Similarly these proponents deliberately obscure the discriminating nature of the common law and its concepts of causation, forseeability and apportionment. Rather than a blunt instrument for attributing guilt manipulated by lawyers as it is portrayed, our civil justice system is in fact a delicate and refined tool for fairly distributing responsibility among all. Fairness and economics demands that the cost of injury be borne by the responsible party. Anything less is a market distortion - protectionism that perpetuates the unsafe conduct and causes the resulting injuries to proliferate. The third popular justification for the removal of common law determination of wrongs is to reduce the role of lawyers.
Lawyers are a dispensable item in an administrative compensation model, it is said.
Such argument proceeds not in reason, for lawyers are very much needed to protect against the excesses of bureaucracy, but in emotion. The history of the practice of the law is as ancient as the history of human dispute. So it seems is the criticism of lawyers. Shakespeare and Voltaire both decried them. But the defence of a villain, the suit of a pauper, or the impugning of a king were causes as unpopular then as they are now.