What's happened to some of you who used to complain bitterly that judges always ignore and rewrite the law? Now you complain because the judge refused to ignore the Constitution. Some even want to picket him. To those who fall into the description I've set above, you are hypocrites.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Don't hold your breath if you think you'll get a response on this. I've been waiting for someone who thinks this ruling is an outrage to explain to me how throwing out an initiative that would restrict gun ownership wouldn't be an outrage to them as well.

Seems like there are a lot of people out there that would like to only selectively enforce the constitution.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

I don't like activist judges and I certainly don't think it's reasonable to picket the judge. That being said, if there ever was a time for activism (is there???), initiatives would be that time.

BTW, stop gloating, I suspect many of the same people who like activist judges probably were relieved to have a strict constructionist (hopefully, the judge will continue to be a strict constructionist) in this case.

Why did handguns and the ACLU just pop into my head???

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 15, 2000.

Brad, I agree that liberal hypocrites also exist in droves. My only point is this: this judge did what every conservative, when asked, says he wants a judge to do--he enforced the law as written.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 15, 2000.

Patrick, you're right about the selectivity of the anti-tax revolutionaries. I find it particularly revealing that, with few exceptions, most of the outrage is expressed in personal attacks on Judge Alsdorf. It would seem that if he was so obviously off-base it would be possible to attack the decision, not the man. Let's face it, it's hard to fault his reasoning.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 15, 2000.

A judge is both a lawyer and politician and therefore doubly despicable. US courts have consistently deferred to the legislature and executive since Roosevelt threatened to pack the court in the 1930's. The US Constitution is applied unequally. First amendment rights get far better treatment than second amendment rights. The tenth amendment is practically null and void.

"The constitution does not exist to protect the public from the weakness or failings of its public officials." Thats from a ruling by King County Judge Kathleen Learned in King County vs. the Taxpayers of King County, February 1997, #97-2-01127-2SEA, page 9. A little judicial deference to the sovereign people would have been nice.

-- F Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), March 16, 2000.

Howard states "Patrick, you're right about the selectivity of the anti-tax revolutionaries. I find it particularly revealing that, with few exceptions, most of the outrage is expressed in personal attacks on Judge Alsdorf."

Can you be more off base? I see the majority of the pro I-695 group NOT personally attacking Judge Alsdorf. Most of the attacks are from a few individuals. I think even Patrick knows this. I am pretty sure he can count. Talk about misleading....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 16, 2000.

You didn't take Tim Eyeman's comments, for example, as an attack on the judge's integrity? What did he call the decision? "Despicable". "Politically motivated". If I've incorrectly characterized you or others, I assume you will tell me that you think Tim was wrong.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 16, 2000.

I am not Tim Eyman's spokes-person.

I would not have personally behaved the way you described. On the other hand, since it was a merely a display of emotion, I equate it to John MCcain telling Maria Shriver to go away. People don't always react under stress the way we or they would like.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Marsha, What troubles me is the notion that if it had somehow been a different judge with different leanings--although this assumes Tim knew Judge Alsdorf's politics--that somehow it would have been a different outcome. That was the personal attack. Note: it also implies that somehow if "we" get judges who agree with "us" politically, "we" can get the opposite outcome.

I don't care whether Tim agrees with Judge Alsdorf's decision or not; I am offended by the suggestion that the judge was dishonest and that he merely made a decision that suited him. Even more incredible to me are those on this board AND IN THE LEGISLATURE who essentially say really suggest that he SHOULD have made political decision, and that he should have made it in the opposite direction. I'd like to find out where they took their high school civics classes and suggest a refresher course.

Marsha, Tim E's reaction was more than emotional. He took the unfortunate stance that there can be no honest disagreement on this issue. I think the attempt to demonize and question the integrity of those who disagree with us is a bigger threat to democracy than any judge's ruling on this issue could possibly present. I understand that you are drawing a distinction between Tim E. and yourself on this, and I have found your posts to be the reasonable comments of someone with whom I simply happen to disagree.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 17, 2000.

Howard,

I have made myself clear on the issue of political motivation. I think political motivation is no where near the moral dillema that assumes Judge Alsdorf may be dishonest. The dishonesty I see is that no one wants to admit that it happens and is naive to expect otherwise. Just because a Judge may have allowed himself to be biased in a ruling, does not mean he is being dishonest. Whether conciously or subconciously biased, he is not necessarily being dishonest. Only if political motivation was the main reason for a ruling would I condemn him. In fact, I believe the part of his ruling that smacks of political motivation is in allowing the status quo $30 tabs, not the ruling that the entire Initiative is Unconstitutional.

My problem is not with the Judge, but those who are trying to make him into a "Saint" for this ruling.

The process is working. I have no complaints. I have not attacked this Judge's decision the way some have. I also will not attack a watch salesman for doing something near and dear to his heart. He is not perfect, but neither am I. And his Initiative was written a heck of alot better than what I could have done. I appreciate his efforts, even though they weren't perfect. I would not have done as well. We are headed in the right direction, thanks to Tim. I will not imply that his behavior is inappropriate if he did what he felt he must.

Out of curiosity, where were you when outrageous lies were told by the "anti" group to defeat this initiative? There were many....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Marsha, he actually did find the entire initiative unconstitutional. He only refused to ENJOIN the $30 tabs because it would create an adminstrative nightmare to go back to the old pricing. Once the Supreme Court affirms his decision, I believe it will require the Legislature to act in order to make $30 tabs permanent. As we know, all sides are rushing to lead the parade on that question.

I don't think Judge Alsdorf's opinion renders him a candidate for sainthood. I do think that he is an honest, hard-working judge who does his duty as he believes the law requires him to. I have both won and lost on motions in front of him. He is an outstanding judge and not someone who I think you would ever believe had decided a case arbitrarily, on whim or based on personal preference.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 17, 2000.

Howard--"it also implies that somehow if "we" get judges who agree with "us" politically, "we" can get the opposite outcome."

I found this amusing.

While I doubt it applies in this situation, I can't imagine any lawyer on a politically significant case who wouldn't express satisfaction about being assigned to a court sharing their ideology on the issue. As a concrete example, why do people go out of their way to get into/outof the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court of appeals?

Politicians (unfortunately, the majority of whom are lawyers) understand this implicitly since a judge's politics (ie constructivist v. activist terms or pro-life v. pro-choice) are arguably the most important selection criteria for significant upcoming appointments.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 17, 2000.

Has any judge ever made purely political decision based solely on his own views rather than the law? OF COURSE THAT HAS HAPPENED. Does it happen all or most of the time? No. Do most judges decide cases this way? No. Most judges are actually very conscientious and do apply the law to the best of their ability. But why discuss this in the abstract? Can someone take Judge Alsdorf's decision and give concrete examples why they think it demonstrates some bias or some purely political viewpoint?

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 17, 2000.

Howard--"I am offended by the suggestion that the judge was dishonest and that he merely made a decision that suited him."

It's just a hunch, but I doubt many people on this forum are interested in what you find offensive.

Put another way: if you're attempting to be self-righteous, it's working.

"I think the attempt to demonize and question the integrity of those who disagree with us is a bigger threat to democracy than any judge's ruling on this issue could possibly present."

How do either of the above constitute a "threat to democracy???" While the former reduces the probability of having a civilized discussion, seriously proclaiming it a threat to democracy gets you adjudged guilty of spouting hyperbolic nonsense.

Put another way, Tim Eyman questioned the judge's integrity in public. Given the abuse I suspect he's received from criminal defendants, the judge probably doesn't even care. You'll have to excuse me while I stifle a yawn. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 17, 2000.

Brad, actually the notion that one can be a member of a "loyal opposition" is an underpinning of democracy. I think given the hysteria I've seen on this board (and from the infamous Tim) that your comments regarding hyperbole are misdirected.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 17, 2000.

Brad:

Judges can make mistakes, which is why we have the appeal processes; but they hate to be overturned on appeal. It makes them look ignorant of the law, the constitution, or legal precident; so they temper their personal preferences with the knowledge that every word of their opinions may be challenged on appeal. The range of discretion is actually very narrow; and an "activist judge" takes the chance that he/she will either lose their reputation, or convince the Supreme Court that his/her legal theory spits some legal hair they had not thought of before, and is correct in the specific case. The cases that split those hairs are rare, and in this case the outcome was predictable and will be upheld.

Howard, keep up the good work.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 17, 2000.

Howard--while I agree opposition is important to a democracy, you still need to convince me that demonizing your opponent (something the American left generally does better than the American right IMO) is a threat to their existence.

Put another way, David Horowitz calling Cornel West a token of mediocre intellectual ability doesn't magically cause Cornel West and his supporters to dry up and blow away. Metaphorically, it just means they probably won't ever sit next to each other at dinner table.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 17, 2000.

Thank you dbvz.

Brad, I don't have an opinion about whether the left or right do more demonizing. Extremists are extremists, whether left or right. Ideas, opinions, judicial decisions and policies should be fair game for attack. However, I think we should normally assume our differences are honest differences between honest people. The personal attacks just turn the whole discussion into something like a segment from The Jerry Springer Show.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 18, 2000.

Brad wrote, "How do either of the above constitute a "threat to democracy???" While the former reduces the probability of having a civilized discussion, seriously proclaiming it a threat to democracy gets you adjudged guilty of spouting hyperbolic nonsense."

Just a suggestion. Much of the pro-695 group are very outspoken in being anti-government in all its forms. Government in this country rests on the rule of law, administered by (hu)man. Mistakes are made, but the mistakes are identifiable as mistakes by appeal to the law; and the law depends on an impartial and objective judicial system.

The judge in this case did his job. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and they will do their job and affirm that 695 is (mostly) unconstitutional. What does damage to the institutions of government, is the inability of some people to accept the fact that they may be wrong, and that 695 actually is poorly written, bad law, and unconstitutional. When you attack the judge, and the integrity of the judicial system as the proper place to redress grievances; where does that get us?

It gets us to a government of men, and not of law. Leaders pushed in every direction by the latest poll, who are not constrained to live within the established "rules" of the constitution and laws of the state. THAT does damage to the institutions of government, including representative democracy in the approval and administration of the laws.

Some on this forum seem very content to bash government at all levels, and are unconcerned by the implied consequences of their position. Anarchy is not an acceptable alternative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 19, 2000.

Well said dbvz!

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 19, 2000.

"It gets us to a government of men, and not of law. Leaders pushed in every direction by the latest poll, who are not constrained to live within the established "rules" of the constitution and laws of the state. THAT does damage to the institutions of government, including representative democracy in the approval and administration of the laws." And we have seen this repeatedly by the pro-government people to a much greater degree than has been done by those who wish to restrain the growth of a government that many of us believe is becoming too big, too powerful, too arrogant, too much like an aristocracy, and certainly consuming too many of the resources produced by it's citizens. The framers of the US Constitution, believers in limited government, and the pioneers who produced our own state consitution, would not recognize what activist judges and career bureaucrats have done in the implementation of their own "rule of men." At least a populist movement has the advantage of broadly representing the will of the people, certainly moreso than the Mandarins who spend their lifetimes deciding what's best for others, and using their leverage in government to overcome popular opinion. Your condemnation of the "government of men" would be more effective (or at least seem less self-serving) if it were to also include condemnation of those judges and bureaucrats who have seized every ambiguity to promote THEIR views or defend their friends from accountability.

"Some on this forum seem very content to bash government at all levels, and are unconcerned by the implied consequences of their position. Anarchy is not an acceptable alternative." And others spout hyperbole like this over a DIFFERENCE OF POLITICAL OPINION. No one waved any black banners, no one manned the barricades, not a shot was fired. By worlwide standards, the pro-695 crowd has been remarkably civil and restrained. Heck, by the standards of discourse in the British House of Commons, they've been exceedingly POLITE throughout this. Tossing out terms like "anarchy" is demagoguery, little better than McCarthyism (though in retrospect after combing through the KGB files, he was closer to the truth than given credit. Perhaps historians will have to rehabilitate the old geezer). A reduction in MVET (be it 2% or 10% of the budget) and a requirement for the taxpayers to have to buy in to future increases in the tax that THEY will pay, hardly smacks of anarchy.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), March 19, 2000.

Just so everyune understands the biases:

HOWARD R. MORRILL Attorney at Law Howard Morrill does most of the litigation for the firm, primarily representing franchisees. Howard Morrill is a Washington native. Born in Yakima County in 1958, he grew up in Seattle. His father is a long-time employee of the Seattle Public Schools, who for the past twenty years has taught history at Ingraham High School. His mother worked for the University of Washington from 1964 until 1997. Howard attended public schools in Northeast Seattle, graduating in 1976 from Roosevelt High School where he was a National Merit Scholar, quarterback of the football team, and a sprinter during track season. He then attended the University of Washington, graduating with degrees in both history and business administration. During college he worked part-time, mostly for the Singer Company, and coached both little league football and Seattle Parks Department basketball. He was also a member of Beta Theta Pi fraternity. During a brief hiatus from higher education, Howard continued to work for Singer on a full-time basis and coached basketball at the Bush School in Seattle. Howard then returned to the University of Washington, entering the School of Law in 1983. He was subsequently accepted to UW's Graduate School of Business Administration, thus entering the University's highly regarded JD/MBA program. He began his association with Howard Bundy during this time, clerking for him during school. Howard graduated with his law and masters degrees in 1987, passed the Bar Exam, and entered private pr

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 19, 2000.

Craig:

My comment was about why attacking the judge for doing his job could be understood as an attack on the democratic process. Your further attack on the judicial system, and judges who rule on issues in a way you disagree with, is just more of the same. As I said before, the area for discretion is fairly limited for a judge who expects his ruling to be upheld; perhaps less so for a Supreme Court, unless the consitution is unambiguous. In this case, the constitution was not ambiguous at all, and and even us dumb non-lawyers could see the problems in 695. Complaining about the outcome just make no sense.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 19, 2000.

"Complaining about the outcome just make no sense."

And I haven't. But equatingsupport for I-695 with support for anarchy makes no sense either.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 19, 2000.

dbvz--welcome back. . .I keep hoping Chez will pop in as well.

"What does damage to the institutions of government, is the inability of some people to accept the fact that they may be wrong, and that 695 actually is poorly written, bad law, and unconstitutional. When you attack the judge, and the integrity of the judicial system as theproper place to redress grievances; where does that get us?

If you'll reread what I wrote, you'll understand that we were talking about damaging democracy (not government). It's still incorrect to assert that the above damages democracy.

Divorcing democracy and government for the time being, it's not clear to me that the above damages government.

"Some on this forum seem very content to bash government at all levels, and are unconcerned by the implied consequences of their position. Anarchy is not an acceptable alternative."

This oughta bring back memories. . .again, you've presented a classic example of a strawman argument. What does working for a smaller, less intrusive government have to do with anarchy? Other than *maybe* maddjak or Tony, I've not seen anyone on this forum advocate anarchy.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 20, 2000.

"He was also a member of Beta Theta Pi fraternity."

Now start the loving cup around nor pass a brother by We all drink from the same canteen in Beta Theta Pi

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 20, 2000.

Kai Brad.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

Zowie,

Now that everyone understands the biases, what are they?

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

1) Family history of government employment in education. I think it's fair to assume some degree of pro-big government bias, at least on the part of your parents, since historically people employed in these endeavours tend to donate time and money to work for causes that are pro big government. Not illegal, immoral, or anything else, just the way things tend to be. Somewhat of a stereotype, perhaps, but some stereotypes do represent reality. If this is NOT an appropriate factor to consider in assessing someone, one would have to inquire as to why YOU placed it on YOUR website. 2) The profession of law. Again, not illegal, immoral, or anything else. It's just that we have a lot more lawyers per capita than most countries, and they tend (there's that sterotyping again) to be pro- government and derive their own gain from increasing government complexity. They also tend to be over-represented in the process of government, both as politicians and as people who benefit from the results of the politicians. They fall into a group of necessary monopolists, IMHO, like the physicians. They don't really CREATE anything, but rather limit the loss. Society benefits from them when their net cost is less than the loss avoided and doesn't necessarily benefit from them when their marginal costs exceed the marginal benefit. In most professions, the market sort of controls this itself. For healthcare and law, however, the monopoly position held by the suppliers makes it easy to charge more than the services provided would otherwise bring. For Lawyers, there's the special problem of their over-representation in government including the legislature where they can write laws that induce their own demand.

Not saying your not entitled to your biases, mind you. I've certainly got mine. But since you believed that posting this on your website helped to define who you are and promote yourself to would be clients, I thought it fair enough to post it here. I am not "outing you" or "capping" you like the union people do, just allowing people the additional info to assess your credibility that you yourself apparently believe is relevant.

I'd be delighted to hear your assessment of the validity (or lack of same) of my stereotypical assessments. If your parents, for example, have been engaged in a 35 year running dispute with the NEA because they really wanted their dues to be used to support Barry Goldwater for President, I'll be delighted to eat crow. That wouldn't be the way I'd place my bet though.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

to zowie: I don't agree with you that lawyers don't create anything. Theoretically, a lawyer could help to parties construct a clearly worded contract.

My biggest gripe with the legal profession comes from lawsuits whereby the principle of self-responsibility is abdicated in order to address pain and suffering. In my opinion, smokers have no right to legal redress. Society only has a right to regulate addictive substances when the substance impairs an individuals capacity to reason and/or operate mechanized equipment. Since nicotine does neither, society has no compelling reason to regulate it.

Likewise, I don't think people should be allowed to sue for pain and suffering unless the actions of an individual are particularly egregious. Therefore, an auto accident should result in only payments for lost wages, medical care, and property damage, unless, say the individual was more than say 15 MPH over the speed limit; or the individual was drunk.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 20, 2000.

I used to believe that too. Then I was hit by a jerk who had a bad case of impatience.

I have had several weeks of pain (back) and suffering, long drives to the Doctor/therapy appointments and endless phone calls and paperwork.

Why do I expect money for pain and suffering? Because I had to deal with the lowest life form of them all....insurance adjusters. After three weeks of dickering, we agreed to the repair of my car, the cost of a rental, and all medical bills. Now they decline to pay, and say he was not covered.

My insurance company will pay, including pain and suffering, which is not their preferred term. The term they use is "inconvenience." I think it is very fair and just. My life was "inconvenienced" for at least a month.....just because I wasn't driving fast enough for the jerk.

I think you are wrong Howard!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Sorry Howard

I think you are wrong Matt!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Zowie,

I think I would describe myself as a moderate-conservative Republican--assuming any animal described as even slightly "moderate" can still co-exist with the word "Republican". My parents are noticeably more conservative than I am. I cast votes for Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan and George Bush. I wasn't old enough to vote for Nixon in 1972, but would have. Frankly, at this point, if I had Bob Dole to vote for this year, I think I'd be grateful for the opportunity not to have to choose between Gore and Bush, Jr.

I would also point out that the UW School of Business, and particularly its Business Econ Department, is viewed as a place where one can go hear the conservative economic view espoused without having to travel to the University of Chicago. I have two degrees from that school.

The practice of law? Its image as a bastion of liberalism is laughable. We have all kinds--just like every other business and profession. Some of the most reactionary things I have ever heard and read were uttered and written by lawyers.

Finally, I think the assumption that every person who opposes I-695 is a liberal, pro-big-gov't type is flawed. I suspect many of us would like thoughtful reforms made to Washington's tax policies as well as to government. I-695 was not such a reform in my view, even setting aside its obvious constitutional problems. It was more an appeal to passion than to reasoned reform. I-695 may have been a populist cause, and most populists may be (or seem) conservative at present. However, it does not follow that most conservatives are populists.

The things on my site are there to show my connection to the community I practice in. I think they would be poor predictors of my vote on any particular issue.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

Fair enough. What do you think of my assessment of the regulated monopolies of law and medicine?

I believe that the legal profession (including the judges) are subject to a "who guards the guardians" sort of conflict of interest, while the market works poorly for medicine because little of the (monetary) cost is born by the patient, leading to sometimes bizarre cost-benefit decisions. Law in particular seems to have a capability of bootstrapping itself to higher and higher levels, and since there is little production (as opposed to loss limiting), once they reach a certain point their marginal utility goes down, if things aren't made purposely complicated (the tax code comes to mind) to induce an otherwise non-existent demand.

Couldn't clearer laws decrease the need for lawyers. Why do we need so many more per capita than most countries?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

I'd love to have a fuller discussion about the topics you raised. As a short hand for now, consider whether the premise that we have so many more lawyers is actually true. There are countries of the world in which a lawyer is only someone who does courtroom work. In the US, we count every in-house counsel, business lawyer, bureaucrat, etc.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

"There are countries of the world in which a lawyer is only someone who does courtroom work. In the US, we count every in-house counsel, business lawyer, bureaucrat, etc. " Which perhaps begs the question of why we are training so many lawyers if that really isn't necessary. Because monopolies tend to create work for themselves to do, too.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

I think it merely means that people we would count as lawyers they call something else. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary for those people to have legal training to do the work.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

"I think it merely means that people we would count as lawyers they call something else. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary for those people to have legal training to do the work. " I think I need to see the facts upon which you base this argument. I was looking at a comparison of those coming out of university with something that looks like a degree in alw, compared to the US experience. From whence come your figures?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

Brad:

Read it again. My point was (and is) that when the political institutions that are created by democratic processes are undermined, and the laws and constitutional provisions that are adopted by the democratic processes are ignored; then what supports are left for the rule of law and democracy itself? Why vote to pass laws and constitutional amendments, if they can be ignored when the political wind changes direction? We have rules to follow, and 695 attempted to ignore those rules. The judge called Eyman and company on it. It does no good to blame the ref when you break the rules. What is the alternative? Play without rules or a ref? Perhaps anarchy was a bit strong; but when respect for the process and those in positions that require them to enforce the process is gone, what will we have left?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), March 20, 2000.

Zowie,

I can't claim to have any figures. I have periodically read articles that challenge the assumption that we have so many more lawyers than other countries. Not surprisingly, such articles tend to appear in ABA publications and the like. The argument is basically that we haven't compared apples to apples when it comes to counting lawyers in different countries.

I think the argument is interesting in the same way that all arguments that question popular beliefs are, but it has been long enough since I read one of these articles that I cannot claim to remember much detail. I'm not trying to champion the argument so much as I'm trying to point out that another view exists. The argument may not even be correct--the popular notion may be right instead.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 20, 2000.

In the context of attorneys per capita...

Zowie writes:

"I was looking at a comparison of those coming out of university with something that looks like a degree in alw (sic), compared to the US experience."

Great Britain comes to my mind. They have barristers who are qualified members of the legal profession that present and plead cases before the courts. They also have solicitors that, as I recall, may not appear before the courts. They work more as counsel for day to day things such as wills, contracts, etc...

I think they may have one other classification as well but I can't remember for sure. It's the pits getting old and having a fuzzy memory.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), March 21, 2000.