Tongue in cheek article

[Guest guest]

Got this from a patient who is an attorney! Called " A Doctor's Plan for Legal

Industry Reform " apparently authored by a radiologist in New York. Kind of

long but worth reading!

Dan in Alaska

Physicians have never been so insulted. Because of these affronts, I will gladly

volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. Since

most of what lawyers do is repetitive boilerplate or pushing paper, physicians

would have no problem dictating what is appropriate for attorneys. We physicians

know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.

A Doctor's Plan for Legal Industry Reform

RICHARD B. RAFAL

online.wsj.com

04 September 2009

Since we are moving toward socialism with ObamaCare, the time has come to do the

same with other professions—especially lawyers. Physician committees can decide

whether lawyers are necessary in any given situation.

At a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, our uninformed lawyer in

chief suggested that we physicians would rather chop off a foot than manage

diabetes since we would make more money doing surgery. Then President Obama

compounded his attack by claiming a doctor's reimbursement is between " $30,000 "

and " $50,000 " for such amputations! (Actually, such surgery costs only about

$1,500.)

Physicians have never been so insulted. Because of these affronts, I will gladly

volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. Since

most of what lawyers do is repetitive boilerplate or pushing paper, physicians

would have no problem dictating what is appropriate for attorneys. We physicians

know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.

Following are highlights of a proposed bill authorizing the dismantling of the

current framework of law practice and instituting socialized legal care:

• & #8201; Contingency fees will be discouraged, and eventually outlawed, over a

five-year period. This will put legal rewards back into the pockets of the

deserving—the public and the aggrieved parties. Slick lawyers taking their " cut "

smacks of a bookie operation. Attorneys will be permitted to keep up to 3% in

contingency cases, the remainder going into a pool for poor people.

• & #8201; Legal " DRGs. " Each potential legal situation will be assigned a

relative value, and charges limited to this amount. Program participation and

acceptance of this amount is mandatory, regardless of the number of hours spent

on the matter. Government schedules of flat fees for each service, analogous to

medicine's Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), will be issued. For example, any

divorce will have a set fee of, say, $1,000, regardless of its simplicity or

complexity. This will eliminate shady hourly billing. Niggling fees such as $2

per page photocopied or faxed would disappear. Who else nickels-and-dimes you

while at the same time charging hundreds of dollars per hour? I'm surprised

lawyers don't tack shipping and handling onto their bills.

• & #8201; Legal " death panels. " Over 75? You will not be entitled to legal care

for any matter. Why waste money on those who are only going to die soon? We can

decrease utilization, save money and unclog the courts simultaneously. Grandma,

you're on your own.

• & #8201; Ration legal care. One may need to wait months to consult an attorney.

Despite a perceived legal need, physician review panels or government

bureaucrats may deem advice unnecessary. Possibly one may not get representation

before court dates or deadlines. But that' s tough: What do you want for " free " ?

• & #8201; Physician controlled legal review. This is potentially the most

exciting reform, with doctors leading committees for determining the necessity

of all legal procedures and the fairness of attorney fees. What a wonderful way

for doctors to get even with the sharks attempting to eviscerate the practice of

medicine.

• & #8201; Discourage/eliminate specialization. Legal specialists with extra

training and experience charge more money, contributing to increased costs of

legal care, making it unaffordable for many. This reform will guarantee a

selection of mediocre, unmotivated attorneys but should help slow rising legal

costs. Big shot under indictment? Classified National Archives documents down

your pants? Sitting president defending against impeachment? Have FBI agents

found $90,000 in your freezer? Too bad. Under reform you too may have to go to

the government legal shop for advice.

• & #8201; Electronic legal records. We should enter the digital age and

computerize and centralize legal records nationwide. All files must be in a

standard, preferably inconvenient, format and must be available to government

agencies. A single database of judgments, court records, client files, etc. will

decrease legal expenses. Anyone with Internet access will be able to search the

database, eliminating unjustifiable fees charged by law firms for supposedly

proprietary information, while fostering transparency. It will enable consumers

to dump their clunker attorneys and transfer records easily.

• & #8201; Ban legal advertisements. Catchy phone numbers such as 1-800-LAWYERS

would be seized by the government and repurposed for reporting unscrupulous

attorneys.

• & #8201; New government oversight. Government overhead to manage the legal

system will include a cabinet secretary, commissioners, ombudsmen, auditors,

assistants, czars and departments.

• & #8201; Collect data about the supply of and demand for attorneys. Create a

commission to study the diversity and geographic distribution of attorneys, with

power to stipulate and enforce corrective actions to right imbalances. The more

bureaucracy the better. One can never have too many eyes watching these sleazy

sneaks.

• & #8201; Lawyer Reduction Act (H.R. -3200). A self-explanatory bill that not

only decreases the number of law students, but also arbitrarily removes 3,200

attorneys from practice each year. Textbook addition by subtraction.

Enthusiastically embracing the above legal changes can serve as a " teachable

moment " and will go a long way toward giving the lawyers who run Congress a

taste of their own medicine.

—Dr. Rafal is a radiologist in New York City