|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Sunday, January 19, 2003I can't say that voicing the opinion that the legal system is a dated anachronism is remotely close to sanctionable behavior. Heck, we debated it for a full day in my Crim Pro class, and I don't seem to remember being tied to the stake for suggesting that the system is superbly medieval (not that I mind that...)... The (first) comment in Ms. McArdle's blog entry to the effect of the real reason for checking footnotes in a law review article is dead-on. Trust me: I was one of the peasants assigned to do exactly that at my journal, and I saw how often those citations were off by a page number or a volume (S.E. instead of S.E.2d). That undermines the value of the work, not for dishonesty, but shoddiness. That's why we check and double-check our cites. As for your complaints about the law: I'm caught between agreeing with you that the legal profession needs to be better at self-regulating, and thinking we actually do a pretty good job of it on our own. Lemme explain: If you watch the state Supreme Court opinions, you will find *a lot* of sanctions dealt out to lawyers (that's usually where the sanctions have to go). You'll also find a lot of "voluntary" sanctions -- i.e., the lawyer apologized for his conduct, and asked for discipline,(further i.e.), he was scared of what happens if he didn't come up front and apologize. On the other hand, the system relies on reporting. In other words, you get tagged by a lawyer, you need to report it to the Bar; frequently, only you and the lawyer know what he's done wrong. Lousy system, but it's the best we've got right now. When the lawyer does something criminal (cough perjury) that's out of the profession's hands, for the most part. Sure, you can (and should) disbar him; but the actual crime (theft, etc.) is best left to the police. One last on this: I *like* the fact that there's a cause of action for malpractice against lawyers. Keeps us honest. As I've mentioned a couple of times now (on other blogs), the whole medical malpractice system needs a serious adjustment. I've seen both good and bad doctors take a beating. A little back history, though: Our current system is a response, essentially, to a time when it was almost impossible to bring even a battery charge against a doctor, for fear of restraining doctors' practice, and therefore hurting the nation as a whole... There was undoubtedly some wisdom in that. But the system also didn't punish doctors who screwed up, and shouldn't have -- and who just mozied along, happy as could be. The current system, conversely, has the effect of punishing (most) of the doctors who royally screw up, but also tagging doctors (directly or indirectly) who've done nothing wrong. I do not dispute that the system is broken; I just don't want a return to those glorious days of yesteryear. I like Bush's new plan (the constitutionality of it is suspect, but I still like it); I'll happily take the cap on punitives (especially if there's an automatic adjustment built in over time, to reflect changes in the real value of money). I oppose a cap on actual damages. In other words, I'm willing to compromise. Especially if there's some way to toss the lousy docs out of the system, too. My wife suggests automatic revocation of license if one is successfully sued three times in ten years; I'm skeptical, but something like that is in order. Would that be doctors who are successfully sued because their insurance company or hospital opt to settle to avoid high legal costs, or only doctors who are found guilty by a jury? In our current system, it’s possible for a good doctor to lose three cases in ten years. But maybe there should be a point after so many losses that sends up a red flag and results in investigation by the state medical board of the doctor’s competence. posted by Sydney on 1/19/2003 09:58:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
