In my years
doing consumer reporting, I watched every American industry find
ways to do things better, faster, and cheaper. Today's computers
cost less, but are more powerful. Cars got better. Supermarkets
offer more for less. Most every business is better.
But not
the law business. In law, everything is slow and expensive, and
our choices limited.
For $1 I
can buy a newspaper, and every day it's different. But try to
get a divorce or a simple will for less than $300.
The lawyers
defend their fees and snail-like pace, saying, "We've got
to make sure you get due process." Glad they're so concerned.
But when there's no money in a case, people have trouble getting
a lawyer, let alone getting due process. When there is money,
lawyers even insist on undue process. In the O.J. Simpson trial,
they even quibbled about the jewelry the other lawyers wore.
Other businesses
pad bills, too, but competition limits it. There's less competition
in law because lawyers outlawed competition from outside their
profession -- they prosecute paralegals who offer cheaper alternatives,
calling it "unauthorized practice of law." And they
are all bound by rules of procedure, drafted by lawyers and, for
the federal courts, issued by the Supreme Court, that call for
volumes of paper and make lots of work -- lucrative work, if you're
a lawyer.
Civil cases
usually take years. It almost makes me feel sorry for the people
who sue me. A guy in Philadelphia who said I damaged his reputation
had to wait four years just to get me into court.
The essence
of my story was that Irwin Rogal, a dentist, ran a dental "mill,"
telling people (including me, after he examined me for a "20/20"
story) we had jaw problems, and then charging big bucks for dubious
"treatments." In his lawsuit, he claimed he had not
recommended treatment to me.
Sounds simple
for a court to resolve. The exam was on videotape. The jury could
watch the 40-minute tape and then decide. But that never happened.
Instead, the dentist's lawyers and mine spent three years sending
legal papers back and forth. My lawyers (did I mention they were
paid by the hour?) demanded that the dentist produce vast amounts
of paperwork detailing "all persons other than your attorneys
with whom you have had written or oral communication" and
"each workshop or seminar in which you have participated
as a speaker."
The dentist's
attorneys demanded that we "state the title and author of
each book that was used as a source of information, the name and
date of publication of each newspaper, magazine, pamphlet . .
. documents . . . " In case we didn't know what documents
were, they spelled it out: "Any abstracts, accounts, accounting
records, accounting advertisements, agreements, bids, bills, bills
of lading, blanks, books, books of accounts, brochures" --
that's just the A's and B's.
Eventually,
my case got to court. I assumed the jury would watch the tape,
but they never did. Instead, we had war. War is what a lawsuit
is. Each side played snippets of the videotape. His side played
a few minutes that made it seem as if he hadn't recommended treatment;
my side played a few that demonstrated he did. This happened again
and again -- for days. It was ridiculous. That's what got to me
most, watching my case: the extravagant waste. Even with lawyers
charging hundreds of dollars an hour, the judge just let it go
on and on.
I finally
won, but the ordeal cost ABC a fortune. Why couldn't the judge
say, "Shut up. This is a waste of time and money. We're just
going to play the tape."
