working

POPULAR TAGS

 Outside the Beltway 

A Nation Without Trial Lawyers?

There is apparently a simple solution for the stain of being unpopular with the public, change your name.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America voted during its convention this week to change its name to the American Association for Justice. Spokeswoman Chris Mather said there was overwhelming support for the change, and that the new name “reflects whose side we’re on in the fight for justice.” The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a critic of the trial lawyers group, called it “an astounding admission of the unpopularity of trial lawyers in America.”

So they are now for justice! What they are really doing here is creating confusion as to what the organization is. What is next, a new moniker for the trial lawyers themselves? How about Justians?

UPDATE (James Joyner): And, presumably, we would have Association for Justice members on both sides of many if not most civil suits. So . . . both sides in each case are fighting for “justice.”

About the Author: A “retired” Navy Submarine Officer with military policy, arms control, and budgeting experience, he served for 6 years on the Joint staffs of US Strategic Command (Strategy & Policy) and the Iceland Defense Force. On the Navy Staff at the Pentagon, he was the Action Officer & Program Sponsor for the SSGN Project and Navy Ballistic Missile Programs. He has a BS in Engineering from the University of California, Irvine. He made a few guest posts OTB starting in January 2004 covering special events and has made frequent contributions since.
 
 
Related Stories:
    • None Found
 
Recent Stories:
| Subscribe to RSS Feed | Permalink | Send TrackBack
 
Comments
 

I think "Little Tin Gods" was proposed at one time. The trial lawyers went into arbitration and settled on "Gods!"(TM)

Posted by John Burgess | July 21, 2006 | 01:45 pm | Permalink
 

No Justice, no piece?

Posted by charles austin | July 21, 2006 | 02:05 pm | Permalink
 

Everybody hates lawyers.

Until they need one, of course...

Posted by Alex Knapp | July 21, 2006 | 03:01 pm | Permalink
 

UPDATE (James Joyner): And, presumably, we would have Association for Justice members on both sides of many if not most civil suits. So . . . both sides in each case are fighting for �justice.�

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the ideal situation? That both sides are fighting for "justice" for their client? Isn't that the whole point of it all? What am I missing?

Posted by Michael | July 21, 2006 | 03:39 pm | Permalink
 

American Association for Justice? Cool!!!
Do I get a cape with that?

Posted by Mikey NTH | July 21, 2006 | 03:39 pm | Permalink
 

Launch every Zig!

For great justice!

Posted by legion | July 21, 2006 | 04:14 pm | Permalink
 

Michael has it right. The entire purpose of the adversarial system is that zealous advocates on both sides 'test truth' so that a jury of one's peers can arrive at justice. So, yes, analytically, lawyers on both sides are indeed "fighting for 'justice.'"

This is not to say that the system has not been distorted in many ways that can sometimes detract from the ideal pursued, of course.

Posted by Dodd | July 22, 2006 | 03:16 pm | Permalink
 

Ditto Dodd. The problem is not the adversarial system or the existence of trial lawyers, per se. I'm sure going to want a lawyer if I'm ever hauled into court. And I've known lawyers I thought were pretty decent human beings.

The problems are systemic and require changes to the system, not substitution of different people in the existing system. As conservative Republicans have recently discovered about Congress and the Presidency.

And by "system" I mean popular culture at least as much as I mean law and procedure.

I think part of the problem is a selection effect. The press love to report on spectacular, high-stakes cases, usually involving a popular criminal defendant or an "evil" corporation being civilly sued. Both the cases and the reporting are highly distorted and unrepresentative.

Problem is, they affect how the public view law in general, and thereby have a destructive feedback effect. (I was going to say "negative feedback effect," but it's technically positive feedback with a very negative outcome.)

Posted by Kent G. Budge | July 22, 2006 | 04:30 pm | Permalink
 

RSS feed for these comments.

Comments are Closed

 
Search OTB
Lijit Logo
OTB RSS Subscribers via FeedBurner

For Advertising Info, write
otb@blogads.com

FOLLOW US

ADVERTISERS

OTB MEDIA

MANzine logo

OTB Gone Hollywood

OTB Sports

Allie is Wired

ATLANTIC COUNCIL

New Atlanticist Atlantic Council Blog



Visitors Since Feb. 4, 2003

All original content copyright 2003-2009 by OTB Media. All rights reserved.