I hear this all the time. Show me the pursuation of evidence and the proponderance of the truth of your argument. Your argument, if you can call it that, shows no prima facie evidence, only the oft repeated platitude of "you are a fool", "ambulance chasers", and the like. No evidence was posted by you. So, let me ask the question that begs to be asked: what evidence do you have that there are too many lawyers and too many bogus class action lawsuits. I really admire that last one. Because that is one of the rarest of all case law. Very few lawyers are willing to take that on because of the enormous time and effort required to adminster the claim.
As for the AD and Leech's suit, well, it has nothing to do with the U. It is a private matter and does not foretell an adverse impact on the U in the future. It is speculative at best since you are not party to the evidence. See, it's the last part that gets me. You are willing to make a claim against a candidate that suggests he should not be considered simply because you don't like lawyers or lawsuits. In employment law, that falls under two areas. First, cultural noise and the second negative emphasis. Either way, in a court of law, it amounts to a form of applicant discrimination and would open the U to all kinds of really bad outcomes. I am no lawyer, but at least I don't react to them badly simply because it feels right.