Who, but tort lawyers, would be described by the euphamism you chose to use?

What kind of logic is that?  Yes, ambulance chasers are a subset of tort lawyers.  That doesn't mean all tort lawyers are ambulance chasers.  Using your logic, serial killers are human beings therefore all human beings are serial killers.

Until then your ex post facto explaination rings hollow.

It rings hollow? How so?

Ambulance Chaser has a very, very specific definition.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

<<Dalton’s suspension was for willful disobedience and defiance, not for wearing the shirt. His father said he intends to sue the district.>>

And then the father, a "proud conservatve", will bitch and moan about his school tax bill going up.

Moron.

Howard

Ambulance Chaser has a very, very specific definition . . .ambulance chaser –noun Disparaging. a lawyer who seeks accident victims as clients and encourages them to sue for damages.

The definition to which you cite notes its a disparaging term and does not identify it as subset but a type of lawyer.  And if we take the words as quoted above how does it not define a tort lawyer?  The words are clear: an "ambulance chaser" is one who seeks accident victims and encourages them to sue for damages. Is this not what a tort lawyer does?  Your definition proves my point.  When people think of "ambulance chasers" they think of tort lawyers without distinction. 

A tort lawyer, whether they advertise and get called or if they reach out to victims to offer to represent them* represents people who are injured and may or may not be legally entitled to compensation. As I stated if the lawyer doesn't follow the RPC, I have no sympathy, but if a lawyer is following our ethical rules, Scott then you have accused all tort lawyers of not caring about and respecting the law or their advocacy.  There has been a pernicious trend in the US media to villafy lawyers (and the judiciary), particularly tort and trial lawyers, as greedy predators and it is not fair.  And for those of us in the profession who are proud to be attorneys, proud of our roles as advocates and yes, proud of the profession, it is long past time we stopped laughing along at jokes at our expense.   

*Depending on the state that may not be permissible.

If a lawyer gets his client money, then (unless we simply assume that these lawyers get away with criminally subverting the justice system with fake evidence and perjured testimony) we are faced with the option that 1) the plaintiff did something wrong or 2) there is something wrong with the laws (or the system).

I see that usually the "answer" is given as limiting the amount that can be rewarded, but if 1) then that could be ethically questionable as it would undermine the "corrective" component of civil suits (behave or pay) and if 2) then that's a band aid on a systemic problem that goes much deeper.

Either way, unless we presume all lawyers to behave criminally or unethically in the defense of their clients (or in the pursuit of a civil suit) then there is nothing wrong even with "ambulance chasers". Why would there be anything wrong with seeking out potential clients in the places where they can be found? Next you'll say it's unethical to walk around in the stands at a football game selling unhealthy food and intoxicating beverages.

Biden strikes again

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened."

from the Couric interview.

Either way, unless we presume all lawyers to behave criminally or unethically in the defense of their clients (or in the pursuit of a civil suit) then there is nothing wrong even with "ambulance chasers".

What is pernicious Knut is that we are in a time when our president and Congress have sought to hold people prisioner without warrant, without charge and without counsel.  Disrespecting the role of lawyers, even trivially like here, in such a climate is dangerous.*

From a civil perspective, the most ardent supporter of tort reform tends to be insurance companies, who, generally speaking, would not such need reform if they paid their claims and were honest with their policyholders. 

*I don't believe Scott's really doing that, or in fact intending to do that.  I am addressing, specifically, his charge and the larger statement it makes.  Even accepting his argument (which I don't) it focuses on the bad apples, which contrary to popular conception, are the exception.

I'd agree that they're the exceptions, Geoff, but they're also the most visible...they're the ones who jump up & down during daytime tv commercials exhorting the sentiment, "If it moves, sue it!  If it happens to move within your sightline, sue it twice!  And if if makes physical contact with you in any way shape or form...well, I can't promise you a big cash settlement, but I promise you a big cash settlement!"

More from Joe

“I was a Colts fan until they moved to Baltimore”

“As a kid, you have all kinds of dreams,” Biden said. “I dreamed that someday I’d get here to the Hall of Fame, I really did." (he was nearly 21 years old when the HoF opened.)

Either way, unless we presume all lawyers to behave criminally or unethically in the defense of their clients (or in the pursuit of a civil suit) then there is nothing wrong even with "ambulance chasers".

That's completely untrue.  "Ambulance chasing" is not allowed as it violates Rule 7.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_7_3_comm.html