Does any other professional organization have such a problem with its members intentionally stealing from their clients that they need such a fund?

You should point out that in the lawyers’ case the fund is no where near adequate to compensate even the cash money that was intentionally stolen, and does nothing what so ever to compensate consequential injury?

Again, where does this hundreds of thousands for this defense come from? Certainly not someone who has ever tried a case. Even med mal insurers will tell you at most that it takes just less than $100K to take one of those to trial, and that’s assuming a significant sum in expert witness fees and several lawyers on the case. You’re claims lose validity when you make up numbers.

As for what it covers - does ANY other profession even have such a fund? For malpractice, they carry liability coverage. Just like everyone else.

You’re right, though, I misspoke when I said negligence - I should have been more specific - it is intentional theft of client funds and similar offenses regarding trust accounts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html

You don’t have to “trick” everyone, you just need to make the cost to your opponent so high that they decide it is cheaper to settle than to continue. BFD if the dry cleaners eventually “win” and don’t have to pay $65,000,000.00. If it only costs them a couple hundred thousand in legal fees, they have “won”, and it is the “principle” that counts, right? Never mind that it bankrupts them.

The “injustices” I was refering to were cited by another poster, Hayden, who said “Trust us, we all have heart-breaking, frustrating, infuriating tales of rampant and willful injustice”.

Do physicians do pro bono care? Why, yes they do.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/461567_4

“found that 77% of a national sample of 10,881 physicians provided some charity care in the prior month, and the average amount of time spent on such care was 10.3 hours per week.”

It seems surprising that you are completely ignorant of uncompensated care by physicians (well, actually not, in typical legal-weasle-wording you limited it to “a profession that uses its dues to create a fund for those injured by its members negligence”).

Do you spend 10.3 hours per week on pro bono work? Or do you donate 10.3/(total work week) worth of income for pro bono legal work, or to compensate parties injured by lawyer negligence?

What exactly is the “lawyer negligence” that bar association dues so generously compensate?

If we look at this:

http://www.montanabar.org/bar/lawfundforclientprotectqa.html

What lawyer behavior can be compensated?

“An application to receive Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection reimbursement may be filed by any person who has lost money because of the dishonest conduct or mishandling of funds by a Montana lawyer provided that (1) the accused attorney has died, been judged mentally incompetent, found guilty of a crime arising out of the dishonest conduct, relinquished practice, or has been disbarred or suspended; (2) the dishonest act occurred within an attorney-client relationship; (3) the alleged act was the mishandling or embezzling of funds, not malpractice or negligence; and (4) the claimant has made a reasonable attempt to recover from the lawyer within a reasonable amount of time.”

Oh, but this doesn’t cover “malpractice” or “negligence”. What about other state bar associations?

http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/pamphlets/client-protections-about.htm

Nope, “The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection cannot compensate you for losses caused by a lawyer’s malpractice”. “The fund cannot compensate you for damages such as lost interest, attorney fees you paid in attempting to recover the lost money, or other consequential or punitive damages.”

How about this?

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/clientpro/history.html

They only say that “Every U.S. jurisdiction now has a fund to compensate clients for financial loss resulting from their lawyer’s dishonesty.”

Hmmm, A double standard? When you say “Lawyer negligence” what you really mean is “lawyer dishonesty”. When you say “physician negligence”, what do you actually mean?

So would the dry cleaners be able to get compensation from a “fund for those injured by its members negligence”? Not a chance in the world.

What are you talking about? What are these injustices you refer to? As for not caring, I know of no other profession which uses its dues to create a fund for those injured by its members negligence. Do doctors do that?

” Any tactic or strategum that is “legal”, is fair game, and a “good lawyer” has to use it to help their client “win”, irrespective of the facts, the law, or what would be a “just” decision. If you can trick the jury, the judge, or the opposing lawyer (without “actually” lying), that is just “good lawyering”.”

Spoken like someone who has never tried a case. If you can trick that many people, plus the appellate courts, well you’ve probably figured out you can make a heck of a lot more money in advertising!

Clearly, Daedalus, you’ve got a personal beef which has little to do with the overall justice system other than you possibly were held accountable for some choices you made and don’t like it. I wish you luck with that.

Most of the lawyers blogging have withheld any personal damning of Flea, other than to say that it was foolish not to tell his lawyer. The first rule of having a lawyer is don’t hide anything from them if it even might be vaguely relevant. And talking about trial strategy during the trial in a public forum with a poorly disguised pseudonym is undoubtedly relevant.

There is no reason for doctor blogs to disappear at all. Unless, as is the case with the majority of the ones that have, their employers want them gone. And the employers have not said why. So blaming that on lawyers makes little sense, and is not supported by the facts.

Flea was an MD, who blogged, and won an award as the best blogger of the year. Many people read his blogs, and got a lot out of them. He was sued (in real life) for malpractice, the circumstances of which remain mostly unknown. He blogged about it, and apparently didn’t tell his legal team about his blogging. The blog disappeared. The plaintiff’s legal team found out, and questioned him about his blog. Court adjourned, the case settled, why, how, etc, remain unknown.

The speculation among the lawyers was that Flea was a complete idiot to blog about his malpractice trial, and that it would be used against him, no ifs, ands or buts.

The non-lawyers were like “huh? What does his blog have to do with the malpractice case?” “How is that relevant?”

The lawyers were like “it shows he was reckless, flippant, stupid, arrogant, obviously not a “good person”, obviously doesn’t care about his patients, obviously he should be crucified”.

The non-lawyers were like “huh?”, “it was a blog”, “obviously fictionalized, obviously written to be fun to read, obviously not a verbatim under oath report of his medical life”, “how is this evidence in the malpractice case?”, “what did it have to do with the malpractice case?”

The lawyers were like “it doesn’t matter what the facts are, if plaintiff’s lawyer can spin his blog into a story that impugns his character and paints him as a bad man, then plaintiff’s lawyer can, and will, and should do so.” Any “good lawyer” could, and would, and should do the same.”

The non-lawyers are like “huh? how is that justice?”

The lawyers are like “huh? That is exactly what justice is, who ever “wins”, is right and justice is served”. Isn’t our legal system great, everyone can get just as much “justice” as they want to hire lawyers to get. Flea didn’t need to settle, he could have gone through the trial and seen what the jury would have decided. Of course no one could predict what that would be because it depends on the whim of the judge, the artfulness of the arguments, and how much the artful arguments affect the whims of the jury. How much the jury believes Flea is a bad and evil man, and how much they want to punish him for being so evil and bad and arrogant and callous toward the poor parents who lost their child by being so flip as to write a funny blog while the parents were steeped in misery from the loss of their child.

Many doctor blogs have now disappeared. There is no upside to medical blogging, only downsides. No matter how much it benefits the community; there are “good lawyers” who will use it to get “justice” for their clients.

I have posted a blog about my perspective.

Maybe “all lawyers” are not bad, maybe there are a few good ones. Unfortunately, the legal system isn’t set up to ensure justice, it is set up to provide income for lawyers and special laws for special interests.

Don’t shed crocodile tears and pretend that lawyers help people receive “justice”. The way the legal system is set up, as an adversarial system, is akin to trial by combat with the two lawyers being the hired champions. Any tactic or strategum that is “legal”, is fair game, and a “good lawyer” has to use it to help their client “win”, irrespective of the facts, the law, or what would be a “just” decision. If you can trick the jury, the judge, or the opposing lawyer (without “actually” lying), that is just “good lawyering”.

That the legal system may result in a just verdict occasionally is a coincidence, an unplanned side effect. When neither of the two lawyers are looking for “justice”, only a win for their client, why should anyone expect “justice” to prevail?

If “we all have heart-breaking, frustrating, infuriating tales of rampant and willful injustice”, then WTF is the so called “system of justice” doing about it? I will tell you what the “legal system” is doing about it, absofuckinglutelynothing! Shedding crocodile tears and whining that “all of us face injustice” is a fucking load of crap.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

So what are all those “good lawyers” and “good judges”, and “good legislators” doing about it? Absofuckinglutelynothing!

sorry moof for my strong language.

Your consistent damning of an entire profession says otherwise. Do you not find it unjust to damn people you’ve never met? Do you not find it to be a lie to accuse that whole profession of only acting in their own self interest? Tell that to the legal aid attorney making $25,000 a year. Or the attorneys volunteering through their local bar associations to help soldiers get their affairs in order before being shipped overseas?

I don’t know you at all - I only read what you write, and can only comment on that. And based on your writing - you have an irrational hate for a whole lot of people merely based on what they do for a living. Something that, again, based on your writing, you’ve dealt with maybe 5 times in your whole life, and only seen a fraction of the whole case in those instances.

I’m not being condescending at all - I’m simply pointing out the rather obvious fact that you really don’t know that much about what lawyers do. I would hope you wouldn’t be so arrogant as to think you do.

“I don’t need a degree in law to see the impact that our litigation happy country is having on healthcare. It frightens me to realize that someone who supposedly has a “concept of what goes into it” would deliberately continue to do what they’re doing.”

Our “litigation happy country”? Perhaps, but did you know the biggest growth in litigation is businesses suing businesses? Injured people suing those who caused their injuries has been declining for years. Do you want lawyers to stop representing people who have been injured by another’s negligence? Is that offensive to you?