The American Bar Association has lost its way, and we do not believe it serves as a fair arbiter of judicial nominees.@TheJusticeDept will no longer give the ABA the access they’ve taken for granted. pic.twitter.com/ViqX9IRa7w

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) May 29, 2025

I'm guessing the aba will squeal but it's their own doing.

Well past time. The ABA is a joke of an organization.

Just observing the answers/nonanswers given by nominees by congressional committee members tells me that the our judicial system of how lawyers are taught has gone insane.

ThisIsTheWay.jpg

Now this is the Bondi I expected to see. Smart move.

The ABA has been a joke for 20+ years. About time.

So, anyway …

Two lawyers passed the bar.

The third one ducked.

An engineer dies and goes to heaven...

The engineer found himself at the pearly gates. St. Peter looked him up in the book, and found that he was destined for the other place. The engineer protested that this must be a mistake, and that he had lived a righteous life, going to church every week, being faithful to his wife etc. to no avail.

About 6 weeks later God reviews the lists and realizes that the engineer has been sent to the wrong place. So he rings up Lucifer and demands that the engineer be sent up. Lucifer says "NO WAY. This guy was the best thing to ever happen here. He's got the AC working, we have running water and cable now too, and next week he thinks we will get internet access and an ice cream machine." God is pissed and yelling says "I'll sue". Lucifer says "ya okay, but where in heaven are you going to find a lawyer?"

deddog said:

---

An engineer dies and goes to heaven...

The engineer found himself at the pearly gates. St. Peter looked him up in the book, and found that he was destined for the other place. The engineer protested that this must be a mistake, and that he had lived a righteous life, going to church every week, being faithful to his wife etc. to no avail.

About 6 weeks later God reviews the lists and realizes that the engineer has been sent to the wrong place. So he rings up Lucifer and demands that the engineer be sent up. Lucifer says "NO WAY. This guy was the best thing to ever happen here. He's got the AC working, we have running water and cable now too, and next week he thinks we will get internet access and an ice cream machine." God is pissed and yelling says "I'll sue". Lucifer says "ya okay, but where in heaven are you going to find a lawyer?"

---

Funny.

It always tickles me that people blame us as if we're the ones instigating conflict.

Nothing against people who have the law as a profession, but I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that the American system doesn't need massive re-thinking. Lawfare, activist judges, the massive expense, etc.

Leftist activists cry frequently gradually co-opt any institution that will further leftist ideological domination. They gain a majority then bully and purge any conservatives that might be vocal.

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

---

Hang this in the Louvre. Spot on

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

---

Yeah…GREAT idea. Don't let lawyers advertise like every other business does. Great way to limit the possibility of a good income to large firm attorneys only.

Sure, there's some of that in the Plaintiff's bar. But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims, along with loser pay laws. I'm a member of the Tax bar myself and own a law firm. My fights are solely with the government, with the occasional role as an expert in family and business cases. We have a website, use Google ads, etc to advertise our services, and God has blessed us with the work He's sent our way. What you're suggesting would keep the public's knowledge of who they're hiring very limited, as well as their experience and client's experiences m(reviews).

Quote:

---

But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims,

---

Now that's funny.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims,

---

Now that's funny.

---

The data is clear. The number of lawsuits has decreased significantly, especially in medal cases since 2003.

Wasn't this done during Trump's first term?

another great move by the Trump Administration.

Jack Boyette said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims,

---

Now that's funny.

---

The data is clear. The number of lawsuits has decreased significantly, especially in medal cases since 2003.

---

I have been doing med mal cases since before the 2005 reforms. Yes, there are fewer cases. But it has not made any significant dent in the baseless claims as you say. there are still plenty of baseless claims filed.

now you just have a whole cottage industry of experts that will say anything in a report to get over the initial hurdle, then you never hear from them again.

what med mal tort reform in texas made the most significant difference in IMO is the borderline cases with little to no economic damages. it became too expensive for the plaintiff bar to push those cases given the low maximum recovery, which when adjusted for inflation is about 150k in 2005 dollars.

Even if it isn't banning advertising, being far more restrictive in how you are allowed to advertise would be an excellent change. The bottom feeder bs happening now makes Vince McMahon and the WWE blush

I work for a fortune 100 cpg company and the stuff we see come across is amazing. Saw a suit just a few weeks ago - a father driving his family runs a red light (LONG red, not even close), t-bones our driver. All of it on video (360 cams on our vehicle). They sue us. If any commercial vehicle is in an accident, they are getting sued regardless of the facts. And I do think the bullsh ads being allowed drives some of it

45-70Ag said:

---

…,,,…,,,

I'm guessing the aba will squeal but it's their own doing.

---

What are the odds a Federal court judge will file a Temporary Restraining Order?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims,

---

Now that's funny.

---

The data is clear. The number of lawsuits has decreased significantly, especially in medal cases since 2003.

---

I have been doing med mal cases since before the 2005 reforms. Yes, there are fewer cases. But it has not made any significant dent in the baseless claims as you say. there are still plenty of baseless claims filed.

now you just have a whole cottage industry of experts that will say anything in a report to get over the initial hurdle, then you never hear from them again.

what med mal tort reform in texas made the most significant difference in IMO is the borderline cases with little to no economic damages. it became too expensive for the plaintiff bar to push those cases given the low maximum recovery, which when adjusted for inflation is about 150k in 2005 dollars.

---

Well, everything has consequences and there's no perfect solution. Nobody that's started a law firm would advocate against attorneys being able to market their services just like any other profession. That's absurd, and speaking of consequences, would drive thousands out of business, increasing the cost of legal services for the average person and consolidating them within large firms with institutional clients. I charge $500/hour. A lawyer doing exactly what I do at a large firm with my experience and credentials charges $1,200 - $1,500 an hour. Normal people and small businesses would not be able to find anyone like me. I'm already in a niche within a niche.

Good. Now take away their accreditation powers.

Quote:

---

I have been doing med mal cases since before the 2005 reforms. Yes, there are fewer cases. But it has not made any significant dent in the baseless claims as you say. there are still plenty of baseless claims filed.

now you just have a whole cottage industry of experts that will say anything in a report to get over the initial hurdle, then you never hear from them again.

what med mal tort reform in texas made the most significant difference in IMO is the borderline cases with little to no economic damages. it became too expensive for the plaintiff bar to push those cases given the low maximum recovery, which when adjusted for inflation is about 150k in 2005 dollars.

---

. . . and the biggest issue with Texas tort law isn't med-mal. I deal with PI and Employment matters from the corporate side - and Texas is one of the worst jurisdictions in the country for business defendants. Getting rid of attorney advertising would be a step in the right direction, but there needs to be more. Loser pays would help - as would a better method of choosing judges.

Quote:

---

Loser pays would help

---

Doesn't that only work if you make the loser's lawyer on the hook for the fees also?

I'm not advocating that, but aren't many if not all of the frivolous PI cases brought by Plaintiffs that are judgment proof?

Jack Boyette said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

---

Yeah…GREAT idea. Don't let lawyers advertise like every other business does. Great way to limit the possibility of a good income to large firm attorneys only.

Sure, there's some of that in the Plaintiff's bar. But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims, along with loser pay laws. I'm a member of the Tax bar myself and own a law firm. My fights are solely with the government, with the occasional role as an expert in family and business cases. We have a website, use Google ads, etc to advertise our services, and God has blessed us with the work He's sent our way. What you're suggesting would keep the public's knowledge of who they're hiring very limited, as well as their experience and client's experiences m(reviews).

---

Then maybe you and your righteous brethren than are pure of heart should put a crap ton of pressure on the ambulance chasers and lower tier not so righteous at heart brethren to not wallow in the sewers and act like the esquires you are taught to be.

While you are at it, demand judges quit allowing stupid cases to go forward, and actually have some method of disciplinary action within the legal system to punish those that screw up.

Then go after the politicians, whom are almost all lawyers.

Always amuses me when lawyers get all kinds of butthurt that the general population has a relatively low opinion of them, but they are completely incapable of understanding why.

schmellba99 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

---

Yeah…GREAT idea. Don't let lawyers advertise like every other business does. Great way to limit the possibility of a good income to large firm attorneys only.

Sure, there's some of that in the Plaintiff's bar. But tort reform has curbed a lot of those baseless claims, along with loser pay laws. I'm a member of the Tax bar myself and own a law firm. My fights are solely with the government, with the occasional role as an expert in family and business cases. We have a website, use Google ads, etc to advertise our services, and God has blessed us with the work He's sent our way. What you're suggesting would keep the public's knowledge of who they're hiring very limited, as well as their experience and client's experiences m(reviews).

---

Then maybe you and your righteous brethren than are pure of heart should put a crap ton of pressure on the ambulance chasers and lower tier not so righteous at heart brethren to not wallow in the sewers and act like the esquires you are taught to be.

While you are at it, demand judges quit allowing stupid cases to go forward, and actually have some method of disciplinary action within the legal system to punish those that screw up.

Then go after the politicians, whom are almost all lawyers.

Always amuses me when lawyers get all kinds of butthurt that the general population has a relatively low opinion of them, but they are completely incapable of understanding why.

---

Always amuses me when the people from the general population criticize lawyers as if they're the problem, as opposed to...other members of the general population, who hire the people you're upset about.

I'm not sure what you want me to do in order to police everyone in my profession. I'm sorry we don't all wear wigs, and I'm sorry that you don't like some of us. I have no idea what you do, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of scumbags doing it too that you aren't spending your time getting in line. There's no doubt that there are some shady Plaintiff's lawyers out there, as well as many other types of lawyers that hurt our image. But they are the vast minority.

"Demand judges quit allowing 'stupid cases' to go forward." Ok. Well, no doubt this happens. However, a system that allows a judge to use nothing more than his or her subjective opinion on what constitutes "stupid" without legal parameters in place that guard against such subjectivity sounds incredibly idiotic and unworkable.

We have a disciplinary sytem, and it's actually quite stringent and absolutely punishes lawyers that don't uphold their duties to their clients.

Lawyers comprise about 33% of Congress, not almost all.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you want me to do in order to police everyone in my profession. I'm sorry we don't all wear wigs, and I'm sorry that you don't like some of us. I have no idea what you do, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of scumbags doing it too that you aren't spending your time getting in line. There's no doubt that there are some shady Plaintiff's lawyers out there, as well as many other types of lawyers that hurt our image. But they are the vast minority.

"Demand judges quit allowing 'stupid cases' to go forward." Ok. Well, no doubt this happens. However, a system that allows a judge to use nothing more than his or her subjective opinion on what constitutes "stupid" without legal parameters in place that guard against such subjectivity sounds incredibly idiotic and unworkable.

We have a disciplinary sytem, and it's actually quite stringent and absolutely punishes lawyers that don't uphold their duties to their clients.

Lawyers comprise about 33% of Congress, not almost all.

---

---

I'm in the profession and I'll call BS on your response. We created this expectation that any boo boo will result in a windfall. Your view that judges actually follow law is laughable - particularly now - and especially in Texas. They are more likely to follow campaign cash. The Plaintiffs' Bar (Oh, I'm sorry, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers' Assn)) is one of the biggest donors to judicial campaigns. I wonder why?

As for the "stringent" disciplinary system - what planet do you practice on? Disbarments are pretty unusual - not because they aren't deserved, but because the guild protects those within it.

Unfortunately, I'm a necessary evil - there to protect my clients from the Plaintiffs' Bar (and the class action bar is the absolute worst). When I have a case where the Plaintiff was actually harmed and it was my client's fault, I do what I can to get it resolved early - that's the overwhelming minority of cases. The rest of the cases I deal with are simply a tort tax, where the collectors are members of the bar.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you want me to do in order to police everyone in my profession. I'm sorry we don't all wear wigs, and I'm sorry that you don't like some of us. I have no idea what you do, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of scumbags doing it too that you aren't spending your time getting in line. There's no doubt that there are some shady Plaintiff's lawyers out there, as well as many other types of lawyers that hurt our image. But they are the vast minority.

"Demand judges quit allowing 'stupid cases' to go forward." Ok. Well, no doubt this happens. However, a system that allows a judge to use nothing more than his or her subjective opinion on what constitutes "stupid" without legal parameters in place that guard against such subjectivity sounds incredibly idiotic and unworkable.

We have a disciplinary sytem, and it's actually quite stringent and absolutely punishes lawyers that don't uphold their duties to their clients.

Lawyers comprise about 33% of Congress, not almost all.

---

---

I'm in the profession and I'll call BS on your response. We created this expectation that any boo boo will result in a windfall. Your view that judges actually follow law is laughable - particularly now - and especially in Texas. They are more likely to follow campaign cash. The Plaintiffs' Bar (Oh, I'm sorry, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers' Assn)) is one of the biggest donors to judicial campaigns. I wonder why?

As for the "stringent" disciplinary system - what planet do you practice on? Disbarments are pretty unusual - not because they aren't deserved, but because the guild protects those within it.

Unfortunately, I'm a necessary evil - there to protect my clients from the Plaintiffs' Bar (and the class action bar is the absolute worst). When I have a case where the Plaintiff was actually harmed and it was my client's fault, I do what I can to get it resolved early - that's the overwhelming minority of cases. The rest of the cases I deal with are simply a tort tax, where the collectors are members of the bar.

---

You can call it whatever you want. What county do you practice in? Obviously what you're describing with judge behavior depends on that quite a bit.

The disciplinary system hands out quite a few suspensions. There was a report on this a while ago that I looked at, and it was a lot more than I thought. Disbarment isn't the only form of discipline, and I guess whether or not someone deserves to be disbarred is somewhat subjective.

I didn't say judges always follow the law, but you seem to be implying that they rarely/never do, which I don't agree with.

"We" didn't create anything. Who awarded those verdicts? It wasn't the lawyers.

I get the criticism of Plaintiff's lawyers, and agree that there are a lot of dbags that gravitate toward that area. But to blame them and only them is absurd and just sound like every other yokel idiot that hates their ex's divorce lawyer. Juries are comprised of "regular folk" who award these verdicts, and having served on one, the majority of them don't understand anything and vote with their feelings. They aren't smart people (most people aren't).

Our legal system can certainly be improved, but I challenge you to find one better in the world.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Well, sometimes we do. You don't think the proliferation of billboards and tv commercials advertising drives litigation? Or the race to the bottom, where plaintiffs personal injury attorneys will sign up ANY baseless claim these days that they would've declined in years gone by? Or the judges who refuse to grant summary judgement under any circumstance, because they are completely sold out to the plaintiffs' bar? Or the proliferation of law schools and the lowering of academic standards? Yeah, us lawyers instigate and unmeritoriously prolong litigation a lot these days.

I was taught in law school that the legal profession was unique in that we are a self-regulated profession and that we should be wary of abusing that privilege, lest we find ourselves regulated from without some day. I for one think we'd be a better profession and society if we went back to the days of a ban on attorney advertising.

---

Amen! The good old days when lawyers and pharma companies could not advertise on TV.

Quote:

---

You can call it whatever you want. What county do you practice in? Obviously what you're describing with judge behavior depends on that quite a bit.

---

My practice is national.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Even if it isn't banning advertising, being far more restrictive in how you are allowed to advertise would be an excellent change. The bottom feeder bs happening now makes Vince McMahon and the WWE blush

I work for a fortune 100 cpg company and the stuff we see come across is amazing. Saw a suit just a few weeks ago - a father driving his family runs a red light (LONG red, not even close), t-bones our driver. All of it on video (360 cams on our vehicle). They sue us. If any commercial vehicle is in an accident, they are getting sued regardless of the facts. And I do think the bullsh ads being allowed drives some of it

---

This is what the poster that mentions internal vs. external regulation is talking about. If the bar association automatically removes any attorney that supports this crap - it would stop immediately. If the bar association refuses to do that, then there is a need for outside regulation. I can't think of any other industry that is explicitly allowed to do the wrong thing without consequences.

The ABA has turned into a Soviet style union guild

The American Bar Association is a far left special interest advocacy group.
The American Medical Association is a far left special interest advocacy group.
The American Association of Retired Persons is a far left special interest advocacy group.
The National Education Association is a far left special interest advocacy group.

A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. "There must be some mistake," the lawyer argues. "I'm too young to die. I'm only 55."

"Fifty-five?" says Saint Peter. "No, according to our calculations, you're 82."

"How'd you get that?" the lawyer asks.

Answers St. Peter, "We added up your time sheets."