When I was a kid my folks managed a Firestone store.  In those days Firestone stores were like Sears stores that sold in addition to tires almost everything including large appliances and electronics.  The store financed everything in house.  Credit cards, for all practical purposes, didn't exist.

     All too often, from my parents' perspective, someone owing a significant balance on a refrigerator, for example, would file bankruptcy.  The fridge would stay with the customer and the bad debt would stay with us.  I know now that if mom and dad could have afforded an attorney, which they couldn't, they might have been able to get the merchandise back at least.  As a result of that experience I felt that bankruptcy was wrong.

     After practicing law for a few years in a very competitive legal community I decided to include bankruptcy in my practice because potential clients had to go out of town to find a bankruptcy attorney.  I have now been practicing in the area for 30 years and have learned that at least 95% of my bankruptcy clients were financially responsible people who had bad things happen in their lives such as loss of employment, medical issues, divorce and business failures.  Most often my clients had spent months or years trying to climb out of their financial hole.  Many had experienced physical problems, psychological problems and family problems from the strain of not being able to survive on a month to month basis.  They didn't want to file bankruptcy and felt ashamed that they were in that position.

     History is replete with stories about the persecution of debtors.  In ancient Rome debtors could be enslaved or executed.  If executed their body parts might be distributed among their creditors.  Nice thought.  England had debtors' prisons where you were held until your death unless your friends or relatives would stepped forward and paid off your debts.

     The first reference to something akin to bankruptcy may have been in the Bible in Deuteronomy where it states that creditors should forgive the debts owed to them every 7 years.  In 1705 Queen Anne of England may have passed the first bankruptcy law     providing debtors a release from their debts.  Although debtors could be flogged under American colonial laws, our Constitution provided that the federal government had the authority to pass uniform laws governing bankruptcy.  During the 1800's bankruptcy laws slowly evolved toward what the are today.

     Bankruptcy relief is a recognition that society as a whole suffers when people can't escape debt that they are unable to pay despite their best efforts.  As previously mentioned this sometimes desperate state can lead to health problems, mental problems, disintegration of the family, lethargy and a lack of productivity, all of which can cost all of us more money than releasing people from their debts.

     The law doesn't require people to loan money to others, so bankruptcy puts the onus on creditors to lend money responsibly. If they choose to make a loan they know that they may not get their money back and should run their business accordingly.  When I graduated from law school I wanted to get a credit card because it was necessary to rent a room or obtain some forms of transportation.  I had to meet with a loan officer at a bank and even then had to have a cosigner to be approved.  Contrast that with a few years ago when my teenage children would receive credit card offers in the mail for a $10,000 line of credit if they simply signed an enclosed card and returned it.

     For years major credit card companies continued this practice knowing that a large amount of the debt would not be repaid because the amount of money they earned from interest more than offset the loss.

     I know bankruptcy would feel wrong to you as an individual if you loaned a friend or relative money and they dissed you by filing bankruptcy.  I know the feeling is the same when a small business owner struggling to survive gets hit with a significant bankruptcy loss.  However, the greatest impact from bankruptcy is on companies that have weighed the risk and decided they can still make a profit on their loans.

     Bankruptcy also feels wrong to most of the people that have to endure it.  However, if it is the only way you can continue to survive or support your loved ones it is better than the alternative.  Heart surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments aren't pleasant either but you may need them to survive.  I have seen so many lives changed for the better as a result of bankrutpcy that I know it is not wrong most of the time.  May the fates be with you and your budget always remain in the black.  

     When I was younger I practiced a fair amount of criminal law and did some personal injury work and so faced a number of juries.  Since I now practice primarily in areas of business, real estate, bankruptcy and related litigation juries are not often a factor in my practice.  As you probably know the right to jury trial is guaranteed by our Constitution in criminal cases.  It is also guaranteed in civil cases " when the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars."  However, that right only applies in federal courts.  Why?  Who knows.  The Constitution doesn't say that but someone has since decided that that is what it really means.                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
    
     The vast majority of jury trials are held in criminal cases.  The other most popular use of juries is in accident and other injury cases.  It is my opinion that juries were guaranteed for criminal cases to protect citizens from their government should it attempt to prosecute them for political crimes or prosecute them just because it didn't care for them.  Given our experience with and separation from England our founders drafted our Constitution primarily to protect us from the government.  I doubt that our founders were overly concerned about violent offenders.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
      It is unclear where juries came from or why they are traditionally made up of 12 people.  Our US Supreme Court said many years ago that a 12 person jury is an "historical accident."  Some attribute the number to the disciples and others to King Henry II who selected a group of 12 landowners to resolve boundary disputes among other things.  The bottom line is that over time different cultures decided that a group of people might be better at resolving certain conflicts than an individual.                              

     Juries are very unpredictable, which is why they are used mostly in criminal cases and personal injury cases where plaintiffs are seeking huge amounts of money.  In criminal cases a defendant can "win" when the jury can't reach an agreement because the case will have to be tried again, which could lead to a better plea bargain at least.  A second mistrial could even cause a prosecutor not to try a third time because of the time and expense involved.  Attorneys also hope in criminal cases that the jury will find the defendant not guilty because it likes the defendant or dislikes the law involved or the government's behavior.  Juries are told they can't do this but will do it anyway.  I'm sure you can remember a case where the defendant was clearly guilty but still was found not guilty by the jury.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
      
      In personal injury cases involving serious injuries and death attorneys hope the jury will award amounts that a judge would not even consider.  This is especially true when the defendant is a high profile company with deep pockets.  It is hoped that the jury, out of sadness, concern, or dislike for the defendant, will base its decision on emotion rather than reason and award the plaintiff an astronomical sum.  Admittedly, it is difficult to place a dollar amount on not being able to walk again because of an accident, or losing a loved one, but there is a general belief in the legal community that juries will award more money and that that possibility encourages defendants to offer a larger settlement.

     I had a trial professor in law school that specialized in criminal jury trials.  When discussing juries he told us about a trial where an attractive young female juror in the front row hung on his every word and smiled at everything he said.  In the back row was an older gentleman that scowled at him the entire time.  He lost the trial and learned afterwards that the scowler was his greatest supporter and that the cutie sank him.  Such is the personality of the jury.

     You can't even request a jury in civil suits when you are seeking something other than money, such as in a divorce or mortgage foreclosure.  In most civil actions where you can request a jury it is my opinion that the judge will do a better job.  Also, a judge trial is generally less time consuming and less expensive.  However, if your case is assigned to a judge with a known bias or prejudice that may affect your case then opting for a jury makes sense.

     When I taught trial law I didn't spend much time on jury selection other than to tell my students that if your client was an X you wanted X's on the jury and if your client was an O you wanted O's on the jury.  Trial lawyers have all kinds of ideas about what type of jurors are best such as young people are more tolerant of crime and poor people will award larger verdicts against rich folks.  If we learn anything as we grow older it is that you don't really know people or what they will do based upon the external categories they fall into.  The personality of every jury is different just like the personalities of its members.  You have heard about cases where jury consultants have been paid extraordinary amounts of money to help attorneys select jurors.  You could spend millions of dollars and still not know if the jury you are facing is the Lady or the Tiger.