Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
BruinsFan
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:26 pm

Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby BruinsFan » Mon May 10, 2010 10:10 am

She's running for governor of CA and I just head a radio ad about how the state of CA employs more lawyers than the largest law firm in the country. Apparently, that's inefficient and costing the state too much money.

Yes, Meg, because the pay scale for public defenders is the same as the pay scale for big law attorneys.

itforthat
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 6:24 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby itforthat » Thu May 13, 2010 3:42 am

WHAT? Is she trying to screw us future lawyers...
Guess who's not getting my vote!

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby bk1 » Thu May 13, 2010 3:46 am

A politician uses a distorted analogy to win popular sentiment? I AM SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED!

User avatar
voice of reason
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:18 am

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby voice of reason » Thu May 13, 2010 3:47 am

Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest of her, considering that she very well recognizes that law is central to the operations of government. It's a cheap shot.

cigol
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby cigol » Mon May 24, 2010 2:05 pm

Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby jks289 » Mon May 24, 2010 2:16 pm

voice of reason wrote:Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest of her, considering that she very well recognizes that law is central to the operations of government. It's a cheap shot.


The woman is a nut. Intellectually dishonest is a massive understatement. Attempting to inflame and capitalize on vague anti-lawyer sentiments is such a slap in the face to the hundreds of underpaid and dedicated public servants in California. My favorite part of the Poizner-Whitman attack ads is that both seem to be running on an anti-immigration platform. Anti-immigration in California?! :shock: Let's just see how that plays out in the general election.

User avatar
Billy Blanks
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:08 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Billy Blanks » Mon May 24, 2010 2:22 pm

jks289 wrote:
voice of reason wrote:Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest of her, considering that she very well recognizes that law is central to the operations of government. It's a cheap shot.


The woman is a nut. Intellectually dishonest is a massive understatement. Attempting to inflame and capitalize on vague anti-lawyer sentiments is such a slap in the face to the hundreds of underpaid and dedicated public servants in California. My favorite part of the Poizner-Whitman attack ads is that both seem to be running on an anti-immigration platform. Anti-immigration in California?! :shock: Let's just see how that plays out in the general election.


It's because they're tax-raising, illegal-loving, entitlement-promising, do-nothing LIBERALS. Everyone knows this (just as Poizner or Whitman).

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby bk1 » Mon May 24, 2010 2:28 pm

Billy Blanks wrote:
jks289 wrote:
voice of reason wrote:Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest of her, considering that she very well recognizes that law is central to the operations of government. It's a cheap shot.


The woman is a nut. Intellectually dishonest is a massive understatement. Attempting to inflame and capitalize on vague anti-lawyer sentiments is such a slap in the face to the hundreds of underpaid and dedicated public servants in California. My favorite part of the Poizner-Whitman attack ads is that both seem to be running on an anti-immigration platform. Anti-immigration in California?! :shock: Let's just see how that plays out in the general election.


It's because they're tax-raising, illegal-loving, entitlement-promising, do-nothing LIBERALS. Everyone knows this (just as Poizner or Whitman).


+1. Except the tax-raising. As Californians we love our illegals and our entitlements, but we still don't like taxes.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby clintonius » Mon May 24, 2010 2:30 pm

cigol wrote:Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

I'm under the impression that public defenders often work positively crazy hours already. Also, not sure this proposal really makes sense -- double their pay over 30 years to avoid having to pay them 90% for no work for 15-20?

User avatar
Billy Blanks
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:08 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Billy Blanks » Mon May 24, 2010 2:37 pm

bk1 wrote:
Billy Blanks wrote:
jks289 wrote:
voice of reason wrote:Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest of her, considering that she very well recognizes that law is central to the operations of government. It's a cheap shot.


The woman is a nut. Intellectually dishonest is a massive understatement. Attempting to inflame and capitalize on vague anti-lawyer sentiments is such a slap in the face to the hundreds of underpaid and dedicated public servants in California. My favorite part of the Poizner-Whitman attack ads is that both seem to be running on an anti-immigration platform. Anti-immigration in California?! :shock: Let's just see how that plays out in the general election.


It's because they're tax-raising, illegal-loving, entitlement-promising, do-nothing LIBERALS. Everyone knows this (just as Poizner or Whitman).


+1. Except the tax-raising. As Californians we love our illegals and our entitlements, but we still don't like taxes.


True. My favorite part of our foray into direct democracy (the initiative process) is that voters consistently vote for awesome-sounding social services but see no reason to fund these services and frequently oust politicians who raise taxes. Then, the right and left get to blame each other for creating an unsustainable system and use whatever catastrophic state we're in as evidence that either 1) all social services are bad and the free market needs to dictate when and where fires will be put out, crimes will be prosecuted, roads will be paved, or 2) we need to tax the top earners in the state at a 65% income tax rate lest we fall into the trap of promising things we can't deliver. Meg Whitman would never promise anything she can't deliver, that's why I'm voting for her.

User avatar
Billy Blanks
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:08 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Billy Blanks » Mon May 24, 2010 2:38 pm

clintonius wrote:
cigol wrote:Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

I'm under the impression that public defenders often work positively crazy hours already. Also, not sure this proposal really makes sense -- double their pay over 30 years to avoid having to pay them 90% for no work for 15-20?


A reasoned critique. I would like to commend you both for thinking about actual responses. If only we could get elected officials to reason in this manner.

User avatar
david?
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby david? » Mon May 24, 2010 2:46 pm

clintonius wrote:
cigol wrote:Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

I'm under the impression that public defenders often work positively crazy hours already. Also, not sure this proposal really makes sense -- double their pay over 30 years to avoid having to pay them 90% for no work for 15-20?

Well in Cigol's defense, under the current system, we are paying for two PDs and only getting work from one. Once a PD retires, he gets his benefits. But the office also has to replace him so there is your 2nd PD salary. So like i said, we are paying for two PDs but only one of them is actually working. Not sure if that sovles the numbers problem but it might.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby bk1 » Mon May 24, 2010 2:55 pm

Billy Blanks wrote:True. My favorite part of our foray into direct democracy (the initiative process) is that voters consistently vote for awesome-sounding social services but see no reason to fund these services and frequently oust politicians who raise taxes.


The California Model:

1. Vote for bullet train.
2. Vote not to increase taxes.
3. ????
4. Profit.

Billy Blanks wrote:Meg Whitman would never promise anything she can't deliver, that's why I'm voting for her.


Agreed. People running for office never promise things they can't deliver. Never.
Last edited by bk1 on Mon May 24, 2010 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Billy Blanks
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:08 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Billy Blanks » Mon May 24, 2010 3:02 pm

bk1 wrote:
Billy Blanks wrote:True. My favorite part of our foray into direct democracy (the initiative process) is that voters consistently vote for awesome-sounding social services but see no reason to fund these services and frequently oust politicians who raise taxes.


The California Model:

1. Vote for bullet train.
2. Vote not [strike]not[/strike]to increase taxes.
3. ????
4. Profit.

Billy Blanks wrote:Meg Whitman would never promise anything she can't deliver, that's why I'm voting for her.


Agreed. People running for office never promise things they can't deliver. Never.


Fixed this for you. Also, I agree with everything you've said. I think we're currently in stage three of the four-stage plan outlined above. In about two months time (according to my calculations) we should see the profits rolling in.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Danteshek » Mon May 24, 2010 3:10 pm

Meg Whitman has very little understanding of the issues confronting our state. I also dislike the fact that she has spent so much of her own money on her campaign. It's like she thinks that since she is rich, she deserves to be governor. I will vote for anyone but her.

User avatar
T14_Scholly
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby T14_Scholly » Mon May 24, 2010 3:18 pm

BruinsFan wrote:She's running for governor of CA and I just head a radio ad about how the state of CA employs more lawyers than the largest law firm in the country. Apparently, that's inefficient and costing the state too much money.

Yes, Meg, because the pay scale for public defenders is the same as the pay scale for big law attorneys.


I don't think the pay scales need to be the same in order for her analogy to hold up. It can still be inefficient for the state if the state lawyers are making far less than large firm lawyers. Her analogy is more about the number of lawyers doing the amount of work required than it is about their pay.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby clintonius » Mon May 24, 2010 4:06 pm

david? wrote:
clintonius wrote:
cigol wrote:Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

I'm under the impression that public defenders often work positively crazy hours already. Also, not sure this proposal really makes sense -- double their pay over 30 years to avoid having to pay them 90% for no work for 15-20?

Well in Cigol's defense, under the current system, we are paying for two PDs and only getting work from one. Once a PD retires, he gets his benefits. But the office also has to replace him so there is your 2nd PD salary. So like i said, we are paying for two PDs but only one of them is actually working. Not sure if that sovles the numbers problem but it might.
That's... actually a pretty fair point, and one I had to think about for a bit before replying. Assuming people do work for about twice as long as they're retired it still doesn't even out, but it does seem to be a fair criticism. Also I'm not sure how it would pan out considering 1) the adjustment of salary to account for inflation, and 2) beginning salary vs retirement-age salary, and I honestly don't feel like working it out, but you're right in that it's not as simple as I made it out to be.

I still doubt you could get away with justifying paying double salary given how many hours PDs already work, because either there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in expected hours worked and taxpayers are pissed, or that increase would cause burnout at a rate likely exceeding that of biglaw and PDs would quit en masse.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby d34d9823 » Mon May 24, 2010 4:07 pm

clintonius wrote:
david? wrote:
clintonius wrote:
cigol wrote:Im not really a big fan of hers, but she just made a point that the state is employing too many people who in turn receive absurd benefits during and after employment. Sure, public defenders don't get paid nearly as much as private practice attorneys, but private practice attorneys aren't receiving 90% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives funded by taxpayers. There are reasons that the federal government and states like New York and California are completely broke, and none of them include terrific efficiency and low expenses.

Howabout this solution that could possibly come out of this.....double the pay of public defenders, make them put in the hours of private practice attorneys, and make them contribute to their own retirements. This would lower the overall costs of employment and draw in more qualified people.

I'm under the impression that public defenders often work positively crazy hours already. Also, not sure this proposal really makes sense -- double their pay over 30 years to avoid having to pay them 90% for no work for 15-20?

Well in Cigol's defense, under the current system, we are paying for two PDs and only getting work from one. Once a PD retires, he gets his benefits. But the office also has to replace him so there is your 2nd PD salary. So like i said, we are paying for two PDs but only one of them is actually working. Not sure if that sovles the numbers problem but it might.
That's... actually a pretty fair point, and one I had to think about for a bit before replying. Assuming people do work for about twice as long as they're retired it still doesn't even out, but it does seem to be a fair criticism. Also I'm not sure how it would pan out considering 1) the adjustment of salary to account for inflation, and 2) beginning salary vs retirement-age salary, and I honestly don't feel like working it out, but you're right in that it's not as simple as I made it out to be.

I still doubt you could get away with justifying paying double salary given how many hours PDs already work, because either there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in expected hours worked and taxpayers are pissed, or that increase would cause burnout at a rate likely exceeding that of biglaw and PDs would quit en masse.


What if you gave them a 50% raise for the same hours and cut the pension?

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby clintonius » Mon May 24, 2010 4:45 pm

I'm just a little concerned we're being overly reasonable about this problem. We'd probably garner more support if we created some anti-Whitman commercials portraying her as a Viking slave driver who eats babies. All this critical application of thought to real-world problems is a bit far-fetched.

User avatar
david?
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby david? » Mon May 24, 2010 4:48 pm

clintonius wrote:I'm just a little concerned we're being overly reasonable about this problem. We'd probably garner more support if we created some anti-Whitman commercials portraying her as a Viking slave driver who eats babies. All this critical application of thought to real-world problems is a bit far-fetched.



Unfortunately, this seems to be TCR in the political environment of California...

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby d34d9823 » Mon May 24, 2010 4:49 pm

clintonius wrote:I'm just a little concerned we're being overly reasonable about this problem. We'd probably garner more support if we created some anti-Whitman commercials portraying her as a Viking slave driver who eats babies. All this critical application of thought to real-world problems is a bit far-fetched.

That's what the crazy Viking slave drivers want you to think.

cigol
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby cigol » Tue May 25, 2010 9:01 am

bk1 wrote:
The California Model:

1. Vote for bullet train.
2. Vote not to increase taxes.
3. ????
4. Profit.




Is this in reference to the Underpants Gnomes in the early days of South Park? If so, well played.

User avatar
SaintClarence27
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby SaintClarence27 » Tue May 25, 2010 10:01 am

Just do what we in Illinois do - only elect criminals. When they run a state budget into the ground, they do it right.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby bilbobaggins » Tue May 25, 2010 5:08 pm

Y'all are sort of missing the point of the pension: that it's attracting qualified applicants in the first place, especially in the bigger cities in CA (the SF PD office is one of the most successful and competitive in the country).

There are also a ton of underlying assumptions about pensions and about govt. spending in general. If CA hadn't frozen its property taxes, we would likely not be in this mess. If the Fed. Govt. wasn't obsessed with military spending we would be looking a lot better off (especially if you discount our foray into Iraq).

Why are government retirement benefits or pensions bad things? We want skilled government employees and good retirement benefits (similar in cost to big firms paying into 401ks and providing stellar health coverage) are ways to attract them. We also want to reward people for serving the public by foregoing jobs that would guarantee a safe retirement and taking ones that, without a pension, would make it difficult to retire at a reasonable age. Would we also want to revoke military pensions and benefits? Those cost the taxpayers money as well.

Mr. Pablo
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: Has anyone in CA heard Meg Whitman's ad about lawyers?

Postby Mr. Pablo » Tue May 25, 2010 5:18 pm

SaintClarence27 wrote:Just do what we in Illinois do - only elect criminals. When they run a state budget into the ground, they do it right.

Hey! We do that in Rhode Island. Maybe our states should switch criminals and see what happens.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mrro and 5 guests