Curmudgeonly & Skeptical

I should think the ABA would support the self-help stuff...keeps us in business by the number of people who seriously screw things up by "saving" money & doing it themselves. (One of the things I hated most about having a general practice) There's more to most legal matters than just filling in the blanks on a document. And in my experience, things are rarely as simple as they first appear. Not being protectionist...but just because I can change the spark plugs on my car doesn't make me a mechanic. And just because someone can fill out a form to establish a trust doesn't mean they understand all the tax implications of doing so. Neither do I, but because of my training I understand enough to know when to send clients to a tax specialist for advice.

I'm not a supporter of the ABA, but I have to agree with them on this one also. There does need to be a clearer line drawn for non-attorneys as to what they can or can't do...pretty fuzzy here, though I don't know about other states.

As for the "English rule", we already use that in several types of cases. I don't see that torts should be any different. After all, loser pays rarely stops people from contesting divorces.

Ah, Rita. You are playing with me, n'est pas? The words "English Rule" and "Ambulance Chaser" in the same paragraph have one meaning.

I regretfully have to agree with the ABA on this one, too. Note that this is not just economic self-interest. For example, you will not find a more rabid supporter than I, and yet making it harder to sue would hurt my business, too (if suing and collecting big is hard, companies need to spend less on defense, which is what I do).

I'm also a big supporter of the English Rule. I must disagree with Rita, though, in saying that we already use that in many types of cases. That is not true. There are many instances where a PLAINTIFF can recover attorneys fees (civil rights cases being one of the largest categories), but almost none where a vindicated DEFENDANT can recover fees. As for Divorce cases, that's not the rule there, either. As Rita surely knows, the rule in Divorce cases is much simpler: The Man Pays.

Okay, I'm taking the ball and going home.

With all due respect, Spoons, I gots to disagree. Oklahoma has several provisions for awarding fees & costs to the "prevailing party"...doesn't matter whether they're defendant or plaintiff. (See, for example, 12 O.S. 936, in actions on open accounts, the prevailing party _shall_ be allowed attorney's fees, to be taxed as costs.)

Of course, results may vary from state to state.

From http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/mss_readers.html

"Lawyers in Awe

Lovin' it - this gentleman has achieved bullshit that transcends bullshit and becomes a thing of wonder. As a lawyer I can only stand back and watch in awe.
-- Tim Cunion"

Was this about the Iraqi Information Minister or the ABA? Hmmmmm

I watch big brother

Nice comment.