The Rule of Lawyers

Biased, unbalanced, conservative...complete garbage:
This book is terrible on multiple levels. Rather than discuss tort litigation with a balanced approach, and then leading to a "tort litigation is bad" conclusion, it starts with the premise that tort litigation is bad and goes downhill from there. Everything, including facts, discussion, opinion, and analysis, is biased. For example, attorney generals who are true consumer advocate hawks (e.g., Eliot Spitzer) are deemed "hyperactive"; referring to an associate of Ralph Nader as the "chief pot stirrer" who has a "relentlessly accusatory public persona" and is "always on the attack." His bias is also subtle. In one instance, he sings the praises of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), which found evidence that silicon (...) implants do not expose patients of rheumatic disease. This is a subtle slight of hand because Olson conveniently forgets to point out that the ACR has a vested interest in funding and/or publishing research that leads to this conclusion (there is NO way the ACR would publish a paper leading to the conclusion its practictioners have been partially responsible for the poisoning of thousands of women; it is a peer group made up of practictioners!!!). Olson demonizes specific targets that suspiciously reflect those of conservatives. The media, trial lawywers, consumer watchdogs, etc., are deemed evil. The media (read: the "liberal" media) perpetuates tort scares, and serves as the unwitting (or witting) accomplices to the plaintiff's bar. Apparently, Olson has never watched Fox "News" or "far and balanced" idiots like O'Reilly. Ralph Nader is also attacked endlessly. Nader made his mark in the 1970's bringing the Pinto class action against Ford. Olson mentions the suit, but fails to look into the deeper issues of corporate responsibility, the fact that individual claimants cannot individually match the resources of Ford in bringing the suit, etc. Consumer advocates are painted as being in the pocket of the plaintiff's bar, needlessly aggressive, unscrupulous, etc. Olson's ideology defies common sense. Does he actually believe Enron was a good thing, or that Consumer Reports is a bad thing? His approach inescapably leads to this illogical conclusion. What becomes evident are those things that are "good." Corporations are revered, and good for America; their executives would never choose profits over ethics. In Olson's world, there is no such thing as inequality of resources in bringing suit (which the class action suit can help remedy). In his world, medical malpractice damages caps are welcome, but liability premium caps by insurers (to doctors) are not. Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of his ideological approach to "tort reform" is his failure to recognize what tort law does, and that many tort lawyers are ethical and truly care about the well-being of their clients. For example, he fails to discuss that products, although made by responsible individuals and/or corporations, sometimes have defects that when the conditions are right, can lead to truly disasterous results. Instead, he pontificates about how products like the Pinto had a comparatively safe record. This is NOT the point. The point is that the single defect that makes it hideously dangerous should be corrected. If the defect is not fixed (e.g., not cost effective), the ONLY avenue to remedy this problem is to bring suit. In Olson's world, this is a bad thing; a person who is harmed by a corporation that produces a dangerous product should not be able to bring suit against that corporation. Olson fails to realize that the corporation saves money for not correcting the product, while the person harmed may be straddled with debilitating injuries and medical bills. Apparently, in his world, this inequity is a just result; "buyer beware" is the only warranty that should be permitted. Likewise, in his world, a lawyer who brings a suit against the corporation is, by default, greedy and evil. Again, he fails to know (or discuss) that bring suits are VERY expensive, and plaintiff's lawyers take enormous financial risks to bring such suits. It never seems to dawn on Olson that damages plaintiff lawyers receive are offset by costs to bring suit, similar to "net profits" to a company. In Olson's world, such lawyers should be paupers and should take any such risks without any form of compensation. His logic is moronic. In short, Olson is a tool of the insurance industry and conservative ideology. He only presents a one-sided view of the issues, and does not give the discussion (or the plaintiff's bar) any form of respect. If you would like a meaningful discussion of tort law and litigation, avoid this book, and its author, like the plague.

anti-Southern bigotry notwithstanding, a thorough attack:
In The Rule of Lawyers, Walter Olson describes how a Southern "Jackpot Belt" from South Carolina to Texas awards ridiculous damages against "foreign corporations." Olson perceives the slick trial lawyers as taking advantage of parochial, bigoted jurors in what others might call the "Bible Belt." Such jurors, whom Olson derides as "the few, the proud, the ill-informed," (p. 245) are ignorant participants in a massive "get-rich-quick" scheme that redistributes corporate wealth to greedy lawyers with political ties. Of course, Olson does not wittingly insult conservative Southerners. From his vantage at the Manhattan Institute, he charitably acknowledges their "fabled hospitality" (p. 209) while striving to arouse their fervor against lawyers who might pose beneath a "picture of a naked lady" (p. 74). Yet when Olson suggests Midwestern and Southern jurors are particularly susceptible to "junk science" sold by slick lawyers to ignorant, bigoted, rural folks in asbestos, breast-implant, automotive, tobacco, and other litigation, one wonders why they wouldn't take umbrage. All the expected pellets are fired in this barrage of grapeshot against the plaintiff's bar: the lawyers fly around in private airplanes (much like the corporate executives they sue), they profit tremendously from their trade (much like the corporations they sue), and they lobby politicians (much like the corporations they sue). While seeking a quick buck, the slick lawyers stretch and break the law (much like the corporations they sue). These dastardly characters are not to be trusted (much like...). As Olson tells it, a couple of corporations may have done a few bad deeds, but Southerners in the "Jackpot Belt" punish the guilty and innocent alike. As he tells it, corporations would never hurt a fly, let alone kill a human being by hiding hidden risks in a dangerous product. When Swiss banks benefit from the Holocaust, Olson turns a blind eye; but if American corporations benefited from the slave-trade, Olson writhes with anger at the greedy lawyers seeking a quick buck for seeking reparations. Notwithstanding the anti-Southern bigotry which a casual reader might overlook by failing to connect the dots between the chapters, the book inventories all the slurs available against the plaintiff's lawyers. Olson merits a quick glance, in case one failed to realize that slick lawyers earn money by winning lawsuits. For fairness or balance, look elsewhere.

Excellently written, but read with caution.:
Walter Olson, as other reviewers have noted, is biased. He is a pro-business conservative who works for pro-business causes. This book, as other reviewers have noted, does not address the corrupt nature of corporations or their lack of accountability to the consumer. On the other hand, those points have nothing to do with his thesis: that a small elite of plantiff trial lawyers, using government influence and sloppy law, have turned the civil justice system of the United States into a gigantic blackmail machine for their own enrichment. Olson supports this thesis with chapter after devastating chapter showing how nepotism, abuse of class action, junk science, the triumph of emotion over fact, and above all the ability to sue without any grounds whatever without any consequences have destroyed justice in the civil system. Olsen offers several solutions to these abuses. He proposes instituting European standards for civil suits- that is, the loser pays all the winner's legal costs. He proposes a ban on percentage-of-settlement contingency fees. He proposes massive class action tort reform- under the current system class action lawyers win massive payoffs while their clients, who generally don't even KNOW they're clients, at most get a coupon for a product they no longer want. Most of all, he calls on his readers to be aware of the issues of tort reform in the political arena- an awareness made all the more necessary by the prevalence of trial lawyers in legislative office and the massive campaign donations trial lawyers give to establishment officials. Don't take everything in this book as gospel, and certainly question Olson's bias. Even after doing so, the simple facts in the book demonstrate beyond doubt that corrupt lawyers not only use the system to their own advantage, but in so doing endanger the freedom of all Americans- particularly the freedom from judicial extortion.

"One nation, under lawyers..." The dark side of the emerging Fourth Branch of government:
Though the case studies (tobacco, guns, etc.) are a bit dated by 2007 standards, Walter Olson's RULE OF LAWYERS is a well-argued brief against the emerging and somewhat untrammeled power of a well-heeled plaintiff and personal injury bar. His thesis is that this group has become another de facto branch of government, without many of the checks and balances to which the other three are subject. Further, the personal injury bar applies one standard to government and businesses, but a much more "relaxed" and forgiving standard to itself when it comes to disclosure, transparency, conflicts of interest, responsibility for erroneous decisions, etc. If you view yourself as a conservative or tort reformer, this book will resonate for you. If you view yourself as a liberal or a business reformer, the argument will be unpersuasive. In characteristic fashion, Olson crafts his arguments persuasively and presents a compelling brief that is long on indictment but thin on remedies.

The Rule of Lawyers:
Rule of Lawyers is more relevant now that when it was published. Several of the Mississippi attorneys, subjects in this book, have been indicted and convicted of judicial bribery along with several judges.