Trial lawyers. The label has come to have a bad connotation. I assume
that the trial lawyers usually referred to in that context are those
who a) sue deep-pocketed corporations in personal injury cases, b)
initiate malpractice suits, and c) beat the bushes for class action
suits. But there are other trial lawyers, too, are there not? I'm
thinking of any lawyer who goes to court for what conservatives would
consider defensible reasons. Then there are all the lawyers who never
go to court, whose areas of expertise are those that lend themselves
to out-of-court settlements or simply advising people/companies on how
best to comply with the law (e.g., patent attorneys). Finally, there
are public prosectors and government lawyers (civilian and military
JAG).
 
My question is this. What is the relative makeup of the entire body of
American lawyers in terms of the categories I've described above?
 
Scum sucking, bottom feeding trial lawyers: _____%
Lawyers who routinely go to court for reasons conservatives regard as
defensible: _____%
Lawyers whose functions normally keep them out of court: _____%
Public prosecutors: ____%
Government lawyers (other than prosecutors) and JAG lawyers: ____%

Luckily, I have only had to deal with a lawyer about 8 times in my 72
years. One of them handled the matters effiently and at low cost. My
perceeption is the other 7 situations would have gone better if the
profession of lawyer had never been invented. Gennerally we don't need
lawyers if all concerned are willing to be honorable and accept
reasonable compromises.   Neil