The information on this blog about the corruption in America's courts will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Dennis G. Jacobs in 2007: Judges Protect and Empower Lawyers
We knew that.
Judge Dennis G. Jacobs
August 27, 2007
With the Bench Cozied Up to the Bar, the Lawyers Can’t
Dennis G. Jacobs, the chief judge of the federal appeals court in New York, is a
candid man, and in a speech last year he admitted that he and his colleagues
had “a serious and secret bias.” Perhaps unthinkingly but quite consistently,
he said, judges can be counted on to rule in favor of anything that protects
and empowers lawyers.
you start thinking about it, the examples are everywhere. The lawyer-client
privilege is more closely guarded than any other. It is easier to sue for
medical malpractice than for legal malpractice. People who try to make a living
helping people fill out straightforward forms are punished for the unauthorized
practice of law.
Judge Jacobs’s main point is a deeper one. Judges favor complexity and legalism
over efficient solutions, and they have no appreciation for what economists
call transaction costs. They are aided in this by lawyers who bill by the hour
and like nothing more than tasks that take a lot of time and cost their clients
a lot of money.
there is, of course, the pleasure of power, particularly in cases involving the
great issues of the day.
love these kinds of cases,” said Judge Jacobs, whose speech was published in
The Fordham Law Review in May. “Public interest cases afford a judge more sway
over public policy, enhance the judicial role, make judges more conspicuous and
keep the law clerks happy.”
are costs here, too, he said, including “the displacement of legislative and
executive power” and “the subordination of other disciplines and professions.”
at the conclusion of a big public-policy case, the bar and bench rejoice. “We
smugly congratulate ourselves,” Judge Jacobs said, “on expanding what we are
pleased to call the rule of law.”
H. Barton, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, examined some of the
same issues in an article to be published next year in The Alabama Law Review
titled “Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?”
question mark notwithstanding, there is little doubt about where Professor
Barton comes out.
noted, for instance, that the legal profession is the only one that is
completely self-regulated. “As a general rule,” Professor Barton wrote, “foxes
make poor custodians of henhouses.”
Barton explored a long list of examples, including the aftermath of the Supreme
Court’s 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda, as everyone with a
television set knows, protected the right to remain silent and the right to a
the years, though, courts have approved all sorts of police strategies that
have eroded the right to remain silent. At the same time, Professor Barton
wrote, the courts “chose to retain quite robust protections for accused who
clearly expressed a desire for a lawyer.”
advantages to the legal profession are clear,” he added. “Whatever else an
accused should know, she should know to request a lawyer first and foremost.”
the cases keep coming.
month, a New Jersey appeals court basically immunized lawyers from malicious
prosecution suits in civil cases. Even lawyers who know their clients are
pushing baseless claims solely to harass the other side are in the clear, the
court said, unless the lawyers themselves have an improper motive.
Brickman, who teaches legal ethics at Cardozo Law School, said the decision was
just one instance of a broad phenomenon.
New Jersey courts have determined to protect the legal profession in a way that
no other professions enjoy,” Professor Brickman said. “It’s regulation by
lawyers for lawyers.”
professions look for elegant solutions. It is the rare engineer, software
designer or plumber who chooses an elaborate fix when a simple one will do. The
legal system, by contrast, insists on years of discovery, motion practice,
hearings, trials and appeals that culminate in obscure rulings providing no
guidance to the next litigant.
month, Judge Jacobs put his views into practice, dissenting from a decision in
a tangled lawsuit about something a college newspaper published in 1997. The
judges in the majority said important First Amendment principles were at stake,
though they acknowledged that the case involved, at most, trivial sums of
Jacobs’s dissent started with an unusual and not especially collegial
disclaimer. He said he would not engage the arguments in the majority decision
because “I have not read it.”
was, he said, incredulous that “after years of litigation over $2, the majority
will impose on a busy judge to conduct a trial on this silly thing, and require
a panel of jurors to set aside their more important duties of family and
business in order to decide it.”
with the kind of verve and sense of proportion entirely absent in most legal
work, Judge Jacobs concluded that “this is not a case that should occupy the
mind of a person who has anything consequential to do.”