OJ's Innocent???
Hyper,
You write:
"Yes, I may poopoo your profession, but it certainly, IMO, isn't unwarranted."
Please explain why, in your opinion it is warranted (see below before you answer this question, please)?
Next, you opine:
"You may be an honorable attorney, honest, loyal, and you may actually care about your clients. In my personal experience, that hasn't been the case."
Yes, I am and yes I do. You have personal experience with my representation of you? If not, please explain when you needed a lawyer, what is was for and how that lawyer failed you? I'm sure we would all like to know.
Then you write:
"Sure I may need one one day, that's the necessary evil that we all face. But you can bet if I do, I'll come out either broke paying for one, or any lawsuit or settlement that I achieve, regardless of how much pain and suffering I've endured, will be driven by my attorney's desire for self gain. Not compensation for me."
You will come out broke? Why is that? You have not taken advantage of AOPA's legal insurance program (probably wise if you're a professional pilot)? In the case of a settlement, presumably for a personal injury claim, what part of 66% or 75% of the settlement after paying the lawyer's 33% or 25%, plus the lawyer's costs (not fees but costs for things such as copies, medical records, depositions, expert witnesses, etc. - none of which are cheap but are REQUIRED to prepare your claim for submission to the insurer) incurred and advanced on your behalf, with no other liability to you for the risk your lawyer takes to secure a settlement? The lawyer is properly motivated to achieve the best settlement possible because the lawyer will benefit, as will you (recall that YOU will get 66 to 75 cents of every extra dollar your lawyer negotiates).
Remember, 98% of disputes never get to trial in the civil system. The cases that do are the most difficult ones (or un-settleable).
From my reading on this board, it appears that quite a few people who chose to be a pilot by profession are ultimately motivated by the opportunity to have a job they enjoy AND get paid well to do it (do I hear "self gain?") How many posts have I read about "what does X airline or corp. flight dept. PAY?"
You go on to state:
"I think we can all give examples of stupid lawsuits where noone but the laywer came out winning."
Please do so. "We" are all ears (or, should I say, eyes).
"In the meantime, I'll "save this in my logbook" and go crying to my attorney the next time I get into trouble. But I'll have to snicker when I cut him that check for his services and realize that I'll have to work another X amount of months for free to make up my debt on his bill. You get payed well for the service you provide as you should. But that's all it is, I pay you to do something for me. Doesn't mean I have to agree with what the general profession has become."
No, you do not have to agree (1st Amendment). But, when you attack someone's profession without reasonable or defensible basis but, rather, unjustifiable rhetoric, I respectfully take issue with your characterization.
What does OJ Simpson have to do with this? For the sake of discussion I will address the statement. A CLASSIC example of a lawyer being the best friend you will ever have.
OJ may not be, or he may be, in our respective opinions. WHO decided OJ was innocent? A lawyer? A judge? The media? Fortunately, it was none of the above. It was a jury of twelve persons who UNANIMOUSLY found that the State of California, represented by Assistant District Attorneys Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt its complaint against OJ that he 1) killed Nicole and Ron and, 2) did so with the intent to kill and with malice aforethought.
If you remember well the OJ case and all its trappings, what is the one thing that OJ was able to do that 99.99% of criminal defendants are not? He had access to a similar amount of resources (investigators, scientific experts, etc.) to defend himself as the State of California had to help ithe State carry its burden of proving OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, neither side had an advantage.
So, you might ask, what was the difference? I don't have any conclusive answers, but based upon watching much of the trial testimony, I can theorize the following:
1) Who was the police officer who found the one bloody glove at the murder scene, the alleged other bloody glove at OJ's house in his side yard, the blood spatters on his Bronco, in his Bronco, on his socks and on his bedroom carpet? Detective Mark Fuhrman. Who was the only witness the State presented who outright lied in his preliminary hearing testimony? Mark Fuhrman. So, the State's star witness was a liar. Hmmmm......if you are a juror, do you believe him?
2) I'm sure Darden and Clark are honorable lawyers, but they failed to do their job. In fact, their failure is much like that of legitimately ascribed pilot error in an accident because they, and only they, were ultimately responsible for that prosecution. No one else. Who talked about the fact that Clark and Darden screwed up two major things (asking OJ to try on a LEATHER glove that had been subject to all sorts of heinous liquids and stored - thereby shrinking it as any person with a bit of common sense would predict; and not successfully rehabilitating Fuhrman or simply not calling him but rather Van Adder to testify as to the location of the various blood evidence) after the verdict? No one. In fact, those two got gigs on cable news talk shows. Had they not made those two fatal mistakes, OJ's lawyer could not have made the closing argument that, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
The jury of twelve persons who couldn't care less about OJ or anything having to do with OJ found that OJ was innocent. Extremely talented lawyers, defending a man on trial for his LIFE, convinced the jury that the State had not met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ was guilty of the crime charged. Think OJ "got off," if you must. However, remember that Thomas Jefferson himself once said, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted."
Alright, I've had it with this thread. Respond if you must, but I want to get back to fishing and enjoying myself and my family for a few days.
Enough.
Fly safe!!
