And an FYI, I was playing devils advocate here more or less because the OP was such hypocrisy. I understand that attorneys fill a need although they are part of the problem as well. Yes insurance companies are also a problem, and as I said I am not in favor of tort reform or putting a cap on settlements or attorney fees, but the OP's attempt to paint what insurance companies or "big businesses" are doing as somehow different from what he is doing needed to be challenged. They are looking to protect themselves from losses and expenses just like you guys are trying to protect your incomes, it is two sides of the same coin.

I just have an aversion to hypocrisy, I prefer to leave that the domain of Utah fans, they more than fill that niche in society.

One thing you said though that I have a question about, one of you mentioned you turn down cases all the of time because you don't see them as winnable. To me that kind of brings into question the claim that you are trying to help the little man against "big business". If you are only willing to take the "for sure" cases then that just adds to the appearance that you're only in it for the money and the claim of champion of the little people rings a bit hollow. So my question is this, do you turn these cases down because they lack merit or is it because you don't want to spend the money on a case you see as having a low probability of success even if the potential client has a legitimate claim?