I think President Bush keeps one of those "dead lawyer joke books" under his bed. I'll bet he even reads it aloud to Laura sometimes.

"Hey bumpkins, What happens to a lawyer who jumps out of a plane at 35,000 feet without a parachute? ... Who cares? That's rich, eh? Here's another: Did you hear about the terrorists who took a whole courtroom full of lawyers hostage? They threatened to release ... "

You get the picture.

The president seems convinced that lawyers filing so-called "frivolous lawsuits" are one of the top problems in this country today. He links such suits to high costs of health care, the exodus of doctors from the heartland of America and - it seems - the decay of society as we know it.

I don't get it.

Before moving to Wilkes-Barre, I covered the courts in Ohio for about seven years. In every working day of that job I had to read lawsuits, and I hardly ever saw outrageous claims.

Of course I'm no doctor, or medical expert. And I acknowledge that droves of good doctors have lined up behind the president to publicly lambaste lawyers.

Lots of doctors, however, have lined up - much more quietly - with the lawyers in courtrooms across the country. You see, it's very difficult to make a claim of malpractice stick without having at least one doctor as a witness.

Seem complicated? Yup, it is - a lot more nuanced than Bush plays it.

Mike Butera, head of the Luzerne County Bar Association, goes on the offensive when asked about the president's complaints. "Take me to the courthouse and show me a frivolous lawsuit," he challenges. "They're all public records. Show me one."

To be fair, Butera is also a politically active Democrat. To bolster his point, though, he cites a state "Rule of Professional Conduct No. 3.1." Part of it says a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding ... unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous."

The penalty for violating that rule? Could be loss of a law license, says Paul Killion, chief disciplinary counsel for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He said from Harrisburg this week that he recalls a handful of cases during the past several years in which lawyers received either public or private sanctions for violating Rule No. 3.1.

But it gets even more complicated. That rule covers broader problems than just frivolous filings and neither Butera or Killion could point to a specific lawyer sanctioned over a frivolous case.

Butera says that's because lawyers don't file hollow claims; critics say lawyers don't go after each other hard enough.

All that said, though, there's also another risk for lawyers prone to frivolity. A state civil statute say they can be sued if they start a suit "for purposes other than securing a proper verdict."

Just as doctors take the stand against other doctors, lawyers at times do sue other lawyers - especially if they think there's money in it.

Which brings me to a compelling point from Butera. Lawyers who often work on a contingency basis and get paid only when they win money. So, he asks, why take on a shaky suit?

Did you hear the one about the lawyer who filed the lawsuit even though he knew he might get disbarred, get sued and not make any money?

No? Me neither. Maybe the president has.

Call Iseman at 829-7176 or e-mail davei@leader.net.