When people are injured by negligence—by an auto accident or a malfunctioning product, or while on a dangerous property, to name but a few possibilities—they reach out to us to learn about their rights and what they should do next. We welcome their calls, of course, but when we talk to them one puzzling refrain comes up over and over: "I'm not the lawsuit type." Every day we hear people who urgently need legal help also try to distance themselves from it. Why feel embarrassed about asking a professional for assistance? Why are legal services so stigmatized? After the umpteenth time I heard that phrase, I took a while to ponder it.
What Is "The Lawsuit Type?"
As far as I can tell that phrase is used exclusively in a negative sense to describe "sue-happy drama queens," or even outright frauds who irresponsibly waste the court's time trying for a big payday. Lawsuits also generally require associating with attorneys, which folks aren't always crazy about. Their concerns seem driven by a misconception that injury attorneys are "vultures" or "ambulance-chasers," as though they're ghoulishly pleased when someone is hurt or killed.
No wonder people don't want to be "the lawsuit type" if that's how they feel, but their perception is just plain wrong. The law might have to endure the exploitive efforts of a few bad apples, but that's true of almost any institution: Some doctors abuse their credentials to clear unfit truck drivers for duty. Crooked police officers seize drugs and resell them as a side hustle. Even Olympic athletes occasionally abuse public trust by doping to edge out their competition. In each case, though, these people's dishonesty is almost always discovered and punished.
The same is true for lawsuits: Some may try to abuse their right to seek justice, but their efforts usually fail spectacularly. "The lawsuit type" shouldn't be defined by those abusers' recklessness. It should just refer to anyone who rightly wants to make use of the civil justice system after being unfairly injured. Lawsuits are an important method of seeking help for wronged parties. Without them, trusting only in fate to provide, victims and their families might struggle in vain trying to get back on their feet after a tragedy.
These notions of frivolous lawsuits and opportunistic lawyers are insulting and reductive. No injury attorney is happy that someone was hurt, even if they may be glad that they are able to help afterward. I doubt I'll ever meet a lawyer who prays for a ten-car pileup on the freeway, and believing that such behavior is possible could easily make someone reluctant to reach out. At that point, whoever told them to expect it has misled them.
Who Encourages These Misunderstandings About Lawsuits?
The more cynical portrayals of attorneys there are, the harder it is for confused people to ask one for help. Two big sources of that misinformation are people close to the injured person and advocates of tort reform.
First, people close to the victim sometimes caution them that lawyers are bad news. Respectfully, they should knock that off. If someone is hurt by negligence, the least useful thing anyone can do—no matter their personal motives or beliefs—is to say "Don't get help; lawyers will just make it worse." Advising someone not to seek a professional who is trained specifically to help them makes no sense. Is there any time where it would?
- When I got my brakes fixed, I didn't blush and tell the garage I'm "not the mechanic type."
- The pharmacy that fills my prescriptions doesn't have to hear me protest that I'm not "medication-happy."
I didn't worry about being thought of as "the HVAC type" when I called a repairman about my broken air conditioning. Texan summer is too dang hot for that.
Sometimes their "advice" is based on experience. It doesn't have to be their experience, though; it's often a third- or fourth-hand account ("My cousin's roommate's girlfriend's dog walker got bit once"), and if you've ever played a game of Telephone you know that the more times a story is told, the further it gets from the original.
Furthermore, it's not just (allegedly) well-meaning people who create this negative stereotype about attorneys. Some organizations want to limit what the law is capable of doing for injured people. This is called tort reform. Its supposed purpose is "the prevention of lawsuit abuse and frivolous litigation," which might sound admirable on its surface but is mostly just an effort by businesses to cover their assets in the event of their negligence. Local Chambers of Commerce (organizations of businesses that promote and protect their interests) cooperate with tort reformers in seeking caps on recoveries and limiting what kinds of cases can even be brought before a court, alleging that it's a waste of time and money to oblige certain petitioners. These cases often aren't actually frivolous; their plaintiffs suffer serious and traumatic injuries, and every talking head that wants to deride them should feel like a proper jackass.
Am I saying that every single case that comes before the court has merit? That's probably a bit idealistic. The important thing, though, is that everyone is still entitled to a chance at recovery. We don't decide beforehand what the law will take seriously; that's worked out in real time by the justice system. Those who bring meritless lawsuits don't usually win them, and they end up paying out the nose for their attempts to waste the court's time. Tort reformers push for legislation that robs people of their Constitutionally-protected shot at justice, and they want it because it would protect the financial interests of the businesses they serve. The umbrella of the law is meant to equitably protect everyone willing to stand beneath it, but these groups want it to stop raining altogether.
Ultimately I'm trying to point out that it's ridiculous to avoid a class of professionals whose help you need. Many things—machinery, medicine, the law—are highly complex, and rather than hopelessly try to decipher them ourselves, we reach out to those who are trained to navigate their twists and turns. Those who advise someone against contacting attorneys are at best misguided and at worst acting against that person's best interests.
Let's End This Myth.
So there you have it: Naysayers believe that only sue-happy opportunists seek the help of a lawyer, and that they're likely to get grifted in the process. That's what suffering victims are told, ostensibly to protect them somehow. Good people are scared away from making a reasonable choice, and feel embarrassment if they do make it, because biased people and cabals of self-interested businesses cultivate and broadcast some very wrong-headed notions about professional attorneys. It's not hard for the trope to take hold and propagate with the help of popular culture's numerous depictions of unprincipled lawyers.
Benign as their intent may be, the trite lawyer clichés in fiction and on TV can discourage people from reaching out to those best qualified to assist them with a specific need. Attorneys like a good lawyer joke too, as it happens, but these irresponsible portrayals also make people who need help afraid of being victims all over again. The messages are conveyed by unqualified parties, too--people that have no business shooing injured people away from their best chance at being made whole. I wouldn't ask a barber for advice about a radiator leak in my car; why credit a television writer with accurate knowledge of how the law works or how attorneys really act?
Nobody wants to be "the lawsuit type" if it continues to be understood as it is currently. It's past time that we do away with these misconceptions and overcome the embarrassment of seeking qualified help in the pursuit of justice.