Talk:Jim Shapiro (attorney)

Untitled

The original article as written was lacking in sources and noteability and was an attack page. As a result of the deletion discussion, the article improved in all these respects to the point that at the time of deletion it no longer qualified for a speedy delete and the delete was immediately challenged. As a result of that discussion, the article was further improved and added to to the point that it was not even the same article that had been deleted and the new improved version went live (at the article this article now directs to) while the challenge debate was still going on. That challenge debate ended concluding the point was moot and efforts to improve still more the article that went live were in order. I continued improving it as best I could, but another user has in development in her user space and even better article on the same subject that will wind up replacing mine when she is ready for that. (As is discussed on the article talk page as well as her talk page). That's where we stand at the moment. WAS 4.250 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Still is an attack page

No, the article as written now is still an attack page. Now there are a few references that some of you scrambled to get.

What you all did was write (or edit) a Wikipedia article on a scummy lawyer of no real notability to further negative stereotypes of lawyers.

No legitimate encylcopedia would include an article like this. No serious editor would have defended the article to the death, trampling on others to get his way. That's a strong advocacy.
I don't care about the article now, one way or the other. It was clear to me that you all sure do. My question would be "why"? Jance 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the reason he is important. WAS 4.250 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As the primary author of the version you are talking about, I find your allegations, particularly those about my, as the primary author, motives, bad faith etc, highly offensive. Sarah 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you find it objectionable. I ask for your help in reviewing this article for notability and accuracy. My understanding is that you tried to fix what had been a blatant attack page.

Please consider the following:

• • The original reason this Wikipedia article was created was because someone thought the ads & this lawyer "funny".
  • Now that I have again complained about this being an attack article, WAS added a lot of claims about "legal ethics" citing to sources that have little or nothing to do with legal ethics or with Jim Shapiro.
  • Can anyone tell me why this lawyer is notable, using reliable sources and accurately stating what the resources say?
  • How has Shapiro's case changed the law or ethics rules in a fundamental way?
  • In other articles on Wikipedia, "Overlawyered" was vetoed as not WP:RS because it is a very political organization/website. Why is it allowed here? Jance 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid links

^ Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams accessed August 1, 2006--does not link to anything
^ Legal Ethics Resources on the Web (prepared by Brad Wendel Associate Professor of Law at Cornell University School of Law) accessed August 1, 2006 --does not go to any article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jance (talk • contribs) 03:57, 15 January 2007

Sources Do NOT stand for what they are cited

This is one section heading, presumably included as a way to justify Shapiro's notability: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jance (talk • contribs) 04:12, 15 January 2007

Used to illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform

Here are two sources used to support this premise:

1. Brandweek, Sept 6, 1999, Designated shopper by Laura Shanahan
A Wiki editor claims Shapiro was Laura Shanahan's "example number one of the need to reform legal ethics.. (hence fitting within this section and justifying Shapiro's notability). Shanahan did not say or imply that. It was "tacky times" and not lax legal ethics or self-regulation that Shanahan credits for the tacky ads and "tummy-turning phenomena".

This article does not in any way, shape or form hold up Shapiro to illustrate the need for legal ethics reform. It isn't even an article about legal ethics or ethics reform! It is an aritcle about tacky advertising of all stripes and "tummy-turning phenomena", that are not even necessarily law-related!

This is what Laura Shanahan actually says in the article:

In the beginning, doctors and lawyers were barred from advertising. And we saw that it was good. Nonetheless, the ban was years ago lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of ever tackier pitches across the board. Not to assert strict cause-and-effect here--i.e., ads did not take a turn for the tacky simply because doctors and lawyers began advertising--rather, tacky times spawn all sorts of tummy-turning phenomena. (Two words: Joey Buttafuoco. Two more: Monica Lewinksy. Two wait, I'm having a Maalox moment.)"

2. Motor of May 2002 by Lypen article "Editor's report" (removed)

• Here, the editor claims that Motor "illustrates" a legal sham, with Shapiro is "example number one". Not the case.
• "Illustrating a legal sham" implies there was a legal sham. The Wikipedia editor evidently concludes this, but the aritcle he quotes does not.

"Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims?... It's tempting to regard the situation at least partly as a sham when you look at a website like www.MillionDollarLungs.com, where attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro proclaims, 'I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you..but I can make them pay!' and encourages visitors to his site to spread the word because 'mesothelioma and asbestos injuries could mean million dollar lungs for you or a friend!' "[14]

BUT the author of this cited source continues,

Problem is, behind the aggressive legal tactics and the statistics are people-real people who have a legitimate concern for their wellbeing and who believe they have been deceived and mistreated. For decades, many workers weren't given the proper protection or warning of the suspected hazards of asbestos. However, whatever misconduct and misinformation there may have been, the sad reality is that it can't be undone. To treat this matter simply with statistics and anecdotes is dehumanizing and unfair to the men and women who have suffered. But there are estimated to be 18 million Americans alive today who have undergone some level of occupational exposure to asbestos. And to think that there are millions of dollars available to compensate each of these millions of people is simply unrealistic

AND ...concludes,

Some will argue that it's an appropriate punishment for companies that turned a blind eye to the well-being of the people who built and serviced their products. Others will say we're on the verge of sitting back and letting a handful of greed-barons destabilize our country's economic base for no just cause. As with most things, the truth can be found somewhere in the middle.

(Since my father died of mesothelioma, an asbestos caused cancer of the lining of the lung, I know how dehumanizing this kind of treatment is. The quandry is what to do. For an accurate discussion of the real issues on this subject, see Asbestos and the law.)

The Motor article does not claim that there is a need for legal ethics reform, and certainly does not focus on Shapiro, except as an anecdote. To cite this article for the proposition of "Legal Ethics and the need to reform" is dishonest (or a misunderstanding, which distorts WP:AGF to something unrecognizable).

• Where does this article discuss Shaprio as "example number one illustrating a legal sham" supporting the need for reform of legal ethics? It doesn't.
• How does this article relate to legal ethics or the need to reform? It doesn't.

3. The Canadian Medical Association Journal Litigation online --Medical Associations are lobbies. I haven't seen one yet that doesn't disparage lawyers. Life would be grand if only people would recognize how perfect doctors are and never sue them. Anyone that does is just a scumball. Oh and of course, all suits are frivolous. This is not an article on legal ethics. It is a whine about lawyers. This source suffers from WP:RS deficiencies. If this illustrates anything, it is the animosity between doctors and lawyers. (I can assure you that lawyers don't get warm and fuzzies around doctors either) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 January 2007

Summary

So what is the reason for keeping an article on this particular lawyer? It clearly is not for the reasons claimed. There are several themes here, but none on the need to reform legal ethics. None focus on Shapiro or even mention Shapiro except in passing,.

I do not assume WAS, and certainly not Sarah, are idiots. But readers are likewise not idiots. Give us a little bit of credit. This article is an insult. I reverted it to what Sarah said was her verson. At least that was more honest. It was (and is now) only an attack article, and not a disingenuous attempt to invent notability for a non-notable subject. Jance 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag

No,the link is a bad link. And the reference itself is not adequately cited.Jance 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems a moot point since the article was reverted. This is good. However, the article itself still needs deletion, and as Sarah mentioned, salted. Jance 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)