12 Comments

An even better analogy is if physicians were paid by contingency fees like plaintiff attorneys. They only get paid if they cure you and then they could be paid millions. What cases would they take on? How would the definitions of “diagnosis” and “cure” change? What about all the people who can’t be cured?

Good points by Scott. Contingency fees can create some bizarre incentives for us lawyers. In NY at least they are not allowed for criminal cases. Imagine the incentive a lawyer might have if the contingency fee were structured the wrong way — “No, you don’t want to take that plea deal because I get paid very little for that. Let’s do a trial because if we win you pay me a lot more money.”
Some personal injury cases involve small chances of winning large verdicts. That can be perverse.
For doctors, I’ve often wondered if the medical system would be better if doctors billed by the hour instead of by the procedure. Doctors would publish their hourly rate and then you could decide which one you want to see. Do you want a 5 minute appointment with the $400/hour doctor, or a 10 minute appointment with the one who charges $200/hour? Or do you want to spend more money and get 10 minutes with the guy who charges more. Think that’s not fair to poor people? Have you seen how crappy Medicaid pays doctors?
One lawyer friend of mine spoke at a seminar and was asked how much he charges. He didn’t give a number, but said: “Don’t be a cheap lawyer. No one wants the cheapest heart surgeon they can find.” That line is imprinted on my brain.
An idea Walter would like: Allow people to choose a health insurance plan where they give up the right to sue for malpractice in exchange for lower premiums and/or co-pays. How much less would the insurance cost? Would people choose it?

Bad analogy. Here’s how I think it should be compared:

Your defense lawyer: comparable to your doctor.
Your antagonist (suing you): comparable to a disease.
The attorney representing your antagonist: the vector for the disease.

I think the root cause of bad feelings toward lawyers is that they have a dual role, playing doctor or acting as disease vector, unpredictably. They may represent you, or someone you like, or someone you don’t like, or the government, or just about anyone. To a lay person, this looks as if lawyers have no principles. From a legal point of view, of course, even the most despicable criminal deserves representation, and the more ably you defend a despicable criminal, the more credit you deserve for doing a good job.

Very difficult for nonlawyers to accept this. I had my own moment of doubt when I was considering being represented by a former county prosecutor. “Why did you stop being a prosecutor?” I asked. “Because I lost the election,” he answered. Well, okay, but I had to wonder–could he really just turn around and start defending the type of people he had been trying to put in jail a few months previously?

He looked at me as if I were crazy. “Of course,” he said. “It’s my job.”

Very difficult for nonlawyers to accept this kind of thing.

*Imagine the incentive a lawyer might have if the contingency fee were structured the wrong way — “No, you don’t want to take that plea deal because I get paid very little for that. Let’s do a trial because if we win you pay me a lot more money.”

Worse, how it goes for real estate agents: “Take the plea, that way I get paid a small but certain amount for minimal work. I don’t want to risk putting in all the work of a trial for nothing, so I’m probably not going to work hard on your defense if it goes to trial.”

What if a lawyer was like a doctor that kept telling you how sick you were so you would keep coming back for more billing opportunities, when in reality one round of antibiotics would have cured you?

What if a lawyer was like a doctor who knew you had cancer but didn’t have the time to treat you, so your doctor told you you were fine, sent you home, and by the time you discovered you had cancer it was incurable?

I like the comparison between lawyers and doctors! I think it illustrates what an impact lawyers can have on their clients quality of life, and how damaging it can be when they fail – which leads us to more origins of lawyer unpopularity!

How about, one doctor shows up and begins poisoning you, so you have to pay for another doctor to administer an antidote, both doctors are friends, and the only way to get the first one to stop poisoning you is to go ask a third doctor, who happens to be a friend of the first two. Eventually, the first may stop, but he can start again at any time.

David:

You do realize you’re describing actual doctors, don’t you?

I think the origins of lawyer unpopularity stem from the very biased nature of the legal system itself. Wealthy people (ie: OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton, etc) can buy their freedom or reduced sentence by hiring the most expensive legal representation but people who can’t afford high priced representation essentially are not getting what was promised to them under the Bill of Rights.

I’d say it’s more fundamental.

Lawyers live in word-smithing bull land. If they can silver tongue up something that sounds plausible, they can take away everything you have – your freedom, your kids, your life’s accumulated wealth. In spite of the Constitution, there is no F=mA equivalent for lawyers (an immutable physical reality that must be conformed to regardless of station in life).

What this creates, despite arguments to the contrary, is that we live in a land were we don’t have the rule of law. We live in a land of rule by arbitrary men – worse than any dictatorship in that there isn’t only one tyrant to worry about, but millions. No one knows WHAT THE RULES ARE. If we lived in a land of rule of law, everyone would know what the rules were (and they would be constant until revised by the legislative process) and lawyers would simply help the lay person understand the rules. Instead, we have a legal system built on a foundation of shifting sand so that no one can make a rational decision that if I do X, the legal consequences are nil or Y or what ever – you don’t really know what the consequences will be. So you get the rampant CYA mentality. The rocket fuel post is classic in this regard.

We should socialize the legal system. If we’re going to have more government-funded healthcare, why not nationalized legal representation?

CourtTV, now TruTV, just finished the Higbee trial. The jury acquitted, which I thought was correct. No matter the verdict, it was heart warming to see the defense attorney work his heart out for his client.

Then again there were the clowns who got a hung jury in the first Spector trial. And I can’t understand how anyone could work to condemn children to Iron Lungs by extorting from vaccine makers.

I generally hate lawyers because a good many of the ones I’ve met have lied to me – or refused to do the jobs they are elected/entrusted to do.

And David, Anoy (#7) is right. I’ve been fighting that kind of thing for eleven years. It’s called the White Wall.