When you talk to Republicans about trial lawyers . . .

[flamin lib]

When you talk to your Republican friends about trial lawyers try to work in these talking points.

Trial lawyers are the only thing that stands between working people and big corporations with entire staffs of lawyers.

Which is worse, a trial lawyer who represents someone like you when they’re hurt by negligence or the defense lawyer who defends the negligent corporation?

Trial lawyers don’t make the awards. They can only tell a jury what the actual damages are. A jury of your peers makes punitive decisions. Do you have a problem with a case being decided by people just like you? Would you rather have it decided by “activist judges”?

Trial lawyers don’t get paid unless they win a case. They can’t afford to take “frivolous cases” that are without merit.

Big corporations don’t lose many cases. If they lose it’s because they did something wrong and a jury of ordinary people like you will decide if they did something wrong.

They’re sure to say that trial lawyers are putting doctors out of business. Tell them it isn’t trial lawyers, it’s insurance companies the raise rates even though they aren’t paying more in lawsuits.

I’m sure they’ll bring up the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit. Educate yourself about the true facts of the case and be prepared to present those facts quickly and simply. Think sound bite!

McDonald case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Actually, the trial lawyers represent

the corporations, too, but that's just because "everybody" deserves a good defense, even bad corporations and heinous criminals. But your point is very well taken and one I've been trying to get across to people, as well. Anybody that has blanket opposition to trial lawyers doesn't understand how the justice system works. We'd be in trouble without them.

[flamin lib]

5. Exactly. Once upon a time, in the dark past of my youth, I thought

attorneys who represented criminals were scum. Then on day during an interview one of them said that their whole purpose was to make everybody play by the same rules, to just follow the law which is the only difference betwee them and us--whoever "them" happens to be like maybe Communist China.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Back in the late '70s and early '80s

I worked with one of Alaska's top criminal defense lawyers who taught me this valuable lesson -- that if the constitutional rights of the most terrible criminal aren't defended and protected, then the rights of all of us are in jeopardy. He also was of the opinion that periodically, like every five years or so, the assistant district attorneys and assistant public defenders should trade offices so that their outlooks didn't become too fixed or jaded -- which is exactly what he did, as he went on to work as an assistant district attorney after the time I worked for him and eventually became a Superior Court judge. Sadly, he passed away in the late '80s. I'm sure he's turning in his grave these days seeing how our system of justice has become so perverted under BushCo.

And as for the civil, I've worked both sides of that fence, too. The idea of "frivolous lawsuits" is vastly overblown, at least in my experience. The plaintiff's lawyers that I worked for wouldn't even take cases that didn't have merit, and the insurance defense lawyers would usually try to settle as long as the monetary request was reasonable. I've seen them settle for significant amounts of money rather than risk the juries ... who are notoriously a roll of the dice.

Lawyers just really get a bum rap, I think.

[flamin lib]

7. My wife has worked in the legal profession for 30 years. She's always

been on the defense side. Every time the politicians talk about tort reform or judgment caps her attorneys defended the system as it is. Like I said, they don't lose very often and when they do it's usually because their client wouldn't take their advice to settle.

[ClassWarrior]

2. And don't call them "trial lawyers," either.

Shift the debate to your terms:

"These are public protection attorneys. They're doing public protection law... Protecting the public from corporations and professionals who are either negligent or unscrupulous. And they're the last line of defense we have."

http://www.alternet.org/story/19511/

NGU.

[kanrok]

3. Nice post

As for the jury trial issue, you might also want to get them to admit they trust juries to make decisions in criminal cases where the state will take away a person's freedom or their life. If that's the case (and it always is) why would they have a problem with a jury making a decision solely about money compensation?

[flamin lib]

4. Good thought! I get so sick of hearing about "activist jusges"

I'd like to strangle somebody.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Learn about Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas.

He is a Republican.

He was out jogging one day in Houston and a tree fell on him. He was paralyzed for life and has practiced law from a wheelchair for many years now. He sued the homeowner and got medical care, and I presume, damages.

He is now the AG of Texas and probably screams about tort reform. "Do as I say, not as I do".

I worked in the legal profession for many years as well, and all the people who made points in this thread are RIGHT.