I read the NY Times article from which Wikipedia drew that quote ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DD1F38F932A05752C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print to see if it contained more information on that case, but it didn't. What it DID contain is a note that Edwards has drawn a lot of criticism from other lawyers not for overzealously persecuting innocent defendants, but for not taking ENOUGH cases in which the plaintiff -- frequently a child -- had clearly been badly injured by a careless defendant:

"Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large.

" 'He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination,' Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. 'He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination.'

"The cerebral palsy cases fit that pattern. Mr. Edwards did accept the occasional case in which a baby died during delivery; The North Carolina Lawyers Weekly reported such cases as yielding settlements in the neighborhood of $500,000. But cases involving children who faced a lifetime of expensive care and emotional trauma could yield much more."

With how badly AMC did, Romney should have been the one trying to work his way up from poverty. The fact that he didn't have to is an INDICTMENT of our crony-capitalist system. IE, once you're a CEO, you'll be set for the rest of your life, as will your heirs, no matter how bad a job you do.

He first borrowed money and used it to purchase existing firms. He second loaded up the purchased firms with debt and used that borrowed money to pay off his original loans. Third, he sold these firms, now loaded with too much debt, on others who were left with the problem of repaying the debt Romney had stuck them with. The consequence was massive lay-offs and the shrinking and/or destruction of once viable firms. He did not create jobs. Rather he destroyed them.

That is the way the leverage buy-out firms like his worked. So, setting aside your personal beliefs -- are either one of them the picture of how our system works that makes your proud? Why is what Romney did any better or worse then what Edwards did? What both did are perfectly legitimate ways to make money in our system.

Clearly I wasn't saying that he didn't think it would give him an advantage. But simply thinking something will give you an advantage doesn't automatically give you that advantage. I'm sure he wore a suit and tie because he thought that would give him an advantage.

Either you have a point so banal that one wonders why you brought it up, or you somehow think that this fact is so important to your case that he's a fraud. If it's the latter, then you have to have more than just "he thought it would give him an advantage" because that, by itself, is obvious. What I've been trying to do is argue against the conclusions you're drawing from this obvious point.

Yes, I've been simply avoiding the fact that lawyers do things that they think will give them an advantage.

Geebus.

t seems that your whole premise here is that Edwards had to mention the incident about his son.

no, I'm saying he wouldn't have done so, if he didn't figure it was going to provide them an advantage. I've never seen someone argue so, in an attempt to avoid something directly in his sights, already.

My guess is that you haven't spent any time with lawyers at all, and don't really have a clue as to how they operate. I haven't really spent a lot of time with lawyers like Edwards, but I do have to deal with our lawyers here at work quite a bit, and have to give testimony and depositions from time to time. From that admittedly limited experience, I can quite confidently say that lawyers - good lawyers - will pull out all the stops and make use of anything they can to win their case as long as it's within the law.

Big deal. Wow. Stop the presses. We have a conspiracy here.

For you to be right you'd have to provide some evidence that Edwards' tale of his own tragedy was a significant issue with the jury. As far as I can tell, you don't even bother with that, just making bizarro world assertions in bold and thought experiments. I mean, it's just weird.

And even then, you have to somehow square the fact that the judge, who can do a heck of a lot wrt jury awards and all the judges in the appeals process were somehow overwhelmed by reading back that moving testimony of Edwards.

Geebus.

You guys sound an awful lot like the communists and their rants against corporations and such. I mean, you could simply change the names of the players and you'd all be reading from the same play book.

So, in your mind, this tale of an absolutely horrific act really wasn't a clincher. Nope. It took Edwards' tale of his own son's death to really - as they say - close the deal with the jury.

Apparently, he thought otherwise. Because if the Jury was thinking along the same lines you claim to be, ask yourself why on earth would his bringing up the other situation even be needed? Think...Lawyers do very little for no reason, particularly when there's large sums of money involved.

Follow the bread crumbs, hal... this ain't rocket science, nor is it a great mystery. Nobody expects you to admit these things to me, but at least to yourself might be a start.

Again, hearing about the horrific tale of a three-year-old girl having her intestines sucked out is pretty much the limit of my manipulation. Anything after that isn't even going to register. So, in your mind, this tale of an absolutely horrific act really wasn't a clincher. Nope. It took Edwards' tale of his own son's death to really - as they say - close the deal with the jury.

Sorry, but I find someone who subscribes to such a world view quite mad. Further, they must have microscopes for eyes in that they are focussing on a tiny, almost insignificant part of the trial and missing the jupiter sized issue of a three-year-old girl having her intestines sucked out. We're all entitled to our opinions, but in my opinion you seem to have something serious wrong with your analytical skills.

Seriously wrong.

Touche'

But, unlike you, I'm not willing to purport I know more than the people who sat through the trial, heard the evidence, listened to the emotional appeals on both sides (you'd have to be really naive to believe their lawyer wasn't making similar

Why, did he have a kid die we don't know about?
Come on, Hal, what we're talking about is human nature, and the manipulation thereof.

And no, I can't see through his soul... it's hard to examine that which doesn't exist, after all... but I can make judgements based on his behavioral track record. So would you, if they ran afoul of your worldview.

Since they clearly don't, you defend him.

Personally, I simply don't think that Edwards' personal story would have held a candle to hearing the tale of a a three-year-old girl who had her intestines sucked out of her. But that's just me. Hearing about that absolutely horrific event would have been more than sufficient to appeal to my emotional core.

Perhaps not to you, who apparently can see through to Edwards' soul (much like Bush could with Putin) and tell us without a doubt that it's all a fraud and a sham without a scrap of evidence in your possession. But that seems to be par for the course for those who seem to be morally opposed to any litigation what so ever.

Another Festivus miracle!

Oh, and Bithead, I'm not sure you understand what the term "liability insurance" means, but you might want to look that up.

As you yourself said:

Second, the assertion that Edwards' cases were incorrectly decided and he was exploiting these tragedies to further his own fortunes is simply opinion.

And my opinion, fraud is fraud, and Edwards is one. Tell me, Hal...if he hadn't played the personal tragedy card, would the ruling gone against his client?

Wow. I work at an insurance defense firm & absolutely can't take Edwards seriously, but that's really over the top.

If Edwards really sued parties not at fault, then there are people called "judges" who are supposed to exclude those defendants as a matter of law. I never understand the notion that plaintiffs' attorneys wreak unrestricted havoc with no one to restrain them. My own perspective is that, if anything, the deck is stacked towards *my* clients.

The system's chief fault is the expense of litigation, which makes it possible for a lawyer to make a fair living filing implausible suits and settling them for $10K here, $20K there ... but obviously, that's not how Edwards made his fame.

Second, the assertion that Edwards' cases were incorrectly decided and he was exploiting these tragedies to further his own fortunes is simply opinion. While I think y'all really do believe you know the real story simply because - I don't know - you have superior judgement than anyone who was actually involved in the case and saw the evidence, it's pretty clear that you don't. Certainly, nothing will convince you otherwise, but who cares? James asserts it as fact and while this is just a blog, it's certainly the case that - when combined with the other issue - he's making the same errors he blames the liberal media for.

He's let his own biases bleed through like a fire hose and that's caused him to make up a scenario out of whole cloth which serves nothing but to push his own political agenda.

FIne for a blog, but geebus. Let's at least call a spade a spade.