “slimy sort of politics” as a tongue-in-cheek example of the behavior of which I was objecting. And so I don’t think that your quote quite does my entry justice.
As to the remainder, I think we are basically in agreement. The indiscriminate slurring of our profession has a detrimental impact upon the respect for the justice system as a whole. I find that this interferes with clients’ ability to deal with the situations and advice that is presented to them. Even common jokes about lawyers have a deeper and insidious cumulative effect upon our reputation as a whole. And it is only the respect and reputation of the attorneys, the courts, and the judicial process which allow these elements to work for the people. I do realize that there are at least two sides to every debate. I take the third. I support the legitimacy of the process.
DAG: Thanks for the explanation and expansion on your thoughts, Larry. Personally, I have no problem with lawyer jokes and think the profession as a whole needs a better sense of humor, and needs to worry far less about its “dignity” and “reputation” and much more about living up to the high standards and goals that it purports to uphold. Then, its reputation will take care of itself.
Lawyers will earn the respect of society, not with public relations campaigns and civility seminars, but (1) client by client, performing with diligence and competence, informing them fully, and treating each with respect as the “king” we are serving and advising, not just the cow we’re milking; (2) socially and politically, by taking positions that advance the public good and help assure access by all to legal services, rather than acting like a cartel or guild protecting the interests of the profession; and (3) ethically, with far stricter discipline and adherence to Rules of Conduct, using a process that is more open and effective.
Update II (7/24/03): The anonymous NC attorney who writes Business Law Weblog had some sharp and interesting words yesterday (7/23/03) on Larry Sullivan’s original posting about politics and “trial lawyers,” and was nice enough to point his visitors over to this site.
Hi David, Thank you for your comments. I was utilizing the term “slimy sort of politics” as a tongue-in-cheek example of the behavior of which I was objecting. And so I don’t think that your quote quite does my entry justice. As to the remainer, I think we are basically in agreement. The indescriminate slurring of our profession has a detrimental impact upon the respect for the justice system as a whole. I find that this interferes with clients’ ability to deal with the situations and advice that is presented to them. Even common jokes about lawyers have a deeper and insidious cumulative effect upon our reputation as a whole. And it is only the respect and reputation of the attorneys, the courts, and the judicial process which allow these elements to work for the people. I do realize that there are at least two sides to every debate. I take the third. I support the legitimacy of the process.
Comment by Larry D. Sullivan, Esquire — July 23, 2003 @ 12:23 pm
Hi David, Thank you for your comments. I was utilizing the term “slimy sort of politics” as a tongue-in-cheek example of the behavior of which I was objecting. And so I don’t think that your quote quite does my entry justice. As to the remainer, I think we are basically in agreement. The indescriminate slurring of our profession has a detrimental impact upon the respect for the justice system as a whole. I find that this interferes with clients’ ability to deal with the situations and advice that is presented to them. Even common jokes about lawyers have a deeper and insidious cumulative effect upon our reputation as a whole. And it is only the respect and reputation of the attorneys, the courts, and the judicial process which allow these elements to work for the people. I do realize that there are at least two sides to every debate. I take the third. I support the legitimacy of the process.
Comment by Larry D. Sullivan, Esquire — July 23, 2003 @ 12:23 pm
Thanks for the explanation and expansion on your thoughts, Larry. Personally, I have no problem with lawyer jokes and think the profession as a whole needs to worry far less about its “dignity” and “reputation” and much more about living up to the high standards and goals that it purports to uphold. Then, its reputation will take care of itself. Lawyers will earn the respect of society, not with public relations campaigns and civility seminars, but (1) client by client, performing with diligence and competence, informing them fully, and treating each with respect as the “king” who we are serving and advising, not just the cow we’re milking; (2) socially and politically, by taking positions that advance the public good and help assure access by all to legal services, rather than acting like a cartel or guild; and (3) professionally, with far stricter discipline and adherence to Rules of Conduct.
Comment by David Giacalone — July 23, 2003 @ 1:58 pm
Thanks for the explanation and expansion on your thoughts, Larry. Personally, I have no problem with lawyer jokes and think the profession as a whole needs to worry far less about its “dignity” and “reputation” and much more about living up to the high standards and goals that it purports to uphold. Then, its reputation will take care of itself. Lawyers will earn the respect of society, not with public relations campaigns and civility seminars, but (1) client by client, performing with diligence and competence, informing them fully, and treating each with respect as the “king” who we are serving and advising, not just the cow we’re milking; (2) socially and politically, by taking positions that advance the public good and help assure access by all to legal services, rather than acting like a cartel or guild; and (3) professionally, with far stricter discipline and adherence to Rules of Conduct.
Comment by David Giacalone — July 23, 2003 @ 1:58 pm
Good blog
Comment by Milen — September 1, 2005 @ 6:14 pm
Good blog
Comment by Milen — September 1, 2005 @ 6:14 pm
Zurich Hotels
Comment by Dallas Hotels — January 13, 2006 @ 4:49 am
Zurich Hotels
Comment by Dallas Hotels — January 13, 2006 @ 4:49 am
Columbia Hotels
Comment by Madrid Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Columbia Hotels
Comment by Madrid Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Phoenix hotels
Comment by Phoenix hotels — February 22, 2006 @ 5:16 am
Phoenix hotels
Comment by Phoenix hotels — February 22, 2006 @ 5:16 am
Shanghai hotels
Comment by Shanghai hotels — February 22, 2006 @ 5:50 am
Shanghai hotels
Comment by Shanghai hotels — February 22, 2006 @ 5:50 am