lawyers

[Kiwi MD]

There is one topic I have not yet come across, so maybe this thread might be interesting to some. When I first told some of my colleagues in NZ that I was hoping to work in the US ( my husband is a US citizen,) most of them raised concerns regarding the number of malpracitice lawsuits etc.

Since arriving here, I was stunned to see all the television ads from various law firms with regards to "possible" malpractice awards. The 1-800-lawyer lines are personally rather offensive to me and I am surprised that this kind of solicitation is so welll tolerated!

I am not sure as to the accuracy of these statistics, but apparently there are 46 000 lawyers graduating every year compared to ? 10 000 MDs? This adds up to a lot of hungry legal representatives out there! Also, it is rather discouraging considering the number of ex-trial lawyers currently sitting in congress - I can particularly think of democrat Edwards who is fairly loud about advocating patient's rights to legal action. I envision a working environment that promises to become more and more unpleasant as we go about managing our patients with possible future legal action in mind.

How can this problem be fixed? Was the $250 000 malpractice cap proposal for personal suffering the answer? I think it will help, but in my opinion the main problem simply lies with the number of lawyers allowed to graduate every year. Apparently 95% of the world's lawyers reside in the US of A. ( According to a valued colleague of mine. )

I propose that congress limit the number of lawyers allowed to sit the the BAR exam every year...which in turn would limit the number of spots offered by universities. Alternatively, perhaps we should be allowed to countersue every lawyer who makes a frivolous suit - not as a separate suit, but rather as a pay-out for the personal pain and suffering of enduring the stressful ordeal and assault on our professional competency. Of course, to be awarded at the time of the jury decision.

Any other thoughts? Criticisms?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[edinOH]

I'm no lawyer (ironic) but I doubt very seriously a cap on the number of lawyers or any other profession entering the workforce in any given year would pass legal muster. Free speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, anti-trust and all that stuff might be areas where something like this would be challenged. And rightfully so. In america, our citizens are allowed to follow any path they choose, assuming they are talented enough. We usually let market forces control the rest.

 

[Mirror Form]

Originally posted by edinOH
In america, our citizens are allowed to follow any path they choose, assuming they are talented enough. We usually let market forces control the rest.

It's not like New Zealand is the Soviet Union or anything. The law suit situation is out of hand, but a large part of the problem is that our jury system let's lawyers sue for *****ic things and win. This is b/c the juries are often hand picked to be stupid. Also, most people of average intelligence are smart enough to get out of any major jury duty, so the only people left are generally pretty dumb. These juries tend to just feel sorry for the plaintiffs and want to give them money (who cares about the insurance company right?).

One doctor I know personally very well was sued for not diagnosing a disease that wasn't described in the literature until several months after the "missed diagnosis." It didn't matter that it was impossible for the doctor to make the diagnosis. What was important was that the plaintiff was a very cute young sick girl, who juries felt sorry for and wanted to help. Therefore, the insurance company opted to settle out of court since that's much safer then risking the million dollar law suit in court. Maybe one day we'll change our system to be more like europe's, where they either have professional juries for lawsuits, or a panel of judges.

 

[What the pho]

Lawyers can suck my left nut.

 

[Kiwi MD]

In america, our citizens are allowed to follow any path they choose, assuming they are talented enough. We usually let market forces control the rest. [/B][/QUOTE]

MMMM...good point...maybe that is exactly where the root of the problem lies. Suing has become a very lucrative endeavour given that the average jury award now is 3.3 million. And lawyers' fees gobble up between forty and fifty percent of an award. As long as there is easy money to make...why not choose law as a profession?

Although the amount of money awarded by juries haven't changed significantly over the last ten years, the amount of money given in out of court settlements account for the major rise on malpractice insurance premiums.

In A Time magazine article in June 2003, one of the physicians depicted in the article claims that we as physicians are [artly to blame by not being more proactive in selling ourselves as a self-policing group. Where to start?

 

[Energon]

KiwiMD, upon moving back to the USA after having lived on 3 other continents, I too was shocked by the 1-800 lawyer ads. All the comments about freedom of speech are well and good, unfortunately none of these really apply here. The TLA- (Trial Lawyers Association) has become an extremely powerful entitiy after the asbestos and tobacco settlements. Now all the litigators pretty much own the policy makers. Malpractice law is one of the most lucrative businesses I can think of. With the help of the media, the TLA have made the medical community out to be a bunch of reckless opportunistic thugs, and through the politicians they have pretty much neutered us. I am not saying that there are no bad physicians out there... i am sure there are a few... just like there may be a few good lawyers... but this whole thing is about obscene amounts of money and nothing else.... capitalism at its best.

 

[Kiwi MD]

Yes, I agree that we are a pretty powerless group at the moment...however there are a few powerful people in the media who share our dislike of the current legal system. I can think of Tucker Carlson in particular - the talk-show host on Crossfire, CNN. He wrote a short article in the Reader's Digest not too long ago about the threat of malpractice suits to health care.

His own story, however, is more interesting. A few years back, he was slapped with a lawsuit accusing him of raping a woman while on assignment in a different city. Overnight his job was in jeopardy, his home life was almost wrecked - all because of a woman he had never met! Turns out that the lawyer was well aware that this woman had a mile long mental health record, and had accused random men of similar acts prior to this. Of course, the motivation may have been settling out of court ( paying a lot of money to protect his career, no matter how ungrounded the accusation.) When the case was finally resolved and he was cleared ( and emotionally drained,) he considered suing the lawyer....however, predictably decided against it in order to avoid further media attention.

And then there is Bill O'Reilly, who was infuriated with the lawyers' handling of the David Westerfield case. Westerfield was about to sign a plea bargain - disclosing the location of the body of the girl he had murdered. He was in the process of signing the plea bargain when the DA rang his lawyers to inform them that the deal was off - they had found the girl's remains. What do the lawyers do? They accuse the parents off being responsible for their girl's death by being poor parents. But, even more outrageous, they imply that someone else commited the crime!
( Even though their client was in the process of disclosing the location of the body? ) And it was tolerated and allowed in court? O'Reilly asked the same question and got a lot of rubbish answers from the Trial Lawyers' Association.

It seems a li'l screwed up to me....

 

[Square Pants]

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with justice... it has only to do with the law.

One of my best friends just graduated from law school, and summarized it for me like this:
What you learn in law school has nothing to do with passing the bar exam. Apparently in your third year it is standard to pay thousands of dollars for a bar prep course.

Actually practicing law has nothing to do with what you learned in law school or anything you learned for the bar. The few exceptions occur if you take a course in like "environmental law" and then find a job as an environmental lawyer. This is the exception however rather than the rule.

Also, as we all know, the law is rather arbitrary (though we like to think it isn't), and good lawyers (like good accountants) find "loop holes". They also play up "pain and suffering", and select dumb-a$$ juries, because that is where the cash is.

Such is the american way.

 

[Energon]

The truth of the matter is that lawyers play a very important role in our system: they enforce the checks and the balances, as well as accountability.... two things that make America so great.
It is the excesses (monetary mainly) in recent times that have perversed the entire legal system. Like I said, after the asbestos and tobacco settlements, the TLA is going nuts because they cant survive without multibillion dollar settlements anymore... what better than medical malpractice to feed this void?
This whole excessivenes/greed is killing us in many ways than one. Look at our eating habbits... burgers and fries aren't bad, its the overindulgence that makes us morbidly obese. Same thing with pro sports... the amount of money these guys make is almost repulsive. Kiwi, do you think Stephen Fleming, Steve Waugh or even the great Sir Richard Hadlee every saw this kind of cash? Hell no. Because most other societies keep a check on unnececcary excessiveness.
The point is, juries have to start enforcing realistic settlements only then will we see the situation get better. (vote for the tort reform)

 

[Finally M3]

I think the previous poster who mentioned having a professional court to handle medical malpractice cases is a pretty good idea to at least 'screen' cases to see if they have merit v. fishing expeditions.

There is precidence for this in the US legal system; there are specialized bancrupcy courts where the judges are experienced in this type of litigation. I think that Senator Frist MD has been kicking this idea around Capital Hill...

I understand the basic premise of the 'jury of their peers'...but honestly, for a grand-rounds type post-mortum, which lots of malpractice cases are for all intensive purposes, I wouldn't trust the lay public if my life depended on it. After all, a jury found OJ innocent after having a positive DNA match.

Finally, doctors have no one to blame but theirselves when it comes to lack of legislative power. Speaking from personal experience, it's damn hard to get medical students to give a rat's a$$ about participating in the legislative process...and unfortunately, this apathy follows them throughout their careers. Thus, you have the TLA running the Congress, and NPs and PAs prescribing rxs, and chiropractors, PTs and naturopaths trying to call themselves doctors to get prescription privs, etc.

 

[Kiwi MD]

I don't think greedy lawyers are unique to America by any means. I do think that americans are a very empathetic nation - something I appreciate and love about this country and its values. Which is exactly why playing on juries' feelings have become such a successful endeavour.

How can one compete with an ill or severely debilitated patient, regardless of the cause for their disability? Such a neat contrast - that of the affected patient, with future dreams and ideals bashed and the "rich and succesful" doctor with polished lawyer at his or her side. It is almost a loosing battle if played on the court room floor. The main motivator behind huge jury awards are sympathy - and unfortunately a monetary award is perceived to make up for a lot.

 

[edmadison]

Originally posted by Finally M3
I think the previous poster who mentioned having a professional court to handle medical malpractice cases is a pretty good idea to at least 'screen' cases to see if they have merit v. fishing expeditions.

There is precidence for this in the US legal system; there are specialized bancrupcy courts where the judges are experienced in this type of litigation. I think that Senator Frist MD has been kicking this idea around Capital Hill...
doctors to get prescription privs, etc.

Here's the problem with that idea: The US constitution guarentees a right to a jury trial in civil cases over a nominal value. This has generally been interpreted to apply to causes of actions existing at the time the constitution was signed (as well as other causes of action which provide a statutory right to a jury trial). Negligence is old. Bankruptcy, at least statutory bankruptcy proctection, is new and thus, not entitled to a jury trial. It would be hard to implement such a system and have it still be constitutional.

One other problem, the federal government has very limited authority to tell the state courts what they can do. This is why the federal limit of 250,000 in pain and suffering damages was a sham. The vast majority (95%+ in my opinion) of malpractice cases are heard by federal courts.

Ed

 

[Mirror Form]

Originally posted by edmadison
Here's the problem with that idea: The US constitution guarentees a right to a jury trial in civil cases over a nominal value.

Yes, the only way to do it would probably be via an amendment to the constitution. Since lawyers own so many of the politicians, that will probably never happen. Unfortunately the old "jury of your peers" just doesn't seem to happen these days.

 

[LovingItAll]

ahhh, lawyer bashing. 😡

We should first realize that not all lawyers are plantiff's attorneys.

For example:
Lawyers are responsible for putting bad people in jail. (DAs)
Lawyers are responsible for keeping innocent people out of jail (defense attorneys)
Lawyers are responsible for getting abused children out of bad homes. (DCFS attorneys)
Lawyers are responsible for an orderly economy (business lawyers).
Lawyers are responsible for protecting civil rights (constitutional lawyers).

and on, and on, and on. So let's not be so ignorant as to group together all lawyers. It's a bit like pointing at doctors who practice psychiatry and saying "see - doctors don't know squat about human physiology."

Even personal injury lawyers are a very important part of our legal justice system. People *are* harmed by their medical providers, and should be compensated for their loss. Yeah, we can all post anecdotes about how Dr. Goodmed didn't do anything wrong but got slapped with a lawsuit. But I promise you I can match you anecdote for anecdote about how Dr. Nosleep left a hemostat or sponge in his patient, missed a very basic, yet critical, positive finding, cut off the wrong limb, etc. And we all know that there are tons of medical screw ups that go unreported, covered up, etc.

Now, for more specific responses to some of the things I've read.

KiwiMD - As for taking offense to a lawyer's advertisement - you shouldn't take offense, its nothing personal. Its a lawyer trying to sell his services to the public. Its no more offensive than an ad run by plastic surgeon or opthamologist - they're all just getting the word out about there services. Here in the U.S., we put a premium on personal freedom. This includes the freedom to advertise one's services. Just like edinOH said.

As for comment that there is "lot of hungry legal representation out there" - true. But like I said, not all of them are going after doctors (see my list above). If fact, remember that for every lawyer who sues a doctor, there's a lawyer who defends that doctor.

Sledge2005 - First, Europe is an aweful role model for darn near any policy. Putting that aside, we should note that many states have tried "screening panels." For example, Nevada tried it a few years back. However, after a couple of years, they found that the only thing the panels did was raise the costs of the whole process for both sides, which meant: higher med mal premiums (thanks to increased defense costs), and with increased plaintiffs costs, less access by poorer plaintiffs who had been wronged.

What the pho - let's see you say them when you get sued, get screwed over by somebody, get divorced, etc. You'll be sucking both your lawyer's nuts real fast.

AMMD - You said that "the TLA have made the medical community out to be a bunch of reckless opportunistic thugs." Maybe the trial lawyers have brought attention to the medical errors that occur quite frequently in our system, but its still the medical community who is responsible for the errors.


My bottom line, since I'm tired of typing all this:

Although we have hands down the best medical care in the world, there are still tons of screw ups and people are being wronged daily by the very people they entrust their bodies to -- and the LEGAL system has exposed all this. Everyone here just seems to be pissed that trial lawyers are profiting their role in initiating change.

Maybe if physicians did a better job policing the profession, like they are supposed to, there'd be fewer screw ups, which would mean fewer opportunities for litigation, which would mean fewer "dreaded" malpractice ads on TV.

 

[Energon]

LovingitAll: As I said before, lawyers play a very integral part in our successful society and I wholeheartedly respect them for it. The situation with the medical malpractice stuff however, is a whole different ball game.
1. Most of the "screw ups" as you call them are nothing more than unfortunate outcomes blown out of proportion by few trial attorneys and the media.
2. The reality of the situation is that medicine is an inexact science implemented by mere mortals who are severly overworked an in most cases underpayed. The patients as well as the juries should accept this fact and make realistic settlements in cases of tragedies; thereby drasticly reducing the cost of medical care for all.

As far as the 1 800 lawyer ad's, you are right, its a commercial that advertises someone's services and I am ok with that. What I do find wrong is underlying message: "if you have been to the doctor/dentist recently you may be entitled to large sums of money". I am sorry but i do not find any way to justify this sort of a business practice.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

Originally posted by AMMD
I am not saying that there are no bad physicians out there... i am sure there are a few... just like there may be a few good lawyers.

I don't think that's the issue, though. It's not whether there are a "few bad doctors" out there; rather, there are all kinds of doctors out there of varying quality that make mistakes, even the good ones. And sometimes (emphasis on that word), these mistakes cause injury to the patient. In the American legal system, a person who has been wronged has the right to pursue legal recourse.

However, it is my firm opinion that the compensation must be proportional to the injury. This of course requires proof that an injury actually occured and that medical care fell below the standard of care. (Civil court is very leniant about what "reasonable person," "reasonable physician," and perponderance of the evidence reall ymean.)

I do think awards and pursuits have gotten way out of hand and that it has caused regional deficiencies in many fields of medicine. These two aspects of medical malpractice need to be revised -- not how many lawyers there are, not how many bad doctors there are, and not whether an injured person has the right to compensation for the injury.

 

[edmadison]

Since I'm a JD soon to be MD, I have given a number of presentation on malpractice law to residents and attendings of various departments. Here are some interesting statistics that came from studies I found on medline:

1) 1% of all inpatients have some significant malpractice committed upon them, but only 2% of those sue.

2) 5/6 of all malpractice law suits are meritless when reviewed neutral observer.

In sum, the problem with the system is that it neither compensates the injured nor punishes the negligent. There is only one thing that it does effectively -- make the lawyers money.

Ed

 

[LovingItAll]

Edmadison -

Can you post the cites to your medline studies please?

I'd love to know how these numbers were calculated -- particularly how they determined what was a "significant" malpractice and how they determined which cases were "meritless when reviewed by a neutral observer."

Thanks!

 

[Energon]

In sum, the problem with the system is that it neither compensates the injured nor punishes the negligent. There is only one thing that it does effectively -- make the lawyers money.

Ed [/B][/QUOTE]

Ed, great post. However, I do have to say that there is more to suits than just a great pay day for attorneys. There is the devastating side effect of inflation of medical costs. This puts the less advantaged (families with low incomes) @ a serious risk.

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by LovingItAll
Edmadison -

Can you post the cites to your medline studies please?

I'd love to know how these numbers were calculated -- particularly how they determined what was a "significant" malpractice and how they determined which cases were "meritless when reviewed by a neutral observer."

Thanks!

From page 139 of "Understanding Health Policy - A Clinical Approach" by Thomas S. Bodenheimer and Kevin Grumbach
3rd edition, ISBN 0-07-137815-4

Data extracted from
Brennan TA et al: Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 1991; 324:370
Localio AR et al: Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:245
Weiler PC, Newhouse JP, Hiatt HH: Proposal for medical liabiity reform. JAMA 1992; 267: 2355

In 1 million hospital admissions, 37,000 patients suffer medical injuries caused by their medical management
Of the 37,000 medical injuries, 10,212 are due to negligence.
Negligence is the failure to meet the standard of practice of
an average qualified physician practicing in the same specialty
Of the 10,212 patients suffering medical injuries due to negligence, 204 filed malpractice claims.
Of the 204 people filing malpractice claims, about 102 receive some compensation.
Thus,
Only 1% (102 of 10,212) of patients suffering a medical injury due to negligence receive any compensation for that injury. Ninety-nine percent receive no compensation.

Of 100 malpractice claims filed, only 17 involve cases of medical negligence. Eighty-three percent of malpractice claims do not involve medical negligence.
Thus,
Ninety-nine percent of patients who have been negligently harmed receive no compensation, and 83% of physicians who are sued for malpractice have not acted negligently. The malpractice system does not appear to be working for either patients or physicians.



The words above are taken directly from page 139 of the book by Bodenheimer.

 

[1996]

Originally posted by AMMD

As far as the 1 800 lawyer ad's, you are right, its a commercial that advertises someone's services and I am ok with that. What I do find wrong is underlying message: "if you have been to the doctor/dentist recently you may be entitled to large sums of money". I am sorry but i do not find any way to justify this sort of a business practice.

Interestingly, lawyers in many other countries including the Commonwealth system are not allowed to "advertise." It is not that it's illegal by law to "advertise" or "promote" your service as a lawyer in these countries. Rather, it is the licensing bodies (much like the BAR association in the US) that deem such self-promotion as unethical and a violation of the professional code of conduct. I have heard of many lawyers in these countries being subject to "internal hearing" for this purpose. I don't know the logic behind it, but maybe part of it is to avoid situations like we have in the US - the public being misled into getting pointless legal consults and filing meritless lawsuits (with the lawyers making fortunes from them regardless of the outcome). On top of that, jurors, who are lay people with little formal medical knowledge, may be biased by such ads when they hear malpractice cases.

 

[Heathcliff]

group_theory, you are completely ignoring the malpractice claims that are filed by patients who have NOT suffered medical injuries caused by their medical management, also known as frivolous lawsuits.

Mentioned on page 19 of the March 2003 issue of The New Physician is "an ongoing suit in Las Vegas in which a woman is suing her obstetrician over stretch marks she sustained from her pregnancy."

Come ON !! 😡
Even if this case is ultimately thrown out, the obstetrician still has to take the time and spend the money to defend him/herself.

 

[The Pill Counter]

March 2003 issue of The New Physician is "an ongoing suit in Las Vegas in which a woman is suing her obstetrician over stretch marks she sustained from her pregnancy."

This should guarantee that she gets a multi-million dollar settlement.
"My doctor never told me I'd get stretch marks from having a baby!" 🙄

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by Heathcliff
group_theory, you are completely ignoring the malpractice claims that are filed by patients who have NOT suffered medical injuries caused by their medical management, also known as frivolous lawsuits.

Mentioned on page 19 of the March 2003 issue of The New Physician is "an ongoing suit in Las Vegas in which a woman is suing her obstetrician over stretch marks she sustained from her pregnancy."

Come ON !! 😡
Even if this case is ultimately thrown out, the obstetrician still has to take the time and spend the money to defend him/herself.

I did not forget anything. I did not mention anything. I did not comment on anything. I just quoted word for word what was in the book - EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD. I didn't conduct the study. I did not participate in the study nor do I know anyone in who did the study. Someone ask for the source of the data. Don't kill the messenger. Take your beef and anger out on the authors of the study, or Thomas Bodenheimer, not me. I'm just a poor MS1 relaying information that I had access to.

 

[Kiwi MD]

It would be interesting to find out exactly how many members of congress are ex-trial lawyers or receive significant donations from lawyers and associations. These lawmakers also ironically have the power to decide how much a surgeon gets paid for each surgery he performs, or how much a family pracitioner gets reimbursed per patient.

Maybe it would be a good time to review lawyers' fees....what percentage of a malpractice award or personal injury award the lawyer is entitled to. Since we have such a problem with Health Care costs and Health Care Insurance costs, wouldn't that be the next step?

Of course there are lawyers' fees related to researching cases, paying expert witnesses etc, just like there are doctors' costs related to having a physicians' assistant, overhead etc. In my opinion, however, 40% of a 3.3 million dollar award ( average) is pretty outrageous. We have seen doctors' and surgeons' incomes slashed by 50-60% because of a new law passed on Capitol Hill, and this was adopted and accepted in a capitalistic society....who's up next? Unfortunately, we are too busy looking after our patients to jump on a soap box and start complaining, whereas lawyers and lawmaking are integrated by nature.

In cases where extreme negligence lead to severe permanent disability....perhaps an award of that magnitude is jusitfied. I strongly feel, though, that the PATIENT should be entitled to most of the award...not his lawyer. And as long as there is this kind of money to make, law would remain a sought-after profession, and throwing out lines through 1-800 ads will keep the money rolling in.

I agree with loving_it_all's post that lawyers have an INTEGRAL role in our society. My beef lies with the tolerance by the Trial Lawyers' Association for ridiculous personal injury suits - like the latest suit by a Wheel of Fortune winner. According to the suit, Pat Sejak, the host of Wheel of Fortune, injured this man's back by giving him a congratulatory hug. Give me a break!

 

[cancer_doc]

This is an interesting start...

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/10/27/prsa1027.htm

But more is needed.

Too often doctors who are sued are encouraged (almostly forcibly) by their insurance company or HMO to settle out of court. According to a few lawyer friends of mine, this has become such a common practice that many lawyers file lawsuits knowingly with the intentions of settling out of court. It saves them a lot of time (for them to sue other doctors- sorry, I couldn't stop myself). According to my friends, did you know that most lawyers pay a $40 per hour paralegal to prepare the legal documents and then just wait for the settlement to precipitate. They hardly spend any real time on the case, may charge the clients $150-200 per hour for the work that their paralegals do, and also may take out a 40-50% cut from the settlement case.

So what's my point? Since most lawsuits settle out of court, no legal precedence is set, and consequently no clear paradigms can be used to guide the validity and perhaps proper compensations of future cases. If more cases went to court, It may filter future frivilous lawsuits from valid ones. Perhaps a more objective/standard guideline can be created that would allow us to bypass or at the very lease minimize litigation, thus knocking lawyer time (= lawyer fees). Ultimately, maybe there will be less frivilous lawsuits, and the victims/plantiff who are awarded their compensation actually get everything, rather than a small chunk. But that entails that we have to fight them in court. We may need some national organization to help the doctors financially pursue these litigations. Do you think that's a pipe dream?

The big picture here is that we as physicians need to be more politically active. But with our schedule and responsibilities, that is a challenging task. However, if you look at the state of health care today and where it's heading tomorrow, where many doctors are being driven out of their practice, we better suck it up, stick up for each other, and become more proactive.


BTW: here's an interesting site that headlines many malpractice issues:
http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search...ce&category=law_and_justice&alias=malpractice

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by cancer_doc
The big picture here is that we as physicians need to be more politically active. But with our schedule and responsibilities, that is a challenging task. However, if you look at the state of health care today and where it's heading tomorrow, where many doctors are being driven out of their practice, we better suck it up, stick up for each other, and become more proactive.

For those of you interested, there is a group called P.A.P.A. (Politically Active Physician Association)

http://www.fightingdocs.com

 

[pez]

Maybe closing a few law schools would do the trick.

Part of the problem lies with the litigious nature of our society. Suing someone is considered a perfectly acceptable way of solving any dispute.

From what I've heard, though, some European countries are beginning to experience similar problems.

 

[Energon]

)$150- 200/ hour 😱 holy $hit....

Kiwi to answer your question regarding lawyer payment percentages, believe it or not there aren't any specified guidelines (surprise surprise 🙄) the lawyer can pretty much demand any cut he/she may feel like... but ofcourse make sure the gen surg is kept in check

I do believe strongly in being politicaly active even as students!However, the other main objective should be to reach the public on a whole. Like I said, the TLA has made us out to be a bunch of opportunistic thugs, its time we set the record straight through good ol' fashioned PR. Have you guys ever noticed that horror doctor stories always make all the primetime news programs but shows about good doctors/ students etc are always reserved for obscure channels usually in the 3 digits category 😕

 

[DR]

Lawyers are responsible for putting bad people in jail. (DAs)

Lawyers are responsible for keeping innocent people out of jail (defense attorneys)

Lawyers are responsible for getting abused children out of bad homes. (DCFS attorneys)

Lawyers are responsible for an orderly economy (business lawyers).

Lawyers are responsible for protecting civil rights (constitutional lawyers).

...in theory .