From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:40:39 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <Sep.30.09.44.18.1992.1435@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

|> Well, not everyone (though perhaps the ignorant were).  The claim is
|> not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is something that
|> has been bandied about for years -- though there is certainly quite a
|> bit of controversy about it.
|> 

The empirical evidence is wholly inconclusive and I suggest that
look at the premises of the argument before excepting the conclusion.
Who is tauting the premises and what are their motives?  Who is
backing the non causal assumptions being made in the argument by
Quayle and his backers, AMA Chemical companies, etc.

|> 
|> Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
|> try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
|> arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
|> latter, then this question becomes spurious.

No, you are WAY OFF!! The definition of Lawyer must be static in order
to objectively compare the argument otherwise this is strictly
comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw conclusions.


|> By being admitted to the bar, the lawyer becomes an officer of the
|> court.  (And I don't think that a law school education is a necessary
|> prerequisite -- but good luck trying to pass the bar without one.)

Here you just lost all credibility as a source of authority for your
arguments you  are DEAD WRONG!!  You need to have a J.D from an
approved Law School to take the bar in all states (Wisconsin has no
bar, you still need a J.D to practice).  You can always represent
yourself (called Pro Se) but never represent someone else without 
passing the Bar.  This is American LAW!!!  Often American Companies
have people besides those with J.D.s negotiate perhaps even initially
draft contracts but I'll bet 99% (pure guess) is still reviewed by a
J.D. otherwise you would be at a severe competitve disadvantage.

|> 
|> So if "lawyer" is defined as one who has the right to argue in court
|> on behalf of another, then the figures quoted by Quayle are probably
|> accurate.  [Yawn]

Yeah, so what? Almost all of America's J.D.s pass the bar and in
America you cannot practice law on behalf of someone else without
passing the bar.  Litigation is less than 1% of all American legal
work.  Over 99% of all disputes are settled before trial so to argue
tort reform or explosion of attorneys as a premises to draw the
conslusion that America needs legal reform requires a more dependent
premise than Quayle or his advocates (AMA, Chemical, etc).
Technically the argument may be valid but its premises are incorrect
have no causal relationship to the conclusion and the information
sources are highly suspect.  So althought the argument maybe
technically valid, it is never the less extremely weak and unsound.


|> > The situation is similar in Britain where there is a distinct [sic]
|> > made between barristers and lawyers.

America is 35th in the world in terms of attorneys per 10,000 people
with Japan, and England both ahead of us, if you count lawyers as all
those authorized by law to practice (not just in the courtroom).  Ask
me via email for the source, or see a prior posting of mine for it.

|> 
|> I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
|> that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
|> figure was arrived at.
|> 
Yeah, and I suppose you being the rock scientist that you obviously
are have figured out the alternative rationale is not because the
sources of the information and the proponents have alterior motives,
like keeping citizens out of court to get a constitutional recognized
right to have your day in court with a trial by jury (6th amendment of
Article 5 for criminal, and 7th amendment of Article 5 for civil
cases).  Not hard to figure out the organizations supporting the
promulgation of this information is Chemical, AMA, etc (how many times
does this need repeated).  The argument will not stand when the
suppliers of the information have such an
 acute special interest.  But,
there is NO WAY YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, YOU AND DANNY ARE TOO ALTRUISTIC
FOR THAT.


|> Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
|> States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
|> accomplished?

What does this prove?  That he is liked by his constitutients (so was
Hitler)  this says absolutely zilth about his intelect and perhaps a
lot about his convictions (BIG BUSINESS WHORE).



|> The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
|> my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
|> believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
|> this would hold such views???       ||

What don't you adopt a little more analytical and critical mind rather
than emotional faith in some individuals with questionable principles
and allegiances.

-- 
Joe Mehrle                        ----------------------------------
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   |  **    CLINTON/GORE `92      **  |
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       ----------------------------------
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem