ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, December 5, 1995 TAG: 9512050033
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHRISTOPHER P. O'CONNOR
JEFFREY A. Fleischhauer occupied the Commentary page to ``rise in defense of trial lawyers'' (Nov. 22 commentary, ``Making the case for trial lawyers''). As I understood his argument, trial lawyers are morally superior to Joe Stalin, and more efficient than Italian judges.
Well, I'll grant him those two points, but I'm not ready to just ``get used to it.'' Attorney Fleischhauer was so busy building straw men and so gleefully knocking them over that he never even came close to an understanding of why so many ordinary people dislike lawyers and distrust the legal system.
A good place to begin would be fairness. Most people have the quaint notion that the legal system should produce results that would be generally seen as fair. In between his patronizing statements about the true value of evidentiary rules and civil procedure, Fleischhauer didn't have time to mention fairness.
It isn't fair when folks who have suffered little more than inconvenience are awarded multimillion-dollar judgments, or when the rich man goes free while the poor man goes to jail. It isn't fair when healthy people get big ``disability'' checks, or when companies use bankruptcy law to break their promises. A lot of people think the legal system is producing too many of these unfair results these days, but Fleischhauer passes them off with a paean to the good works of the everyday lawyer - just helping poor folks with honest grievances - and tells us to get used to it. He's wrong.
It seems to me, and to many others, that too many lawyers care more about winning than about doing the right thing. I've heard all the testimonials to the adversary system, but I see plenty of adversary and precious little system.
Aren't all attorneys ``officers of the court'' and, therefore, responsible for more than just getting the most for today's client? Why does the phrase ``legal ethics'' usually provoke giggles and snickers? How come each side can always find an ``expert'' witness? Why do TV commentators say that the trial is over once the jury is selected? Why are so many black men executed while white men get life? Just how far can the notion of ``pain and suffering'' be stretched? If a cop makes an honest mistake, why should a criminal go free? If everyone is a victim, who is the victimizer? Now, I do not rise in defense of Soviet jurisprudence, but are these questions inconsequential?
Shakespeare has his character say, ``First, we kill all the lawyers.'' Of course, this is wrong. If Fleischhauer has heard too many lawyer jokes and feels overly picked on, he needs to talk to some auto repairmen, dentists, hospital administrators or elected officials. These days, nearly everyone is the butt of scathing humor, and maybe that epitomizes the oft-mentioned loss of civility in our society. That's another column.
The truth is that serious people have serious questions about our legal system and what it's doing today. Important questions about justice, money, race, class and fair play. To say that things aren't as bad as they were in Brezhnev's Russia is a pitifully inadequate ``defense.''
I would certainly expect a better effort from my lawyer.
Christopher P. O'Connor, of Independence, is a former hospital administrator.
LENGTH: Medium: 61 linesby CNB