BE OUR GUEST

Mark J. Pelts is a resident of Kennett and a lawyer in the firm of Pelts, Stokley and Turnbow. He is also a member of the Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents

I appreciate the invitation of my friend Peter Kinder to contribute a "Be Our Guest" column. I wrote a short note to Peter following his column regarding Dan Quayle's visit to the American Bar Association Annual Meeting (Daniel's visit to the lions' den). I shamed Peter for siding with Daniel and not with the lions. Peter responded in his column with well-reasoned arguments and statistics. I hereby accept Peter's invitation.

Mark Twain said "there are three kinds of lies ~ lies, damned lies and statistics." True, we have a lot of people in the United States with a legal education as Peter's statistics prove. But lo - not all of these well-educated persons are practicing law (or should I say destroying our competitiveness). Dan and Marilyn Quayle don't practice law. Nor does John Ashcroft, Jack Danforth, Tony LaRussa (manager of the Oakland A's) and others with a legal education (did I leave out Pete~ Kinder?). We have business leaders creating jobs despite the burden of having had a legal education. Just because one has a legal degree doesn't mean he or she must or should practice law. I submit to your readers that it is an excellent education and can be put to many uses. The truth about Peter's statistics is that many of the 729,000 lawyers do not practice law. Surely those lawyers that are not practicing law cannot be part of "The Problem". Sometimes statistics are misleading.

Another problem with Peter's statistics is that even if we do have 70 percent of the people in the world with a legal education, this statistic may only show the lack of education and opportunity in some other countries. Thanks to our forefathers, citizens in America can go to school, learn about our government and even learn how to help other citizens to resolve their differences in a civilized manner.

This introduces my next point - lawyers protect our rights, our interests and our freedom. The plotters in Henry V are often quoted: "The first thing - let's kill all the lawyers." Many people use this quote without understanding the meaning and purpose of the statement. The plotters knew that they could only enslave the people if there were no lawyers left to protect the people's rights. What appears as an insult is actually a recognition of respect for the job that lawyers do. Who will protect your rights if not your lawyer? In the days of old a serf would hire a knight in shining armor; in the wild west a gun-slinger was recruited; now we are more civilized and decide these matters in a court of law, where might does not necessarily make right.

It is true that the United States dedicates a large amount of resources to the quest for justice. Many of our finest minds are dedicated toward this goal. Many citizens serve on juries to insure that justice is done. I have a calligraphy on a wall in my office, a quote of Louis Nizer, the famous lawyer

"Perfect justice - impossible:

approximate justice - acceptable:

efforts to improve justice - always"

I believe in these words. I am always willing to listen to ideas concerning improving justice. No system is perfect - not even ours. Am I suspicious of those who wish to tamper with our system? Yes! When the proposal comes from persons who have ulterior motives, I get very suspicious! This was the subject of my note to Peter.

Let's begin with George Bush and Dan Quayle - those champions of justice and individual rights. Ronald Reagan chose an excellent U.S. Attorney in 1984 for the Eastern District of Missouri. During this attorney's tenure, organized crime was pursued - they even stopped blowing up cars in St. Louis. But alas, he also pursued big business who might be breaking the law! Guess who got the ax when George Bush was elected? Who won, justice or big business? No thanks - I don't want any ideas from George Bush - we know where his values are. (None of this should be read as a knock on new U.S. Attorney Stephen Higgins who gained his job because of his excellent talents and his ability to do the job.) Any justice reform ideas from Bush will be to benefit big business, not to improve justice.

Next, let's look at Dan Quayle's "efforts to improve justice." "Limit the number of lawyers" - Gee, there's an idea deserving some consideration. Dan is a lawyer but since he has never protected any individual's rights in court, I suggest his motives are suspect. Why would Dan say that we have too many lawyers? Dan wants big business free to do as they please. Lawyers hinder this. If there are plenty of lawyers, the poor might be able to afford one. Big business has always been able to hire their lawyers even when there weren't as many lawyers available.

If we're going to have ~fewer~ lawyers, who is going to give up theirs. It's a little bit like gun control, Dan, the middle class and poor will give up their lawyers when you give up your lawyers. Dan Quayle should have been cast in "Henry V" as the leader of the plot to enslave the people. Maybe even Dan will volunteer to be the "Big Brother" who will decide who can be lawyers and how many we need. No thanks Dan, let's just have freedom. But Dan has another idea - do away with holding people responsible for their actions (no fault insurance; no product liability; limits on what a jury can award after they hear the evidence) and then we won't need lawyers and citizens will voluntarily not attend law school. Education about government for the few! Less thoughts - less threat. No thanks, Dan, we'll take freedom!

Now to the "reforms" (that word is used often and usually inappropriately).

1. Loser pays the attorney fees for both sides. Great idea! Ninety percent of the cases I take are on a contingent fee basis anyway. In those cases I gamble my time that I'm going to win. I therefore try to take only cases that I can win. Why wouldn't I like to tell my clients that "I'll get my attorney fees from the wrongdoer also?~~ I accept - just try to get it past the insurance lobby! This idea, if instituted, will make it more difficult for the poor and middle class to obtain legal representation. If that doesn't bother you, it's a good idea.

2. Limit what a jury can award. Why? The argument is "the people are stupid - don't let them listen to the evidence and then have the freedom to do what justice requires." I don't think that a judge, whose salary is being paid by the government, should make all of the justice decisions. Let the people (juries) make some of the decisions.

3. Eliminate the contingent fee contract. Sure, that way the middle class and poor can't hire a lawyer. The contingent fee contract (the lawyer receives a percentage of the winnings and nothing for a loss) is the best protection against a lawyer bringing a "bad case" to court. Reward a good lawyer - punish a bad lawyer.

In closing, I support freedom and responsibility. Let's have a justice system in which people are responsible for what they do (liability laws) and in which the people (juries) make the decisions. Sounds a lot like a democracy doesn't it? Let's let George and Dan balance the budget and make foreign policy. Sounds a lot like good government (remember that?) doesn't it? Let's have a competitive economy while remembering to have good rules to keep the system fair. Sounds a lot like justice, doesn't it? "Efforts to improve justice - always!"