X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:27:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from sfa.gami.com ([68.89.254.162] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1354320 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:26:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.89.254.162; envelope-from=gwbraly@gami.com Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7944829C06E for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:25:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sdf1.mail.taturbo.com (unknown [10.10.10.173]) by sfa.gami.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE7C29C05E for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:25:47 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Tort X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-Original-Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:25:47 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Tort Thread-Index: AcbLKGsqRaMoznz4TPSsVeCBSUhZ6QARXJXQ From: "George Braly" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.3.2 (20050629) (Debian) at gami.com Hamid, As a lawyer, I don't disagree with your disgust over this issue. In the years before the "Bates" case (several decades back) in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was a 1st amendment violation for the State of Arizona to restrict the right of professionals to advertise (Bates was an eye doctor, if I recall, but I'm not sure) then your complaint would be well founded. All of the lawyers opposed the Bates decision because we knew then it would lead to the present situation by which there was this enormous advertising by everybody from the proctologist to the lawyer. Reality is - - there is nothing the state bar associations can do. And it will take an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to fix the problem. Regards, George=20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Hamid A. Wasti Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:03 AM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: Tort Lots of different perspectives on this issue, here's one more. About 24 hours after the tragic accident in KY, do a Google search on "Comair=20 5191" You will see 3 paid advertisements (right side of the screen=20 under title "Sponsored Links") for law firms, including one whose title=20 is "Comair Flight 5191" In fact, the only paid advertisements you will=20 see are for lawyers looking for "plane crash victims" Even if most lawyers are noble and honorable, as long as there are=20 individuals in the profession who start looking for clients even before=20 the bodies of the dead have been released to the families, the=20 profession is going to be viewed as dishonorable. Before the honorable=20 lawyers scream about the injustice of guilt by association, let me point out that not anyone can call themselves a lawyer and start practicing=20 law -- they have to be sanctioned by the bar association, which has the=20 power to police its members and get rid of bad apples. Anyone who is=20 allowed to continue his/her membership is being sanctioned by the bar=20 (and collectively through its membership) to be a representativity of=20 the entire profession. Regards, Hamid -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/