How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

« Final Score: High-Flying Casino Execs, $0.00; Owner of Virgin Mary Cheese Toast, $28,000 | Main | Advice to Law Firm Partners #6 »



Well, Zegart's article is definitely an opinion.

Zegart uses "extremist" two times, "ultraright" four times, and "far-right" and "Republican right" once each.

I personally loved this juxtaposition.

"By the mid-'80s, the asbestos wars had made a number of plaintiff's lawyers wealthy political players in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, while on the other side, the American Tort Reform Association was founded to lobby and begin reprogramming the jury pool through a long-term propaganda campaign. The ultraright was perfectly positioned to speak with opinion leaders through its web of self-referential think tanks, magazines, books and conferences."

So, apparently we have "liberal" plaintiff's lawyers, but "ultraright" propogandists on the other side.

Why aren't Democrats hardly ever mentioned when talk turns to tort reform advocates? I know many Democrats who are concerned about the medical malpractice "crisis" in Southern Illinois.


Ah, yes, The Nation, my source for objective statistical analysis and investigation.


JR: Among the Democrats I know in Southern Illinois, many are justifiably concerned when doctors move out of the state. Nonetheless, they don't think the problem would--or should--be resolved by placing a limit on an injured victim's right to seek compensation for a doctor's negligence. So I wouldn't call those Democrats "tort reformers."

I've done many posts on doctors and medical-malpractice-insurance premiums; they are collected in the tort reform category.


Ah, yes, The Nation, my source for objective statistical analysis and investigation.

Posted by: Dedman | November 25, 2004 10:26 AM

Not even to say that I agree with the article but, don't you think that trying to discredit an essay (we aren't even talking about a statistical analysis) by slandering the magazine it's in is a little ignorant?

Why think when you can just insult it without even having to warm-up your brain, eh? I think it should be considered on whatever merit the argument may have.

Theodore M. Hasse

The costs that the health care system must incur when doctors are making decisions based a percieved threat of lawsuits (real or imagined) far exceed the oft-quoted 2% which includes only the direct cost of legal defense, settlements, and judgments.


Mr. D, surely you know by now that in today's insta-info, 24 hour news network cycle, that it is far easier to insult something without having to warm up your brain than to do a point by point analysis and response? I mean, come on, it's the holidaze, right? You're going to make me warm up my brain? Cut a lawyer some slack.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About Evan Schaeffer

Search Beyond the Underground