I feel forced to respond to a recent post by Paul Midler. The topic was the collapse of a building and the general issue of concrete quality and so forth. However, the following leapt out at me, for obvious reasons:

At the time of the bridge and casino collapses, I was in touch with an attorney who was asking me about quality issues in China (he was looking to put together a class-action lawsuit involving defective products made in China). At one point, I changed the subject and suggested that he look into collapsing concrete projects. His response was typical of a lawyer: “Is anyone dead? I can’t touch it unless someone’s dead.”

The good news (make that, bad news) is that someone has died at the Trump building, and another couple may have been injured. Maybe now there will be a little more attention given to the issue, who knows. At the very least, some responsible journalists should get involved and ask why are we seeing more collapses of concrete projects.

"Typical of a lawyer"? I wish that was at least written "typical of a plaintiff tort lawyer" or something. Awkward, but being lumped together with an ambulance chaser does not help my self-esteem.

In defense of the ambulance chaser, however, we all know why these guys can't touch the case unless someone dies: the potential jury award is high enough in those cases to cover his expenses. While this sounds cold and calculating, it's just business. Why do folks in other industries get to make basic economic decisions without being scolded, and yet when a lawyer is honest, albeit in an inhuman manner, about his need to get paid, he is castigated? Not fair. Doctors are idolized, lawyers are demonized — go figure.