It is curious that there are so many television programs concerned entirely with the practice of law. It’s easy to understand why there are so many dramas involving the emergency services (the cops, firefighters and doctors) because their activities are associated with responses to crises, and drama naturally surrounds the events they deal with.
The law is different. The law presents a fundamental philosophical quest; the dedication to the truth and the pursuit of justice. So in TV programs, the legal profession tends to be lionized, usually held up as paragons of virtue and dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Yet in reality, that awkwardly complex world outside the TV, the legal profession is rarely loved and often deeply disrespected. This is to some degree reflected in the following 10 obscure words that relate to the legal profession.
1. Grimgribber: A grimgribber is a lawyer or attorney or solicitor. The term solicitor, by the way, is chiefly British. In America ‘solicitor’ usually denotes someone who directly seeks donations or to trade goods or services, such as a sales rep or a prostitute or a lawyer. In Britain solicitors aren’t allowed to advertise or directly solicit work and hence they are called solicitors. The meaning of grimgribber was originally legal jargon, but the term also came to embrace those who trade in it, until, sadly, it fell out of common usage. It is, in my opinion, a much more apposite word than ‘lawyer’, ‘solicitor’ or’ attorney’ can ever hope to be.
According to the American Bar Association there are around currently 1.1 million grimgribbers practicing in the United States. That means one grimgribber for every 265 people. The typical US grimgribber is caucasian (90%) and male (75%). New York and California are the states with the highest number of grimgribbers, each with about 100,000 or so.
It’s widely and wrongly believed that America has about 70% of all the worlds grimgribbers. Despite the fact that it is the most litigious country in the world, that suggestion is wide of the truth. Brazil has a grimgribber for every 326 Brazilians, New Zealand has one for every 391, Spain one for every 395 and so on. If you take the top 7 grimgribberish countries, the US has about 50% of the grimgribbers. If you keep on adding countries to the list, you soon encounter India with 1 million grimgribbers, many of whom are eager to provide grimgribbing services to the US. It’s doubtful whether the US even has 25% of the world’s grimgribbers.
2. Tortfeaser: Most of the legal shows on TV are about grimgribbers and tortfeasers. The one that set the standard for others to follow was Perry Mason. Perry would normally find himself in court defending some putative tortfeaser; someone who was accused of “murder with malice aforethought.” With a little bit of research into the circumstances and a clever approach to cross-examination this giant of a grimgribber would prove that the real tortfeaser was someone else entirely. Justice would thus be done and the person wrongly accused of tortfeasing would breath a sigh of relief. That kind of thing happens quite often in TV land and almost never in real life. A tortfeaser is, by the way, a wrongdoer.
3. Snollygoster: A snollygoster is a shrewd but unprincipled individual. The word is sometimes rightly used to describe grimgribbers and politicians, but often applies equally to plaintiffs who bring unreasonable lawsuits and (as it sometimes happens) win the. The most famous of these wheel-of-fortune law suits was undoubtedly that brought by 81-year-old Stella Liebeck. In 1994 she sued McDonalds (the hamburger chain) after she spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee on herself, suffering 3rd degree burns to her legs, groin, and buttocks. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages. She thus gave her name to the Stella Awards, which regularly highlight the most egregious legal snollygosting of the previous year.
Despite this eponymity, it only seems fair to include other details of Stella Liebeck’s case. McDonalds managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit and liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. The resultant scarring is typically permanent and McDonalds did not provide any warning of the possible danger. Following the initial award of $2.7 million in punitive damages and a further $200,000 in compensatory damages, the total award was actually reduced to $640,000 and ultimately Lieback and McDonalds entered a secret settlement rather than pursue the case through the court of appeal.
But here is perhaps the most important point: The U.S. National Coffee Association recommends that coffee be brewed at “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction”. If it is not drunk immediately, it should be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.” So really, what did McDonald’s do wrong?
~ Thomas Jefferson
