For reasons that should be fairly obvious, there’s quite a bit I disagree with in Eric Turkewitz’s impassioned defense (in the context of selecting potential judicial nominees) of injury and criminal-defense lawyers. But I’m still glad I read it.
For reasons that should be fairly obvious, there’s quite a bit I disagree with in Eric Turkewitz’s impassioned defense (in the context of selecting potential judicial nominees) of injury and criminal-defense lawyers. But I’m still glad I read it.
4 Comments
Well said. I always enjoy when we can all find some areas of common ground. Eric’s post had points that we can all agree with even if we disagree who should be nominated.
Since Eric Turkewitz is recommending that a “tissue box lawyer” be appointed to the Supreme court and the ultimate “tissue box lawyer” is John Edwards, does that mean he would like to see John Edwards appointed to the Supreme Court?
…the ultimate “tissue box lawyer” is John Edwards, does that mean he would like to see John Edwards appointed to the Supreme Court?
I did not write that all trial lawyers would be suitable for SCOTUS. Some are good. Some are bad. Just like everything else in life.
You will not find any commentary on my blog about Edwards being a good judge, AG, or President. You are free to go run a search if you like.
Much as I sometimes enjoy reading Eric’s blog, little scares me so much as plaintiff counsel substituting a good sob story for a compensable harm – then watching a judge or jury throw our laws out the window to craft a non existent remedy for the unlucky.
Yes, the rule of law might eventually be vindicated, but the cost to the innocent will never be recouped.
It has been my experience that many marginally competant (my opinion only) lawyers rely on a good sob story, the costs our legal system imposes on the innocent, and the threat of “jackpot justice” to extort unjustified settlements from perceived deep pockets. Until the “justice” system is willing to police its own, these costs are one which we, as a society, are doomed to bear for our failure to pursue legislative changes to fix the problems we have ourselves (by action or inaction) created.