Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Plaintiff, Defendant, and Insurance Company

Take a look at my comment on a Minnesota Lawyer weblog post concerning a beef from the trial lawyers.

Peter said... Um, did you interview anyone who was _opposed_ to the legislation?
May 22, 2007 6:55 PM

Anonymous said... The ads against this bill were outrageous anti-lawyer ads. Regardless of whatever merits the law change may or may not have had, the ads themselves were objectively deceptive. The premise was to demonize P.I. lawyers rather than to deal with the actual substance of what was really in the proposal. I doubt you'd find a single lawyer who would speak in favor of these ads.
May 22, 2007 9:49 PM

Peter said... Wow.
I will assume that "anonymous" (comment above) is not a journalist. Hopefully he/she is not a lawyer, either.
Are there any lawyers among the legislators who voted against it? Are there any lawyers/lobbyists for the insurance industry?

There is certainly no shortage of people who would speak against the proposed bill. I also suspect that there are people who would defend the ad.

I recall an ad by a PI firm where the viewer is put in the perspective of a mangled car wreck and a mean insurance company employee is asking the viewer to sign a document, offering to pry his/her hand free from the wreckage ("Which one do you write with?").

And then there are the lovely teacher's union "mediocrity" ads from this last election season.

Two (three) wrongs don't make a right, but let's not play the victim card too much, here.
May 23, 2007 7:48

One more thing. It's not like trial lawyers ever engage in hyperbole, right?

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home