Thread: -The Docket-

Oh what irony! What cruel, cruel irony. Of course most sane people would define a large billboard of this nature as poetic justice, and I'm inclined to agree. For countless generations lawyers Advocatus Malum , have held every other line of profession, labor, or humanity in general to unrealistic standards, and all while arrogantly claiming to do so for the purpose of protecting society. Of course, they never held themselves to such a standard. In our legal ethics class What an oxymoron!, the professor always stated that law is a self-policing profession, and that we, the aspiring vermin to keep the pestilence thriving, would need to take up the mantel of reporting our fellow scumbags, should we even suspect them of engaging in unethical conduct. As you might guess, such a system leaves quite a bit to be desired for a general public left to the whims of these aggressive parasites! But, the law of nature devises ways of rectifying what can only be defined as an evolutionary mistake! In her cook-book of life, Mother Nature created a recipe for dealing with lawyers. Just add one cup irony, and five cups profit-motive, and viola! You'll have lawyers devouring themselves in a cannibalistic ritual known as the legal malpractice lawsuit! So, how did such a process come about? Very good question, dear friend. I'm glad that you never asked it, and I supplied it for you! It would be gross oversimplification to merely chalk this all up to the greet on the part of the lawyer. Rather, the answer rests somewhere between selfish motives of your dubious slip-and-fall plaintiffs' attorney, to a growing sense by the general population, that the court system could play the roll of their personal piggy bank quite nicely. But, I suspect that the reasons have roots which reach far deeper than even this peculiarity within our legal system. To provide you a fuller picture of my own opinion why such a development occurred, I need to dissect some important judicial evolution which occurred over the span of the last century. When 1900 hit the history books, tort law was a far different animal than the mutated circus elephant we see today. Tort law is a specific field of law which addresses personal wrongs. The name even has its roots in to cause pain. In Latin, tort means to twist. Indeed tort is the root word for torture, which literally means inflicting pain through the act of twisting. Tort law is the oldest form of civil law, and the second oldest form of law in general the dubious honor of oldest type of law goes to criminal law. Unsurprisingly, the earliest tort actions bear a striking resemblance to certain crimes. Indeed, the earliest examples of tort actions are what we call intentional torts today. Intentional torts include such causes of action as assault, battery, and trespass...just to name a few. Defenses to such claims include consent, or even self-defense. Thus, early torts were a type of criminal action, except that civilians brought the claims to court, as opposed to the state. Hell, even the elements required to establish the offense, resemble the basic elements needed before the accused can be found guilty of a crimeother than certain statutory offenses, which are a bit more technical than what is needed for the topic at hand. There are three elements needed to constitute a crime, those elements are 1 Actus Reus A guilty act 2 Mens Rea A guilty thought or intent 3 Concurrence of time Meaning that the previous two elements occur in close enough intervals that the criminal actor's intent can be said to carry over, thereby resulting in a crime. Well, to prove an intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant 1 Intentionally 2 Committed, or omitted, certain act or acts 3 Which foreseeable caused or would cause harm to the plaintiff. As you can see, the elements of proof are extremely similar, and are practically identical in actual practice. However, with the start of the Twentieth Century, an area of tort law already in its infancy, at the time, was ripe to take off forever changing the nature of courts, and the way people interacted with them. This subsection of tort law I speak of is the action known as negligence. All of the sudden, the defendant's intent went out the window, and the plaintiff's consent to the defendant's actions no longer meant a damn thing. Negligence carries with it four essential elements of proof 1 Duty of care 2 Breach of the duty of care by the defendant 3 Causation and, 4 Damages. Without all of the aforementioned elements, a negligence action fails. But, if proven, the defendant would be on the hook for damages from hisher own negligence...and, for any negligence on the part of any parties attempting to remedy the harm created as a result of the defendant's original negligence. Indeed, with the development of Products Liability law, the defendant no longer needed direct privity contact or interaction with the plaintiff to be held liable. Seeing as this could result in financial ruin for huge portions of the entire population, is it any wonder that it would only be a matter of time before certain parties would seek the option to redress any mistakes made by their attorneys, which led to substantial financial harm? Granted, this is a much condensed and abridged account of what happened over the past one-hundred years. However, I believe that these developments were what led to the further transformation of the legal system to what you see today. As ever increasing monetary amounts became involved, the general nature of the legal system itself, particularly in the field of tort law, became especially contentious. Moreover, I fear that this trend is only going to worsen, before we actually see any relief from the madness.