Lawyers and politics | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    Being a lawyer just doesn't seem to be quite as good a job as it used to be. We read in the Wall Street Journal, (Thursday, August 11) that a number of law school grads are alleging that their Alma Maters misled them over job prospects. Suits have been brought in New York and Michigan against New York Law School and Thomas M. Cooley Law School respectively. Well, isn't that interesting?? They are alleging that the schools distorted their post graduate employment prospects as well as their prospective earnings. Allegedly the schools advertised the percentages of graduates that had obtained a job within six months of graduation without regard to how many of those jobs were in the field of law. I would suggest that we weren't hearing lies; we were hearing "lawyer talk". Isn't it interesting that suddenly law students seem to be admitting that they didn't do any "due diligence" before selecting a law school to attend?? It almost sounds like these folks are the ones who heard about equal opportunity for all and interpreted that to mean equal results for all. They sound like the kids whom when they played youth sports received a trophy regardless of where the ended up in the win/loss column. No matter what, they are entitled. These are likely many of the same lawyers who will try to make a ton of money by catching anyone they go after for not doing their "due diligence". Of course, this is the kind of thing that sours people on lawyers, which typically brings them to the conclusion that this kind of behavior is the reason that so many streets seem to be named after lawyers: ONE WAY.

    It is beginning to look as though the era of six million dollar , 28,200 square foot homes for lawyers may be coming to an end. (In case you forgot, that was the reported cost and size of the John Edwards house in Orange County, the largest and most valuable residence in the county.)

    States are beginning to impose limits on "pain and suffering" awards in malpractice suits against physicians. Doing things like that is not apt to find much favor among the personal injury lawyers. Just take a look at what the News & Observer reported ( Newsobserver.com blogs, Aug. 8,2011) when Governess Bev was contemplating a veto of the newly passed limitations on medical malpractice bill being considered in the State Legislature:

   Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue got an substantial influx of political contributions from trial lawyers in June as she was considering whether to veto a medical malpractice bill making its way through the Republican legislature.

    Between January and May 31, Perdue received $139,441 in campaign contributions from lawyers, according to her campaign report for the first six months of the year that was filed with the State Board of Elections.

    But in June, lawyers donated $151,209 into her campaign as it became clear the medical malpractice bill was likely to pass, according to campaign records. She vetoed the bill on June 24th, but the legislature over rode her veto July 25th.

    A significant amount of the money came from trial attorneys who were opposed to the cap on "non economic" damages of $500,000 in most instances.

    Among the June contributors to Perdue were attorneys Bob Bollinger of Charlotte ($1,000), Brian Peterson of Asheville($500), Celeste Harris of Winston Salem ($1,000), Charles Mast of Smithfield ($1,000) Chuck Monnett III of Charlotte ($1,000) Charles Hardee of Greenville ($1,000) Christopher Roberts of Greenville ($1,000) and Gina Cammarano of Raleigh ($2,500.)

   It seemed as though the lawyers didn't think that the legislation was such a good idea even as more and more states attempt to rein in health care costs with legislation similar to that proposed for North Carolina. Too bad they seemed to focus only on the Gov., while seeming to ignore the legislature. That was a serious miscalculation. The Republican leaders in the Legislature have certainly given us an indication that they can be "had". They did this by fashioning a "safe" district for one of the Dems. who will vote with the Reps occasionally (when they "really " need it??) even though it was at the possible expense of a tried and true conservative who not only supports their philosophy but consistently votes with them. (Think Tim Spear and Bill Cook, respectively.) That being the case, why would anyone not bother trying to sway the Rep "leaders" with their generosity?? Surely it's doable. Oh well...

    But now, adding to the plight of new lawyers, the Wall Street Journal is reporting (8/12/2011) that companies that formerly obtained their legal support from big time law firms are beginning to hire their own lawyers, which is putting a dent into what has traditionally been a major profit center for many law firms. One company, (HP) in employing their own lawyers, is paying their "new" lawyers about $45,000 less than those same lawyers in the past have been paid at major New York law firms. Taking income out of a major profit center will certainly reduce the demand for new lawyers which will surely make things even tougher for the new law school graduates. There are a lot of folks who believe that it couldn't happen to a nicer group of folks.

    It seems to me that if there weren't so many lawyers, we wouldn't need so many lawyers. So maybe we're on to something.

    D'ya think??