Lawyer Talk; an Interview

Lawyer Talk; an Interview
Interviewer: Ms Todaroja, you are a well known highly paid lawyer; yet on occasion you take a case on a pro-bono basis. Is that out of a sense of altruism?
Ms Todaroja: you bet, for myself that is. The only pro-bonos I take are so high profile I get more free advertisement out of it than even I can afford.
Interviewer: Do you have any future pro-bonos in mind?
Ms Todaroja: I was angling for that sick twist in Arizona who shot all those people but some other hungry bitch beat me out. It really sucks too. I’ll bet she scores a book deal and movie rights out of it to boot.
Interviewer: Moving on, you have recently petitioned the World Court to reopen the cases of those men convicted of war crimes at Nuremburg in 1946. Why?
Ms Todaroja: For the money, why else besides, there is no statute of limitation on correcting an injustice
Interviewer: But they are all so long dead. Who is paying your fee?
Ms Todaroja: My clients are the descendants of those members of the Third Reich who were so falsely accused and so wrongly convicted. They want me to get the verdicts overturned and t5herby vindicate the memories of their ancestors by restoring their honor and good names.
Interviewer: How dare you deny that the Holocaust happened or are you claiming that they were not the ones responsible?
Ms Todaroja: Both, not only did it never happen, they weren’t even the guys who did it.
Interviewer: Do you also deny the existence of the death camps like Auschwitz?
Ms Todaroja: I don’t deny their existence, only their mischaracterization as “death camps.” They were in fact protective enclaves designed to provide sanctuary for those members of society who chose to sit out the war in safety and comfort.
Interviewer: Well if they “chose” to be there then why these “protective enclaves” were surrounded by electrified barb wire and armed gun towers?
Ms Todaroja: To prevent overcrowding by keeping out those who did not want to wait for more sanctuaries to be completed for their benefit.
Interviewer: Really? Not about the “comfort.” Do you consider shoddy wooden shacks with dirty floors, no heat in the dead of winter and nothing but hard boards to sleep on comfortable?
Ms Todaroja: Another mischaracterization. They were in fact luxury townhouses where in each suite was appointed with wall to wall carpeting, central air and ergonomically firm mattresses.
Interviewer: Then what about the enforced slave labor where they were worked beyond the point of exhaustion?
Ms Todaroja: Strictly a voluntary program of exercise for those guests who chose not to avail themselves of the tennis courts. Rowing lake and riding stables provided for them.
Interviewer: Then what about the systematic starvation of you’re so called “guests,” what was that?
Ms Todaroja: Individualized diets to prevent obesity in those guests who chose not to exercise at all and instead spent all their time playing chess or lounging at the poolside behind the country club.
Interviewer: This is outrageous how can you even say these things with a straight face?
Ms Todaroja: I’m a lawyer…
Interviewer: Well then what about the gas chambers, what were they?
Ms Todaroja: state of the art chemically enhanced showers to promote proper hygiene.
Interviewer: And the crematorium?
Ms Todaroja: An oversized brick oven whose sole purpose was the baking of kosher bread and other ethnic cuisines to ensure that the cultural requirements of the guests were adhered to.
Interviewer: Then why did so many people die in these camps? How do you account from the millions of people that ceased to exist?
Ms Todaroja: I don’t because they didn’t. According to my sources the number of deaths was the same as the actuarial for a modern day community. Just one to each person. I also have a sworn affidavit from my forensic pathologist attesting to the fact that of the very few deaths which did occur, not a single one could be attr5ibuted to anything other than natural causes.
Interviewer: But the films! We all saw them. When the allies entered the camps the thousands of emaciated dead bodies being pushed by the bulldozers into open pits. How can you explain that?
Ms Todaroja: A total fabrication. The allies flew in a high tech team from Warner Bros. who used their expertise in special effects to create images of something which never happened. So as you see, if the pit does not fit then you must acquit. Hey! I like the sound of that. I think I’ll use it
Interviewer: But seriously, you don’t really expect to win this case do you?
Ms Todaroja: I not only expect to win it, I guaranty it. I’ve been a lawyer for over twenty years and I’ve never lost a case yet.
Interviewer: Not so! According to “my” sources you’ve lost more than half your cases. In fact your last client is doing life without parole. What about him?
Ms Todaroja: That’s his problem. The only way that “I” can lose is if I don’t get paid. And I always demand my fee up front. Then I tack on every “legal expense” I can think up along the way. By the time I get done with the mark, I mean client it ends up costing him at least double what he thought it would cost. You would be surprised at how much it costs for a secretary to open a letter and file it these days.
Interviewer: So your client goes to jail for life and you walk away with his money? How is that fair?
Ms Todaroja: What has fair got to do with it? Besides I’m willing to pile endless appeals on his behalf, until he bleeds out that is. Then he can go get himself a public defender. That is his right you know.
Interviewer: I see. What about your liability cases? Why is it your clients never get amount they thought they would receive?
Ms Todaroja: It’s the nature of the beast. You always file for some ridiculous amount of damages because one never knows but since most of these cases are dogs you take what you can get and walk on.
Interviewer: When you say a case is a “dog” what does that mean?
Ms Todaroja: It means that either your client’s injuries are bogus or even worse the target has short money and limited coverage; I have a number of such cases pending at the present. Every one of them is in my “dead file” and that’s where they’re going to stay until Fido gets so desperate that he accepts the original offer. Then I walk away with my 33% plus expenses and I didn’t have to lift a finger to earn it. It’s all about knowing which of these cases are even worth taking. Like a lion sitting on a hilltop observing a herd of wildebeests and singling out the cripples. Public institutions like schools and hospitals fall into that category. They are the easiest pray as they always have an “insurance fund” that they will let you take a bit out of no matter how frivolous your suit is just to get you to go away. After all why should they care? It’s not their money.
Interviewer: And that’s how you make a living?
Ms Todaroja: Not really but it does help pay the rent. The only guys who get the fat off the kennel club are the dog catchers. You know those grafters who interrupt the continuity of you TV show every 7 minutes with their Mr. sincere act telling you that if you got hurt in any way even if you did it to yourself somebody owes you money and how they want to fight for your rights. Even those boys are lucky if they see a rainmaker more than once every few weeks but since they deal in volume or even better, class action they make out all right. That is unless one of their clients happens to find out where they live.
Interviewer: That’s what I don’t understand. How can you avoid dealing with these clients until they reach the point where they will accept any settlement that suits you?
Ms Todaroja: Say what? Hello! MacFly, is anybody home? Did you ever, even once in your life call a lawyer to discuss the status of your case and his secretary was able to figure out if he was sitting right there or in court that day or not available until after she got you r name then put you on hold to check to see if he was in? Who do you think she was checking with sparky?
Interviewer: I have to say this whole business sounds very cynical to me.
Ms Todaroja: that’s only because you’ve been spoon fed of Perry Mason, Matlock and other Hollywood pipe dreams and you have no idea how the advocacy system really works.
Interviewer: Isn’t it supposed to be a search for the truth where in both sides are represented to get a fair hearing?
Ms Todaroja: In theory yes, but thanks to me and many others just like me in every facet of the legal system it has evolved into quite a different thing.
Interviewer: Can you explain how it really works?
Ms Todaroja: Sure, first comes the judge who usually just a politically appointed stooge more inclined to rule in favor of his bosses agenda than on any point of law and then try to justify his ruling by citing some obscure legal precedent which doesn’t even relate to the case. In the trade we refer to it as the “9th circuit two step” and if you don’t have the right client it’s a lock. Next comes the prosecutor, an ambitious alpha dog more concerned with his career advancement in politics that with whether or not the defendant is even guilty. We call that one “Nifonging the Piñata” although in this case it didn’t work out the way he planned it. He did however show great promise for a career in politics. Lastly comes me. My role is to maliciously trash the victims family, accuses every witness for the prosecution of lying, yell “junk science” every time a piece of evidence is introduced, then come up with the most preposterous alternative theory I can even create which points the finger at everyone but my client and just hope that there is at least one person on the jury who is stupid enough to believe that I made a case for reasonable doubt.
Interviewer: I find it hard to believe what you are saying. Aren’t you extraditing using infrequent aberrations to describe the process?
Ms Todaroja: Well maybe, but didn’t you ever wonder why there is so much pre-trial posturing and strategizing? Half of these cases are won or lost during overdrive or by getting the right venue. After that the trial is just a formality. A circus maximus designed to provide voyeur entertainment for the unwashed and an outlet for those seeking vicarious atonement for their own inner thoughts. If you don’t think so just check out the Jose defense strategy and the spectacle that took place outside the courthouse. The only thing missing from that scene was the guy selling the little Lindbergh ladders.
Interviewer: And that is how the advocacy system really works?
Ms Todaroja: Pretty much, if you throw in a convenient jail house confession sworn to have been heard by some cell mate snitch looking to buy a walk and a shit load of expert witnesses willing to sell their reputations to either side for a pay check you’ve just about got it. I really liked that expert witness who listed in credentials that he had performed over 50,000 autopsies. That was a good one; lucky for him that there were no math majors sitting at the prosecution table that day.
Interviewer: I really can’t think of anything else to ask so I guess this interview is over unless you have something else you would like to add.
Ms Todaroja: Only this, it’s called the Lawyers Anthem.
If you get busted
Don’t fret and fear
Just dial 1-800 shyster and I will appear
To fight for your rights
To help you stay free
But only for as long as you pay my fee
Accepted by the courts, first rule of the lawyers bar
The more money you have the more innocent you are
But should you run out of coin your woes will have just begun
Or as the second rules says, put a fork in him he’s done
So don’t worry about it and have yourself a good sleep
And just remember one thing.
Justice doesn’t come cheap.

T.R.M
P.S. While Shakespeare may have had it right Archie Bunker said it better. “I don’t need a lawyer I’ve already been robbed.”