So if you get into a car accident you plan on representing yourself if it gets complicated and you are being accused of being at fault?
Insurance lawyer.
Medical lawyers also protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits.

That's not an insurance lawyer. Insurance lawyers run and work for insurance companies.
Medical lawyers work for drug companies, medical suppliers and HMOs.

Or file the frivolous lawsuits against said doctors.

Lawyers on BOTH sides of the fight.

Insurance lawyers also work for policy holders too. Back when she worked, my wife worked with an insurance litigation group that specialized in getting insurance companies to pay claims.

But isn't that a public advocacy lawyer specializing in insurance?
She surely wouldn't want to identified with the scumbags running the insurance companies.


Don't ask how I knew her name was Shirley.

It depends on which side of the suit the lawyer's client is on. An insurance lawyer represents their client, be they the person at fault, the person hit, the property owner if someone hit a home or business, or they may be representing the insurance company.
All deserve representation.

Many, maybe most, lawyers don't get in any lawsuits unless somebody sues them. They do their damage mostly incognito..... or in congress.

My cousin who was also my matron of honour is a barrister for an insurance/investment company. I don't think she's a scumbag.

Since legal representation is expensive, the group she worked with would typically be hired by corporations. Say that XYZ corporation discovered that there was a toxic waste dump on their land, and they had an insurance policy that had vague language that could be interpreted to say that insurance would pay for the cleanup. The group of lawyers she worked with would go after the insurance company to get it to honor its policy and pay for the cleanup.

This type of litigation has mostly dried up though, since lawyers for the insurance companies write more iron clad policies now, excluding virtually everything. The vague language doesn't exist in policies much any longer.

I am not a lawyer, but I am surrounded by them and their professional associates. My dad is a prosecutor for the Justice Department, my fiance is a law school administrator, and my best friends include a corporate lawyer, a corporate legal advisor, a law librarian, and a 1L law student.

I'm amazed at how few "legal professionals" know anything about the U.S. Constitution. I personally know more about it than any Supreme Court Justice to serve in the last 50-100 years. I'm not being facetious or trying to brag. I'm stating a fact based on the overwhelmingly bad decisions they've made (many of which directly contradict the Constitution) and the fact that this court has deemed that they can allow violations of the Constitution when they deem it in the government's "interests".

I love how lawyers claim that my "interpretation" of the Constitution is wrong when I don't "interpret" it, and neither should the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It is written in simple English and it's not vague or ambiguous in any way. It means exactly what it says and nothing more or nothing less.

The Constitution says that the federal government may only legislate or take part in what is specifically enumerated and that the federal government is PROHIBITED from doing anything that is not enumerated. The federal government is PROHIBITED from having "implied powers".

More than 80% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.

It's a shame so few lawyers can comprehend this.

Radar is a follower of a cult-like school of thought which emphasizes a stricter Constitutional approach, stricter than the strictest strict Constitutionalist you have ever known.

thank you. I deleted my response because I don't wish to be contentious.

well that's no fun, take the guy on

it wouldn't change his mind, but if it makes any difference, we'd all get something interesting out of a bit of contentiousness and radar would actually prefer you to take him on.