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.
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 » Tue May 25, 2010 5:20 pm

Mr. Pablo wrote:
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.

They would probably fail woefully due to their lack of knowledge about the state...oh, wait, they already do that.

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 » Wed May 26, 2010 8:33 am

Mr. Pablo wrote:
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.


Well, after being fired in the fourth episode of Celebrity Apprentice, Blago is certainly available.

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 » Wed May 26, 2010 10:22 am

SaintClarence27 wrote:
Mr. Pablo wrote:
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.


Well, after being fired in the fourth episode of Celebrity Apprentice, Blago is certainly available.

Ok, so you guys can have Buddy Cianci, convicted racketeer, and we get Blago. Sweet.

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 » Wed May 26, 2010 10:29 am

Mr. Pablo wrote:
SaintClarence27 wrote:
Mr. Pablo wrote:
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.


Well, after being fired in the fourth episode of Celebrity Apprentice, Blago is certainly available.

Ok, so you guys can have Buddy Cianci, convicted racketeer, and we get Blago. Sweet.


Who's going to take George Ryan and his prison term?

JOThompson
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:16 am

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

Postby JOThompson » Wed May 26, 2010 10:31 am

cigol wrote: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.

Fair enough point about retirement.

However, you make it seem like public defenders work far less than private practice attorneys. The average PD handles a heavy caseload and works for a pittance compared to private attorneys. We don't need to do anything to hasten the already high rate of PD burnout.

scuzle
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:52 am

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

Postby scuzle » Fri May 28, 2010 1:26 am

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?


I kind of dont get it either. It might work assuming that you would cut the staff by more then half to compensate for the doubling of public defender pay. Though this may cut into the deficit, wouldn't it add to inefficiency? If you double pay then you would have to cut the staff by more then double to make any tangible dent in the public debt. But, assuming that they would take on the requisite hours to compensate for the reduction in staffing, it is possible that the workload would be unmanageable because they take even more hours then the new pay and hours account for, which could in turn add to the inefficiency. Maybe Im wrong?

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

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

Postby prezidentv8 » Fri May 28, 2010 3:35 am

Got a flyer for this (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_16_(June_2010)) today calling it the "Right to Vote Act."

And this is why California politics is retarded.

I'm voting no on everything out of sheer contempt for the dumb ass initiative system.

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 » Fri May 28, 2010 12:21 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:Got a flyer for this (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_16_(June_2010)) today calling it the "Right to Vote Act."

And this is why California politics is retarded.

I'm voting no on everything out of sheer contempt for the dumb ass initiative system.


The main sponsor of that initiative is PG&E, which is trying to keep government out of its monopoly up in Norcal. It is an incredibly cynical way to present the issue.

User avatar
TheBigMediocre
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:53 pm

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

Postby TheBigMediocre » Fri May 28, 2010 12:26 pm

I didn't read the majority of the posts in this thread, but California's pension system is a wonderful example of why Defined-Benefit plans are extremely dangerous and the current GAAP in place for accounting for them is insufficient.

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 » Fri May 28, 2010 12:26 pm

Can we get an initiative on the ballot to do away with the initiative system?

BruinsFan
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:26 pm

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

Postby BruinsFan » Fri May 28, 2010 12:36 pm

I love that this thread is still going!

I know advertising, especially political, can be misleading, but I was pissed.

User avatar
mec30
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 3:24 pm

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

Postby mec30 » Fri May 28, 2010 9:15 pm

DAs and PD are not hired by the state of California, they are county employees. The lawyers she would be talking about (other than judges) are those who work in self-help centers, those who do legal research for judges (of which there are nearly 1,500), those who work in administration, and those who work for the legislative, and executive branch.

Still a disingenuous argument.

scuzle
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:52 am

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

Postby scuzle » Sat May 29, 2010 5:50 pm

bilbobaggins wrote: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.

A well thought an reasonable response. However, I think its overstating the problem by saying if CA had not frozen prop. taxes and the government had not over spent on the military then we wouldn't be in this problem. Though it is true that these might neccessarily have helped to create the problem I think examples such as the CA penal system expenditures are another vantage point where you can see fiscal irresponsibility on the part of CA.




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests