Edwards Recalls Legal Victories To Reinforce Outsider Image

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Recalls Legal Victories To Reinforce Outsider Image
"The Trail" Washington Post blog
Saturday, November 10, 2007
----
Former Sen. John Edwards is reclaiming his professional roots as a trial lawyer.

Locked in a make-or-break battle in Iowa with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate presents himself as a fiesty outsider who will shake up establishment Washington and reclaim government for the little guy. It's a style that traces back to Edwards' long career as a star defense attorney. But this year, he hasn't much bragged about his courtroom work to political audiences.

That appears to be changing. The former senator is lacing his public remarks with references to his legal victories, and a senior Edwards aide said the candidate would make prominent mention of his trial work during his address tonight at the high-profile Jefferson Jackson Day dinner. It's a career that made him a multimillionaire, but that also put Edwards on the map in North Carolina, where as a political novice he beat GOP incumbent Lauch Faircloth to win a Senate seat in 1998.
(...)
Speaking at a Farmers Union summit in Des Moines this morning, Edwards lamented the plight of family farmers, asserting, "We need somebody to stand up for you. Somebody to fight for you. Somebody who will fight against those who are trying to take your way of life away from you," Then he added, "I walked into courtrooms for 20 years where there was a whole army of lawyers on the other side representing corporate America. And I went into that courtroom, and I fought them, and I beat them, and I beat them, and I beat them again. And I will beat them as president of the United States - you can count on it."

Edwards then described one of the lawsuits that made him famous - and rich. He was hired to represent the family of a little girl seriously injured in a swimming pool drain. "And I sat with her and her family, and said I know I know this is hard for you. But we can do something about this…and then I walked into that courtoom, and I gave that company hell. And that is exactly what we need to do."

The jury award in the swimming-pool case: a record $25 million.

----
And from the comments section, pmorlan1 writes:

Edwards is right. We need someone in Washington who will fight for the average American. Average Americans don't have a lobbyist in Washington and it shows. I don't even recognize our country anymore. Everything is stacked against the little guy and it's about time we had a champion fighting for us. And despite the right-wing characterization of trial lawyers I know that trial lawyers fight for the little guys.

There has been a concerted effort by corporations over the years to try to make average Americans dislike trial lawyers. Unfortunately the media has been complicit in this campaign by not letting people know that there is a huge difference between trial lawyers and corporate lawyers. To simplify it corporate lawyers defend corporations when the little guys sue them for wrongdoing. Trial lawyers represent the little guys.

I think one of the reasons why Edwards is not getting the coverage his campaign deserves is because the entrenched interests know that he is one helluva fighter and they don't want him changing their cushy lifestyle. They know that he is legit and will fight for the little guy if he gets in the White House. As he says he has been fighting for the little guy all of his life and that my friends is the honest truth. And anyone that would tell you otherwise is doing it for their own benefit.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/10/post_194.html

[creeksneakers2]

1. Its also possible the Edwards did his trial work for the money

Nobody sues the "little guy" because the "little guy" doesn't have any money. In Edwards' case the "big guy" was mostly insurance companies. They are a popular target and if Edwards hadn't taken the cases he did many other lawyers would have been glad for the chance.

When paired with the other actions Edwards takes, like the lies he told about Hillary last night, its hard to trust the guy. I think he's a phony who wanted the loot.

[1932]

2. I think he got paid what he was worth. Also, he could have been a corporate lawyer and used those

skills to make as much or more money helping different people (doing transactional work), or he could have made a lot of money by a defense lawyer for corporations.

His first job out of law school was working for a big corporate firm in Nashville and he didn't like it. He left that job to go back to North Carolina and work for a small firm which didn't have a civil practice and he had to convince them to let him do work like this.

[Ninga]

5. Your words are empty and pitiful and I am sure if I met you in person, you would be far nicer than

this post.

When a lawyer steps into the court room for the "little guy".....as Edwards did for the largest amount of his carreer.......a very critical and important thing to keep in mind is that never, ever is winning a sure thing.

When a lawyer steps into the court room for the "little guy"......the stress for the lawyer is enormous because the client who is the "little guy"...risks their entire well being and net worth if they lose.

Edwards and his law partner were given an "humanitarian award" for their champion defense of "the little guy".


I am doing my best here, to enlighten. But I would guess that you really don't know Edwards personally, and more than that, I would guess that even knowing you called him a "Phony"...he would be your best bet, if you ever needed an attorney to defend you......

[AmBlue]

7. Very well said, Ninga....

and very true.

[Ninga]

9. Thank you for your kind words. I am in an elevated state of "George Lakoff" and I

am doing my best to "reframe the frame which many times is just a flame"..........ha didn't know it, I'm a poet !!

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple_framing


The lack of solid debate, and thoughtful opposition here is a bit of a challenge.

Posters advance their opinions using emotional words that are just that.....emotional.


My journey to fight for John Edwards was a long one, and I did a lot of pondering.

I have lived too long watching our government do nothing more than advance mediocrity.

And I believe that it's time we have a President who cares more about the here and now....not a second term.



If we don't stand up for the working class, the poor, those waiting at the back of the line to go to college, and the most important of all......those dying, waiting for some one to care about their health care.....then why are we on earth?

[creeksneakers2]

15. Others say the same thing

and say I have terrible character defects for hating Edwards. I read terrible things about Hillary on here day in and day out and none of those posts are called "empty and pitiful."

Plaintiff's lawyers take risks but there a great potential rewards. I don't believe Edwards had to bet the farm after he won a few cases.

Do you know Edwards personally? How do you know for sure he didn't have himself in mind? I base my opinion of Edwards with what fits with facts over his lifetime and observations of his dishonesty, especially in the last couple of weeks. I'd be glad to debate that.

If you met me in real life you wouldn't think I'm a nice guy. I wouldn't respond kindly to somebody who wants to "enlighten me." Sounds kind of superior, doesn't it?

If you or I got in trouble Edwards would be completely useless, unless you can afford him. I sure can't. One response I haven't gotten about Edwards is that he also took many many cases for free. If I knew he'd done that, my opinion of him might change a bit.

[Ninga]

22. I do not wish to be oppositional. Enlightenment is to be receptive to openness and clarity.

For me to enlighten you, would mean for me to offer information, and for you to be open to hearing it and deciding for your self. No more no less. I apologize if you read it as me being superior. I am far from superior and am horrified that I elicited that response in you.


Kindly take a few moments to read....not what I say about Edwards....but others. Some of it is neutral, some of it is not flattering, but most of it is an enlightened view of who Edwards is.



http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/John_Edwards#Legal_career

[saltpoint]

8. I rather doubt that the girl and her family would agree with your assessment.

If your dentist cures your toothache, do you not pay him or her for skills rendered, attention given, and resolution achieved?

I'm not seeing the argument where lawyers' skills and attention are not worthy of remuneration.

[Cameron27]

10. I agree with you

Edwards did a real service for his clients especially the little girl who was sucked into the pool drain. I have a question about those cases though. What happened after those trials? Did they result in any new laws or did Edwards sponsor any legislation to prevent those things from recurring when he was a senator? Has he talked about his medical malpractice suits against OB/GYN's that further scientific data suggests were based on a faulty premise?

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, seasonedblue.

Can't answer the question without doing some googling but I imagine opposing counsel would be as likely to bring pressure to bear in the legislature representing their side as well. Meaningful reform is almost always a tough sell in state legislatures. I may poke around in Google later on and see what I can come up with.

[Cameron27]

12. Thanks OC

I'll try the google myself too.

[AmBlue]

16. I worked with personal injury trial lawyers, and...

The way this usually goes is that punitive damages, especially when they are large, focus the attention of the offending corporation (and others in the same industry) so that they are motivated to correct known problems-- or problems they should have known about if they did their homework properly-- BEFORE they get to the point of injuring people.

The law is usually written in a way that enforces the consumer's right to due diligence on the part of the manufacturer to ensure that use of their product doesn't cause injury. That's why, when there is gross and willful negligence the offending corporation is slammed with punitive damages that can go in the millions.

In the case of the pool drain in John Edwards' case, the little girl was sucked onto the pool drain and her insides were sucked out of her. Besides the horror of her injury, it was equally horrible that John Edwards uncovered the fact that a simple change in the plastic drain (that would have cost the company pennies per item to do) would have prevented this from happening. To top it off, the company knew of the problem. This same type of injury had happened on previous occasions and the company tried to conceal the fact that they knew it was a danger. This little girl will require medical assistance for the rest of her life and John Edwards made sure she gets it.

I guarantee you that that manufacturer redesigned their drains after that, and that other manufacturers of pool drains followed suit. That's the way it works. (In other words, legislation will not be written to require that pool drains are made to certain specifications, but rather already is written that requires manufacturers to do their due diligence and to be responsible for the products they manufacture.)

[Cameron27]

19. But there is state or federal manufacturing codes

for potentially hazardous products. I'm thinking of the safety issues that resulted in child-proof medicine bottles and cigarette lighters or the proposed legislation targeting harmful products from China. Why wouldn't Edwards push for federal legislation specifically aimed at pool drains that caused such horrendous damage to this poor child even if these companies decided to self-regulate themselves.

[AmBlue]

20. How do you know those regulations don't already exist?

Do you know? And why are you assuming Edwards hasn't done something you think he should have? You should do some research before you make assumptions.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I don't understand the logic of assuming wrongdoing on Edwards' part when what he did do was fight for this little girl to be taken care of.

[Cameron27]

21. I'm not assuming he didn't.

I thought I'd be able to get some facts about this issue from his supporters, but I can research it myself. My point is that if he's using his trial cases to validate something in this race, I want to know if the positive results went further than his clients and himself.

[GreenArrow]

23. not only possible, probable.

Not only probable, utterly likely. Not only utterly likely, defintely.

The poverty line is a schtick, with a hook on the end of it, which he uses to troll for suckers. Everything the guy does is entirely self-motivated.

[Triana]

3. Darn Right....Edwards beat them and he beat them...

...and we NEED him as President to beat them AGAIN and the record shows that he can and he will. Edwards will be a representative for the PEOPLE, not big predatory corporations and their lobbyists.

[AmBlue]

4. Read Four Trials

John Edwards chose to be a trial lawyer that stands up for people who are voiceless and powerless. That is what he wanted to do. He made it his life's work. The corporations have buckets of money and lawyers coming out their ears. He could have chosen that life and done very well for himself. It speaks volumes about the character of the man that he saw a real need for representation of individuals who were wronged and suffering because of corporate greed and he chose to spend his career practice as a lawyer fighting for them.

Today, it is regular everyday people across this nation-- WE, THE PEOPLE-- who are the voiceless and powerless in Washington.

John Edwards wants to be our President.

How great is that?

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[saltpoint]

6. Attorney John Edwards would have made a hell of a lot more money if

he'd been one of the army of corporate lawyers representing the corporation but he knew he would make a greater difference to the girl and her family if he was the outnumbered but luckily talented & determined defense lawyer who defended her against the long odds.

The victory and the cash sum aside, I honor the principle of a principled man in defense of an essentially helpless and voiceless citizen.

[creeksneakers2]

13. I doubt very much he would have made more money

working for corporations. Corporations are cheapskates generally. Their attorneys are likely on salary or are firms that bill hourly.

Defense work is very stressful and time consuming and most lawyers consider it less attractive than working for plaintiffs and bringing in the big haul.

How difficult was the suit against the pool company? If Edwards was fighting against a clear cut outrage the case would be easy. If the case was hard, it wasn't as clear cut, and not as much of an outrage.

[saltpoint]

14. There are often corporate lawyers hired at over $600/hr.

I would call that a handsome wage.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_2_what_good_is_pro_bono.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134122711101

[AmBlue]

18. That's right... and corporate lawyers get paid

...for their time no matter what. It's called billable hours. They track their hours and bill for them. Their pay is not contingent on whether they win a specific case like a trial lawyer. A trial lawyer will go months without pay while he goes through discovery and the trial itself.

[AmBlue]

17. The case against the pool co. was not an easy one.

Edwards had no idea before he took the case that he would find the company knew about the problem before the girl's injury. It also was a long and drawn out discovery and trial. Personal injury lawyers take a tremendous amount of personal risk when they take on these cases and go up against corporations with endless resources and teams of attorneys. If they lose, they don't get paid. He took it on and won. God bless him.

[goodgd_yall]

24. I really respect his experience

Fighting corporate lawyers---that's my kind of guy.