An article in today's Wall Street Journal takes aim at plaintiff's trial lawyers, arguing that evil, greedy trial lawyers buy access to local officials by donatiing to their campaign. While that may be true, it is interesting that, once again, the evil trial lawyers are made out to be the boogey man responsible for society's ills. I am curious as to why the Wall Street Journal didn't similarly talk about corporate donations to political campaigns. Because if they had, I think they would find that corporate political donations dwarf those of plaintiff's lawyers, probably by 100 to 1.
These attacks are insiduous, and they taint jury pools, which is one of the main points of articles like these. Thanks to "exposes" like this, I am branded a liar the minute I stand up in front of the jury, and it is an up-hill process just to establish a baseline of credibility.