Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:18 PM 3/26/02 -0500, B. D. Colen wrote: >Ain't THAT the truth! There are a whole lot more lawyers defending sweat >shop owners, and working to overturn the various laws designed to protect us >from unsafe drugs and rotten food than there are lawyers trying to protect >us. BD No, you are wrong on this point. It is the plaintiff's lawyers who are, by suing those "deep pocket" corporations, trying to keep them honest. In the end, this would be about 1/3 of active lawyers, as opposed to 1/6 in government service and another 1/10 or so in public policy groups ranging from Greenpeace to the Liberty Lobby. The government lawyers and some of the public-policy sorts are the only other ones attempting to maintain our regulatory grid. In terms of raw numbers, a lot more lawyers are working to enforce these laws than to tear them down -- the guys attempting end runs on regulation and legal obligations are the company's lawyers, either internal or outside counsel, most of whom work for medium or large firms. (The large firm lawyers are the best paid of all attorneys and are the ones with hand-tailored suits and private-club memberships, though, as with most generalities, there certainly are exceptions.) One of the underpinnings of the Common Law system shared by the US and Commonwealth is the reality that companies will do more to provide healthy conditions if they know that they can be made to pay when someone is harmed by their action or inaction than they will under a regulatory scheme. (A company with money can always corrupt a regulatory scheme either by co-option or bribery or intimidation -- have you ever noticed the numbers of former utility company executives who end up serving on utility-rate commissions, for instance, or the number of former real-estate types working as building inspectors? Even where there is no actual corruption there certainly is an "appearance of impropriety".) I'm simply suggesting that some balance should be kept in this discussion. And, in the end, social problems can only be solved by societal solutions. Government can no more cause folks to relent on their lust to file lawsuits than government could impose a recognition of the need for neutral civil rights enforcement until the USian populace were ready for this. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +276/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html