Yeah, I'm an intern at a law firm and I'm really eager to become a lawyer in three years or so.

Most folks would immediately call me a large variety names, ambulance chaser being one of the nicer ones.

And I'm working for a law firm that is active in suing people.  For example, one of the attorneys here at Lehman, Lee & Xu, Hao Junbo, is trying to set up a case to sue Merck & Co , a major drug company, on behalf of the Chinese who were adversely affected by one of their drugs, Vioxx.  Apparently, heavy or longterm doses of Vioxx increases the risk of heart attacks three times and raises the risk of sudden cardiac death.  Bad Juju, man. (here's a link: http://en.ce.cn/National/Law/200512/07/t20051207_5444008.shtml)

Sure, the families that have lost loved ones should be compensated.  But a lot of people distrust lawyers and especially ones that sue people.  Suing is a big problem in America, people say (and probably will become a big problem in China).  Just look at that crazy McDonalds case from a few years back.  Some lady finagled a sweet two million from McDonalds just for pouring some hot coffee on her lap.  Man, I wished I had poured hot coffee on my lap.

But, as a prospective attorney, who might (gasp) be involved in suing someone some day, let me put up something of a defense (we aren't all ambulance chasers).

Do you know how much money the McDonalds franchise made on coffee in one day?  Something around twenty million dollars.  Two million isn't sounding that bad already, eh?  Well, it gets better.  The lady famous for getting two million dollars from McD's wasn't the first to get burned--by a long shot.  Lots of other people had been burned by the over-hot McD's coffee and had already sued, getting damages in lost work and medical bills.  Maybe $200,000 or whatever.  So McDonalds has some analysts come by.  Would it be cheaper to make coffee less often by raising it to higher temperatures (and burn people) or would it be cheaper to lower the temperature of the coffee (and not pay damages when people get burned.)  Guess  what the bigwigs and McD's decided.  It's cheaper to burn people.

And not just the mild burns you get from nicking yourself on an oven rack.  The lady that got 2 million was burned so badly in the most horrible way that she had to have several reconstructive surgeries just to operate normally.

How does 2 million sound now?  McDonald's makes 20 million dollars a day and purposefully burns people to make more.  So the burned person gets $200,000 in medical bills.  But what's the two million about?  It's the judge saying that the bigwigs at McDonalds are a bunch or heartless, sick, people.  Who kill cows.  Just kidding.  I doubt the judge was a vegetarian ( no conspiracy theories, here).

But do you get my point?  Sometimes these cases are spun the wrong way by the media, making me and other actually honest attorneys look bad.  Sure, there are a lot of heartless, sick, attorneys.  No doubt about it.

But we aren't all ambulance chasers.