33rd / 424th District Courts

We normally hear that in the perjorative, don't we? Perhaps along with a joke about lawyers, or judges? Do we try to defend or refute those comments or do we offer rejoinder with yet another attempt at what some would call humor.

I write this while at the annual judicial conference, having just this noon hear Kelly Frels -- our new State Bar president -- talk about the need to change the perception of the law, lawyers, courts and the entire system of justice. He struck a resonant chord with me as I have often said that we need to take the Eddie Chiles approach: "I'm {fill in your name} and I'm mad and I'm not gonna take it any more." He mentions this problem in brief in the current "President's Opinion" in the September issue of the Texas Bar Journal (http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Current_Issue&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8695).

He had a couple of good suggestions for attacking the misperceptions which I'll share in a moment, but first let's set that quotation straight.

It's Dick the Butcher in HENRY VI Part 2, act iv: scene ii. Cade and his followers are planning the overthrow of the King but there is a severe impediment to accomplishing the feat, namely that there existed a firm rule of law, the overseers of which were the lawyers. Without lawyers and other men (sorry, women were not then prominent) of education and wisdom the masses might take over, i.e. it was the rule of law administered by lawyers and judges that stood between a civilized society and one of tyranny and anarchy.

Thus, while the phrase is oft-quoted to be humorous, it actually has a strong teaching point about the true importance of the rule of law and, implicitly, the role of lawyers and judges therein. Another misperception by those who have not read Shakespeare.

I suggest that we who are members of a still noble learned profession, albeit one misperceived, do two things. First, let people know you don't appreciate lawyer jokes. Do it with tact and a thick skin, and a dash of grace. Second, correct the misperceptions when able. Kelly had a couple of examples to share.

I have the numbers a little off, but in the McDonald's "coffee caper" the jury verdict was $2.7 million award for a little spill of coffee in the lap. Actually, the coffee was 185 degrees, 45 degrees hotter than most restaurants and McDonald's had around 700 similar claims over the prior 10 years and had taken no action. First degree burns were sustained which required skin grafts. On appeal the award was reduced to $480,000. The plaintiff was an 81 year old store clerk who had never sued anyone. That's quite a different picture from the publicized facts, eh? You can help change that misperception. Also see http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm for more details.

Another example closer to home is the Dripping Springs moldy house case. All that most people know is that there was a jury verdict of $32 million. The 3rd Court reduced it to $4 million. How widely has that been publicized in the midst of the insurance/tort crisis hysteria in the media?

So, don't take it any more. Educate and correct the misperceptions. If you have other examples with facts you can share, chime in here.

Respectfully submitted ....