Here we go again. The 650-word Tribune article â€œviewpointâ€? on B8 of 10/4/04 entitles another attorney to ply their wares. The last one was a veteran trial lawyer given ample space to bash the insurance companies for the high cost of health care.
The current article is authored by a family lawyer bashing the public for questioning Judge Woolpertâ€™s decision in a recent custody case. The attorney was admitted to the bar in 1997, which hardly qualifies her as a legal scholar. She admits not speaking directly to Judge Woolpert and uses hearsay evidence of her clients to interpret the judgeâ€™s motivation in deciding the custody case. She also admits not knowing anything about the parties in the case, yet she presumes to interpret the judgeâ€™s â€œintuition.â€? Furthermore, statements like, â€œI am positive if you asked himâ€? show a lack of understanding of the parameters by which one interprets the thoughts or actions of another person.
Edwin E. Bird