<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Law Firm TV Show&#8211;Some Observations From the First Show	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:26:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Eh Nonymous		</title>
		<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/#comment-156</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eh Nonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/07/the_law_firm_tv.html#comment-156</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hm.  Odd.  Let&#039;s just post the url as text:

http://www.legalunderground.com/2005/08/_.html

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm.  Odd.  Let&#8217;s just post the url as text:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legalunderground.com/2005/08/_.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.legalunderground.com/2005/08/_.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eh Nonymous		</title>
		<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/#comment-155</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eh Nonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/07/the_law_firm_tv.html#comment-155</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Eric,

I apologize for implicitly maligning you over at Evan&#039;s Blawg.

He was pointing out what a stupid thing it was to say that &quot;true&quot; plaintiff&#039;s lawyers are all greedy talentless jerks who violate the law and the canons of professional ethics... which it is... but I didn&#039;t read your comment or the post it belonged to, first.

So I went on a tear about what morons law professors can be, when they generalize this way.  Recognizing all the while that I was generalizing...

So, I apologize.  I have met at least one law professor humble enough to know when a generalization can stand on its own, and when it is a base slur on the livelihoods of thousands of honest hard-working lawyers.  :)

The post in question is here:  Plaintiff&#039;s lawyers:  Heroes, cads, or something in between?.

Nice post!  I&#039;ll check back in when I can.

Sincerely,

Eh N.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric,</p>
<p>I apologize for implicitly maligning you over at Evan&#8217;s Blawg.</p>
<p>He was pointing out what a stupid thing it was to say that &#8220;true&#8221; plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers are all greedy talentless jerks who violate the law and the canons of professional ethics&#8230; which it is&#8230; but I didn&#8217;t read your comment or the post it belonged to, first.</p>
<p>So I went on a tear about what morons law professors can be, when they generalize this way.  Recognizing all the while that I was generalizing&#8230;</p>
<p>So, I apologize.  I have met at least one law professor humble enough to know when a generalization can stand on its own, and when it is a base slur on the livelihoods of thousands of honest hard-working lawyers.  🙂</p>
<p>The post in question is here:  Plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers:  Heroes, cads, or something in between?.</p>
<p>Nice post!  I&#8217;ll check back in when I can.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Eh N.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Scott Moss		</title>
		<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/#comment-154</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Moss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/07/the_law_firm_tv.html#comment-154</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yeah, I don&#039;t think we differ in our perspective that much.  As an in-house counsel, you were up against plaintiff&#039;s lawyers, and you saw a lot of shmendricks.  As a plaintiff&#039;s lawyer, I was up against employers&#039; lawyers, and I saw a lot of shmendricks.  I&#039;m pretty sure we&#039;re both right as to what we saw; there are a lot of shmendricks on both sides.  If only we law profs had the clairvoyance to spot which of our students would be the shmendricks and do the appropriate internevtion....

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I don&#8217;t think we differ in our perspective that much.  As an in-house counsel, you were up against plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers, and you saw a lot of shmendricks.  As a plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer, I was up against employers&#8217; lawyers, and I saw a lot of shmendricks.  I&#8217;m pretty sure we&#8217;re both right as to what we saw; there are a lot of shmendricks on both sides.  If only we law profs had the clairvoyance to spot which of our students would be the shmendricks and do the appropriate internevtion&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Goldman		</title>
		<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/#comment-153</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Goldman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/07/the_law_firm_tv.html#comment-153</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Scott, I&#039;m sorry if that language suggested that plaintiff&#039;s lawyers are less ethical than defense lawyers.  You&#039;re 100% correct that any relative comparison isn&#039;t empirically supported (as far as I know), and I didn&#039;t mean to make any implicit comparisons.

My reference point behind this was my experience at Epinions.  When we ran into &quot;pure&quot; plaintiff&#039;s lawyers, some of these lawyers would seem to have no regard for the facts or the law.  We were just an ATM to them, and the question was how large the withdrawal was going to be--regardless of the legal merits.  I&#039;d explain to plaintiff&#039;s lawyers that their claims were unambiguously preempted by 47 USC 230, but the pure plaintiff&#039;s lawyers wouldn&#039;t hear it...there&#039;s an injured party, so surely *someone* is going to pay, and it might as well be Epinions.

I thought the depiction on the TV show evidenced some of this same mentality.  Facts?  Law?  Bah!  Injured party = CASH.  Now go get it.

So I apologize if I maligned plaintiff&#039;s lawyers in a class in my remarks.  I can say with 100% confidence that I&#039;ve met at least one ethical plaintiff&#039;s lawyer in my life.

Eric.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, I&#8217;m sorry if that language suggested that plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers are less ethical than defense lawyers.  You&#8217;re 100% correct that any relative comparison isn&#8217;t empirically supported (as far as I know), and I didn&#8217;t mean to make any implicit comparisons.</p>
<p>My reference point behind this was my experience at Epinions.  When we ran into &#8220;pure&#8221; plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers, some of these lawyers would seem to have no regard for the facts or the law.  We were just an ATM to them, and the question was how large the withdrawal was going to be&#8211;regardless of the legal merits.  I&#8217;d explain to plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers that their claims were unambiguously preempted by 47 USC 230, but the pure plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers wouldn&#8217;t hear it&#8230;there&#8217;s an injured party, so surely *someone* is going to pay, and it might as well be Epinions.</p>
<p>I thought the depiction on the TV show evidenced some of this same mentality.  Facts?  Law?  Bah!  Injured party = CASH.  Now go get it.</p>
<p>So I apologize if I maligned plaintiff&#8217;s lawyers in a class in my remarks.  I can say with 100% confidence that I&#8217;ve met at least one ethical plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer in my life.</p>
<p>Eric.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Scott Moss		</title>
		<link>https://personal.ericgoldman.org/the_law_firm_tv/#comment-152</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Moss]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/archives/2005/07/the_law_firm_tv.html#comment-152</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Like any good plaintiff&#039;s lawyer, he wants the team to push the ethical limits, and sympathy-inducing stunts appear to be both fair game and perhaps required.&quot;

If you didn&#039;t mean that tongue-in-cheek, then I would 100% disagree with the idea that plaintiffs&#039; lawyers engage in more stunts, or are on average less ethical, than defense lawyers.  Notably, nobody claiming that plaintiff&#039;s attorneys are less ethical has any data to back that claim up; it&#039;s just something trotted out by defense attorneys.

In fact, The most unethical attorneys I&#039;ve ever met in my life were at &quot;respected&quot; major law firms (let me name names -- Epstein Becker &amp; Green and Kirkland &amp; Ellis) defending major financial firms.  If anything, I as a plaintiff&#039;s lawyer faced less financial/client pressure to push the ethical bounds than my defense bar colleagues for a simple reason: I didn&#039;t have repeat clients.  I&#039;ve had clients tell me they don&#039;t want to turn over this or that document, or don&#039;t want to disclose something in a deposition, and my answer always was: &quot;You can&#039;t withhold that; I&#039;m not going to, and you&#039;re not going to.&quot;  At worst I&#039;d have lose one client&#039;s one case.  The pressure on me to cave in to a dishonest client would have been much greater as a defense attorney, because if a defense attorney defies a client&#039;s wishes, s/he could lose &quot;the account,&quot; i.e., a stream of future cases worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Like any good plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer, he wants the team to push the ethical limits, and sympathy-inducing stunts appear to be both fair game and perhaps required.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you didn&#8217;t mean that tongue-in-cheek, then I would 100% disagree with the idea that plaintiffs&#8217; lawyers engage in more stunts, or are on average less ethical, than defense lawyers.  Notably, nobody claiming that plaintiff&#8217;s attorneys are less ethical has any data to back that claim up; it&#8217;s just something trotted out by defense attorneys.</p>
<p>In fact, The most unethical attorneys I&#8217;ve ever met in my life were at &#8220;respected&#8221; major law firms (let me name names &#8212; Epstein Becker &#038; Green and Kirkland &#038; Ellis) defending major financial firms.  If anything, I as a plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer faced less financial/client pressure to push the ethical bounds than my defense bar colleagues for a simple reason: I didn&#8217;t have repeat clients.  I&#8217;ve had clients tell me they don&#8217;t want to turn over this or that document, or don&#8217;t want to disclose something in a deposition, and my answer always was: &#8220;You can&#8217;t withhold that; I&#8217;m not going to, and you&#8217;re not going to.&#8221;  At worst I&#8217;d have lose one client&#8217;s one case.  The pressure on me to cave in to a dishonest client would have been much greater as a defense attorney, because if a defense attorney defies a client&#8217;s wishes, s/he could lose &#8220;the account,&#8221; i.e., a stream of future cases worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
