I don't understand Will's problem w/ Edwards language, but I'll let the lawyers tell me whether or not it is appropriate to use language like "my firm", when you... well, work at a firm. The Best of John Edwards The bravest thing he ever did. By William Saletan and Ben Jacobs Posted Friday, August 15, 2003, at 7:48 AM PT Slate continues its short features on the 2004 presidential candidates. Previous series covered the candidates' biographies, buzzwords, agendas, and worldviews. This series assesses the story that supposedly shows each candidate at his best. Here's the one told by supporters of John Edwards—and what they leave out. The story: "When I met Ethan [Bedrick], he was a beautiful five-year-old boy afflicted with severe cerebral palsy since birth. Every doctor who took care of Ethan said he needed physical therapy. If he did not get it, the doctors said, he was going to become constricted. … There was only one doctor who said Ethan didn't need physical therapy. That doctor had never seen Ethan. That doctor sat behind a desk in a distant state and worked for a big insurance company. … Even though the law is greatly slanted in favor of HMOs and insurance companies, my firm took Ethan's case. After two or three years of litigation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the doctor and the insurance company were wrong. … On one side are children like Ethan Bedrick. On the other side are powerful, well-financed interests with their legions of lobbyists." (Edwards, Trial magazine, July 1, 2001) Reality check: The way Edwards tells the story, he took up the case to help good doctors beat a bad HMO. But the case Edwards took up wasn't against the HMO. It was a malpractice case against the doctor who had delivered Ethan. (The suit claimed that the doctor had failed to head off Ethan's oxygen deprivation, leading to brain damage.) After Edwards won a settlement from the doctor, it was Edwards' law partner, David Kirby, who won the case against the HMO. Edwards never mentions Kirby's role and uses phrases such as "my law firm" and "we" to cover both cases. Edwards also oversimplifies when he claims that "children like Ethan" are on one side and "well-financed interests" with "piles of money" are on the other. In the malpractice case, Edwards won a $5 million settlement, the largest in the history of North Carolina. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, although Edwards & Kirby took less than its usual one-third share of the settlement, the firm still got a seven-figure payday in that case alone. The 'reality check' seems to be petty, but I wonder if it is deliberately so. Will loves Edwards... and I don't believe that anyone would really feel as if they had been misinformed (by the bigger story re: little guy v HMO) when Edwards never stated that he had taken the case. In my reading, Edwards argues what he wants to argue... a feel good story about a little guy v an HMO. He said 'my firm'... not 'me'. Am I missing something? Is Edwards trying to mislead people?
I don't think Edwards is being misleading at all...i think this is absolutely petty. we celebrate successes at my firm with words like "we," and we mean it. we celebrate them because everyone contributes, whether directly or indirectly...but certainly partners celebrate. if i bring in a client and my partner tries his case and wins...WE win. that they took a seven-figure settlement as a bad thing is ridiculous...welcome to market economics. other attorneys would have asked for much more...they certainly could have asked for more. were they handsomely rewarded? absolutely. but they also risked working their asses off for a couple of years and getting zero. zilch. nada. for their efforts. this is petty...very very petty.
Thanks for the inside scoop Max. When I imagine the sort of camaraderie at a firm, I imagine the way you describe it to a 't' (aside from the hyper caffeine addicts doing karate crotch chops after winning a big case "yeah baby yeah" ). ps, I love your signature.
I agree. Very petty. Perhaps Will just didn't consider that Edwards, as perhaps the senior partner, may have made the decision to spend firm resources to take the second case worked by the other lawyer in the firm. Maybe Will is trying to balance the ledger a bit after at least twice bashing Dean needlessly and expressing sorrow that Lieberman is too dorky (my word) to win, though Will likes his conservative stands for a Democrats. Has he trashed Kerry in a similar fashion? Hopefully we don't just wind up with Will endorsing Bush as the best alternative after trashing all the Democrats.
