Why do these lawyers get involved?

Okay, Seinfeld's Kramer - or rather, Michael Richards who played the nutcase Kramer - insulted two hecklers in an unattractive (to say the least) racist manner. Okay, he's realised the negative publicity that could and possibly has come his way. And okay, he's apologised on TV, live, for the incident. Not just that, he's going for "anger management" therapy. All well and good. It should end here, right? Because the two men who were abused have had a public apology from an apparently remorseful Kramer.

But chances are it wont end there. Because the lawyer for the two men, Gloria Dwyer, feels that public apologies are not enough, monetary compensation should be considered.

I dont think the two guys have asked for money. At the moment, in fact, they havent been found - even though Kramer (sorry, I mean Richards - but Kramer is who he IS in my head!) wants to apologise in person now.

So I cant understand why that Dwyer woman wants to butt in here and suggest that Kramer should pay out for his insults. Would a cash compensation make the racism any less distasteful? No. Would it repair the injury caused by the insults? Not to me it wouldnt. Would it make Richards feel any more remorseful? I dont THINK so! Yes, there's a chance that his apologies might not be truly meant, but I really dont think that any money Gloria Dwyer might manage to squeeze from him will be willingly given either. Me, I'd rather have the apology than any amount of money.

It's avaricious lawyers like Dwyer who make the world such a litigious, unpleasant place - they use their greed for money and publicity to make their clients greedy too. I prefer to think that most people (unless they be lawyers) would not automatically think of fleecing anyone - that is, if the greed that is dormant in human beings is not aroused by promises of unearned and undeserved sudden wealth.

And talking of lawyers, how come even the poorest people suddenly acquire their own attorney or lawyer when there's any publicity involved? Who chooses whom? Does everybody in the US - and of late, in the UK as well - have a pet lawyer, even if they have nothing else? (And wouldnt that be akin to keeping a rattlesnake in their pocket?)