Shakespeare is reported to have said kill all the lawyers. That
seems so uncivil and uncalled for. However I do have some
suggestions. Any lawyers or judges reading this must take a deep
breath and try to enjoy because the tongue in cheek suggestions will
never be implemented even though they would most likely lead to a
Law is not an end. It is a means to facilitate civil behavior. We
need a means to make sure my actions do not harm you or your
property. If I harm your person or your property there will be
consequences. Society has determined that people should not be
allowed to kill other people. This is where criminal law comes in.
Society has also determined that there must be a set of rules that
determines dispute in contracts. This is contract law. I believe
most of society agrees with and supports the application of contract
law and criminal law.
would contend that on the other hand that there is not such a great
out poring of demand and support for torts and what I would call
‘rights” law associated with freedom of speech and religion (e.g.
prayer in school). I believe that this is where law overreaches
beyond the desires of the public and imposes decisions that the
generally publicly would not agree with. I think that in these areas
of the law the general public needs to have more input and say about
the applications of these laws (e.g. punitive damages in civil cases
or legal rights of terrorists). This will allow the laws in these
areas to best serve the most people for the greatest good.
Common sense would say if there are a billion people on earth that
identify with say the Ten Commandments and one person does not, that
we don’t rush out the next day and prohibit the publishing of the 10
commandments. Now I understand if 500,000 are offended that they
have some rights. My contention is that the rights laws and the ACLU
is more about social engineering and political views than ‘rights”.
I fully understand that the rights of less than majority groups
within society should be protected. I just am asking that these
kinds of issues be debated by the entire society and not restricted
to lawyers. The difficulty is that judges and lawyers use secret,
almost, clandestine language to exclude non lawyers from these
first suggestion to make improvements to everything would be to make
sure that no more than 30% of judges are lawyers. The howling from
lawyers would reach a crescendo. They would say that the moral and
social fiber of society would be destroyed. First, all lawyers want
to be judges and secondly using the English language to understand
the law would scare the hell out of lawyers because their voodoo
language might be exposed. The cynic would say how can a non lawyer
understand the law. The elected or appointed non lawyer as judge
would always have a lawyer to read the mumbo jumbo language and put
it into English. We do not need to kill all the lawyers we just need
to rope them in. They are not the protectors of the Holy Grail. The
law is a servant of the people. The people are not servants of the
law. The next step to bring sense to this entire lawyer issue would
be to pay all lawyers associated with torts and rights law fixed
salaries where there would be some minimal cost of living adjustment
and modest retirement plans.
Liberals like to talk about socialized medicine and putting doctors
on a fixed salary basis. Generally Americans reject this. What I
think we need to do is socialize legal services so that all lawyers
get paid a fixed salary. Therefore there is no need to seek huge
punitive damages settlements or worry about somebody’s rights being
violated because there is a nativity scene at a shopping center.
Someone has the freedom to not shop or go shopping somewhere else or
fact that lawyers run for office as national, state and local
political leaders is a conflict of interest because lawyers can, do,
and will always expand the reach of the law through new legislation.
This expands the market and earning capacity of lawyers and expands
the power and reach of judges. So the next rules we will implement
will that no more than 20% of those serving in political office in
any jurisdiction can be lawyers.
Finally civil law is supply drive and not demand driven. Lawyers
will contend that the public demands the expansion of the law into
all nicks and crannies of human existence. I would also say that I
believe in the tooth fairy unconditionally. While this certainly
explains some of the growth of legal services it is not the main
driver. What I am saying is that the more lawyers there are, the
more law suits and the more expansion of the civil aspects of the
law that we have talked about. The solution is to significantly
restrict the number of lawyers coming out of law school.
These are my suggestions for a better society. Involve the general
society much more on any debate about laws beyond criminal and
contract laws. Restrict the number of lawyers that are judges or
elected officials, pay the non criminal and contract lawyer
salaries, no contingency fees, and finally restrict the number of
lawyer coming out of law schools. Whew, it makes me tired trying to
make the world a better place. Someone will say that it would be two
faced of me to make these suggestions about lawyers and then go out
and find the best lawyer I can when I need one. You are entitled to
closing, someone may surely bring up the fact that criminal
defendants that can pay for better legal representation are more
likely to have a better chance of being acquitted. I hear you. But I
can’t solve all of the world’s problems in one sitting.