[Master Blaster]

The title says it all.

One of the biggest problems in our society driving up costs, and making life difficult is fear of lawsuits. The rich get better justice since they can afford the highest priced Lawyers. Product liability drives companies out of business and offshore, adds to the cost of everything we buy, makes medical care more expensive. And of course the OJ factor.

The price of guns is 1/4 at least due to insurance against lawsuits in which half the money goes to lawyers who sue on speculation.

I think law should be socialized or much more regulated than it is.

What do you think?

[Tamara]

I'm not in favor of socializing anything.

[longeyes]

Perhaps in an enlightend Republic every citizen should be a lawyer or legally empowered. That's anothe way to go: change educational and licensing rules and regs to restrict anti-competitive forces.

You'll probably in time see legal assistance from places like India and Hong Kong, among others, changing the equation as well. You could have one American attorney (licensed) backed up by teams of foreign attorneys willing to work for more reasonable fees than our locals.

[Tamara]

With lawyers writing the laws, though, how likely is that? :confused:

[longeyes]

Well, not very, that's true, but if the problem becomes serious enough there will eventually be changes demanded. If we're going to exist by rule of law, it's clear that access to that law should be maximized. I think it's analogous in essence to gun rights: the idea is to provide "the equalizer" and empower the individual against concentrations of arrayed force. I prefer keeping socialized solutions out of the mix; we know where that goes.

[MPFreeman]

Lawyers like to eat. That is the largest reason we shouldn't socialize law.

You think legal aid is expensive now? Just wait until it's free.

Socialize the internet?


Socialize...:vomit::upchuck::gag::puke:

[cordex]

Not for socialization.

But ...
I propose that it is impossible in modern America for any single citizen to be aware of and understand every law that affects them and their actions if they live any sort of "average" life. With enforcement limited as much as it is, this is not yet a serious issue, but as has been said so often before: ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. I don't think the solution is putting all lawyers on the gov't payroll. Talk about lack of incentive ...

[El Tejon]

Yeah, socialism via passing more laws, that's the answer.:rolleyes:

More laws, less justice.

[Tamara]

More laws, less justice.

Exactly! Passing the bar should be a disqualifier for being elected to the legislature. ;) (Cui bono?)

[Master Blaster]

Dont get me wrong I'm not for socializing anything because I know how well the Givernment handles things.

Keep in mind though that the entire legal system, passing laws, enforcing them, interpretting them is a government function.
For those who cant afford $200-$1000 per hour when they get arrested, they have to rely on the public defender who is often much less experienced, and less competent than say the prosecutor/ AG, and the private lawyers. This makes justice less than blind and grossly unfair for the poor.

How many of you think that its a good thing that the rich always get better legal representation than the poor??????

If you use a gun to defend yourself ARE you prepared to spend 20,000-$50,000 on your legal defense to get competent counsel?
How about the poor crimminal's family represented by Joe ambulance chaser in the civil suit against you?????
Lots of profit for Joe if your insurance co settles to avoid another $50,000 in legal fees.

How many of you are wearing, eating, or living in something that a lawyer produced????? You sure did pay legal fees to get anything you have. ANYTHING from your gun to, that cup of McDonald's coffee to your lawn mower.

In my last career (insurance) I attended Defense Research Institute Conferences where the Lawyers we hired to defend environmental lawsuits arrived in Limos, and bragged about the millions per year they made in legal fees.

Funny with the Billions spent by the government / EPA, and the Insurance Industry, on environmental litigation / CERCLA, I never saw a Lawyer clean up a single toxic waste site, and for what was spent on litigation, most of the Superfund sites could have been cleaned up already.

:fire: :fire:

Instead we have lots of very rich lawyers.

Did any of those tobacco lawyers cure any cancer yet???

they sure did get a Sh**load of your money though.
:cuss:

[justice4all]

I believe very firmly in justice for all, but I'm also opposed to any form of forced socialization. Plus, I'm a law student, and I'm not spending three years of my life, after my BA, and tens of thousands of dollars, to enter a profession in which everyone is paid according to some set governmental scale. I'm in the top 5 percent of my class, and I expect to be an outstanding attorney, and I expect to profit from that.

I also expect to do my share of pro bono work, probably defending people accused of "crimes" that would be legal under a libertarian regime, such as smoking a joint, or having the "wrong" sort of gun.

Anyway, we already have public defenders, so people who really need an attorney are provided with one if they cannot afford their own. The quality might be less than Johnny Cochran, but it's still representation by a licensed member of the bar.

And people who have been wronged by someone else can sue on a contingent fee basis, with no up front out-of-pocket expenses.

So who's left? Civil defendants, and people who need planning advice (business, tax, estate, etc.) The latter seek the services of an attorney in order to profit; the attorney's fee is less than what they expect to save as a result of the advice.

The former do occassionally get screwed by frivolous lawsuits, but they are usually well enough off, and well enough insured, to be able to hire counsel. There's no real point in suing someone who is essentially judgment proof.

[JoeSF]

Since the lawyers want to design the health care the doctors design the law care.

[El Tejon]

Tamara, lawyers should be just soldiers, tasked to do a job. Passing the bar does not give one special insight to issue commands to the future or his fellow man.

[Master Blaster]

I'm a law student, and I'm not spending three years of my life, after my BA, and tens of thousands of dollars, to enter a profession in which everyone is paid according to some set governmental scale.


You are a student you have no idea what goes on, or how much private law costs society, I lived it for 11 years.

By the way I work for the Delaware Children's department now, government salary and all. I really believe in what I do, It helps society. I went to school for 7 years, and spent thousands on my education as well. Some folks believe in Public service, I could for sure make double my current salary as an Oracle Programer financial analyst, in the private sector. I turned down a job with AIG Insurance Co. in NYC three years ago, The location was 110 William street (think 1.5 financial district blocks from the WTC, me emerging from the Path station under WTC at 8:45 AM), good thing Huh.

:rolleyes:

[justice4all]

Master Blaster,

I'm quite certain that I have at least some idea how much private law costs society. You don't know me or my background, so don't asume you do. I'm not a babe in the woods. I'm 31, and have considerable experience in the business world that you know nothing about.

Good for you for following your heart and your conscience, but don't adopt some holier than thou attitude with people who choose differently.

As far as public service, I consider my time in the USMC as sufficient, thank you. But to be honest, I enlisted for mostly selfish reasons.

And I never said that "private law" is not expensive, but obviously there is a demand for it.

[Master Blaster]

No offense intended Justice4ALL, but based upon your handle and you disdain for that govt salary I assumed you were college age.

And Legal fees are a substaintial hardship for many middle class folks who get caught up in the system.

And of course:



Anyway, we already have public defenders, so people who really need an attorney are provided with one if they cannot afford their own. The quality might be less than Johnny Cochran, but it's still representation by a licensed member of the bar.

So who's left? Civil defendants, and people who need planning advice (business, tax, estate, etc.) The latter seek the services of an attorney in order to profit; the attorney's fee is less than what they expect to save as a result of the advice.

I can think of many other instances where people need lawyers and are pauperized by the system.
Like the atlantic city new jersey police man who was accussed of Murdering his wife, becuase of a coroners mistake, the wife actually had a rare heartcondition, but I recall that the court battle to stay out of jail cost this man $200,000, and left him bankrupt. But like you say he could have used the public defender and copped a plea, 30 years in jail isnt too stiff for an innocent man ehhh???

Too bad about his three children though.

[justice4all]

So what do you suggest instead of the current system?

[Coronach]

Tort reform: victor gets legal fees paid by loser.

Its a start.

Mike

[SteveS]

Coronach,
While the tort reform you describe may discourage some frivilous claims, it will also prevent less welathly people from litigating decent claims. No one will take a case unless they are assured of winning, since they will not want to end up paying their opponent's legal fees.

I don't think that socialization is the solution. It certainly hasn't worked in any other area. I wish I knew what the solution was.

[Chris Rhines]

You know, I was all ready to jump on this topic with both feet, but then I stopped to think about it. You know what?

The law in the United States is already socialized.

The government determines and interprets the laws, with mere lip service given to any kind of individual-level oversight. The government hosts and funds the forum for adjudication situations under the law. Judges and juries are paid out of government tax coffers. Often, one or more attorneys are paid the same way.

How is this not socialized?

A better choice would be to privatize the law. Allow opposed parties to agree contractually to the means of adjuticating a given conflict, with judges or arbitrators agreed upon and the costs of such split between the complaining parties.

- Chris

[Master Blaster]

My suggestion: Lawyers work the same way as judges, and prosecutors, their own section of the government.
It will be complex, but they are smart enough to figure it out.
Standards and conflict of interest issues/ accountability handled as it is now by the bar association.

It works for Judges, it works for prosecutors and public defenders.

Civil law could be a specialty under the same organization.

Corporate law same deal but the private company pays the salary to the office of law / defense justice department.

[Chris Rhines]

My suggestion: Lawyers work the same way as judges, and prosecutors, their own section of the government. That would make the judicial branch nothing more than a rubber stamp for the rest of the government*. Any legal challenge against a government law would be stopped dead. Very, very bad idea.

- Chris

* - Yes, I'm fully aware that the judical branch already is a rubber stamp for the legislature.

[Henry Bowman]

You guys are scaring me (a lawyer)! :what:

I'm a desperate man.
Send lawyers, guns and money,
The s*** has hit the fan.
-Warren Zevon

[Master Blaster]

Chris you are aware that the three branches of government as designed do work independently and often do not agreee with each other.

Even the house and the senate both part of the legislative branch do not agree with each other most of the time.

Besides we all work for and pay for the private lawyers already.

[Boats]

This "conversation," er, rant, is hilarious.

How many of you "common folk" have been embroiled in your state's workers' compensation systems lately?

Workers' comp is the ultimate expression of how all law would be in the United States were the terms of "fairness" dictated by insurance companies, businesses, and the politicians in the hip pockets of the first two.

Let's see, in Oregon you can enjoy the following "protections":

1. You cannot sue your employer no matter how many times safety rules have been broken or no matter how many of your predecessors were injured by the exact same process, equipment or lack thereof. You have to have been intentionally injured to get over the lawsuit bar.

2. If you do not miss four consecutive days of work on a doctor's orders, you will not be paid by insurance for the first three days missed. Guess what? Most injured workers take three or fewer days off. There is no obligation to reimburse you for sick or vacation time burned.

3. You supposedly do not need a lawyer to navigate the system. Uh, yeah, they only revise the system every legislative session and what rules apply to your case are wholly dependent on when you were injured. The administrative regulations are four times as thick as the statute itself.

4. You may encounter one of the many doctors who perform "Insurance medical examinations" some of whom rake in about $1,000,000.00 per year, having not seen a real patient they have had to care for in up to five years. How do they make money? By blaming your condition on everything but your job. Get a reliable reputation for screwing claimants and the insurance industry will beat a path to your door.

5. If your doctor says that your injury means that you can no longer perfprm your former occupation the insurance company is under no obligation to retrain you unless a job market analysis indicates there is no job in existence you can perform within your permanent limitations. The job need not be available to you in order to count against you.

Yes, let's put the moneyed interests entirely in charge of the legal system. The world could be caveat emptor and assumption of the risk like the good old days wherein you were expected to be an automotive design engineer who could detect that your car was going to blow its gas tank when struck from a certain angle or once the first time one somewhere exploded, you were on notice about the risk of continuing to drive yours and assumed it if you drove yours and it exploded too. Anyone here have the money to go up against a defendant like FordMoCo? Yeah, it would be interesting to have Ford or some other corporate defendant place a value on your life. In the case of a Pinto IIRC, it was a part or process that cost less than $5.00 per car that was responsible for the tank failures. The math for them was that a recall was more expensive than the chance of product liability costs.

Is there a place for intelligent reform of certain areas of the law? Of course there is. However, beware what you wish for.

[justice4all]

MasterBlaster,

Under the system you advocate, what should the penalty be for those who seek or dispense legal advice on terms set solely by the attorney and the client?

[Shoeless]

I'm not for socializing anything

A-MEN Tam! Ditto for me too. Socialism isn't free. Here's a hint: The government doesn't have its own money, unless they've suddenly started holding bake sales and didn't notify me.

Shoeless

[Matthew Courtney]

Master Blaster,

The problem with your thesis is that socialization of the legal profession would not ensure competent counsel for all, it would ensure incompetent counsel for all. Your premise relies on the assumption that public defenders are inadequate, yet your solution is to eliminate private acqusition of counsel.

Your idea is akin to aborting children because they might get sick one day.

[paul]

When all is said and done, the barter system will put the real value on lawyers.

[Chris Rhines]

Chris you are aware that the three branches of government as designed do work independently and often do not agreee with each other. While this is certainly the intent, in practice it often does not work. The seperate branches of government may disagree on details, but on fundamental principles they have a history of constant agreement. When three branches of government all draw their paychecks from the same source, you can expect to see a great deal of colusion between them.

I still would submit that the legal system is already socialized to a huge extent.

- Chris

[Mike Irwin]

Personally, Master, I think EVERYONE should be on the government payroll.

Government owns ALL business, and employs all people.

Unemployment would immediately drop to zero.

There would be no more petulant whining from the press about the first amendment, because the press now works for the governent.

No more whining from anyone else about how government is restricting THEIR business, since it's the government's business.

Everyone is paid at rates to be determined by the National Labor and Wage Board.

Ok, enough funnies...

You claim that private law costs society a LOT. I won't dispute that.

But, how much would society be cost if everyone had access to a cheap government attorney?

Or, even worse, how much would the common many loose if attorneys were no longer motivated to pursue just cases agressively because they were simple bureaucratic drones?

Striking a balance is a requirement, but socializing attorneys isn't the way to do it.

[Marko Kloos]

Socialized *anything* is organized theft, weakly justified by good intentions.

If you can't afford a good lawyer, that's too bad. Your lack of funds does not give you the right to demand that someone else pay for your legal counsel.

Can you even imagine the amount of frivolous lawsuits if people start using the legal system with the same attitude as they do public housing or public restrooms?

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence - man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause - life is not one huge hospital." --Ayn Rand

[another okie]

The legal system exists to keep people from shooting one another to settle disputes. The system we have is expensive and slow, but the reason it's that way is because we care a lot about the right outcome.

If we just wanted fast and cheap justice we could do like the ancient Mesopotamians and just throw the accused in the river. Float, innocent, sink, guilty. No need for lawyers, no appeal, very cheap. Maybe we've gone too far in the opposite direction, but that's an argument for some procedure changes, not a new system.

By the way, it's a myth that the legislature is mostly lawyers. It's not true in Oklahoma or Congress, and I bet it's not true in most states. The law is complex because society is complex. Simple rules won't work for many situations. How can you have a simple law about issuing securities, or taxing pork belly future option contracts?

Just look at our Presidents if you think lawyers run everything. Since WWII:
Truman: failed hat salesman
Eisenhower: general
Kennedy: spoiled rich kid and professional politican
Johnson: schoolteacher
Nixon: lawyer in theory, never really practiced until he left office
Carter: peanut farmer
Reagan: actor
Bush I: oil man
Clinton: lawyer in theory, never practiced at all in private practice
Bush II: sort of an oil man

[Lone_Gunman]

Boats:

please explain this:

"4. You may encounter one of the many doctors who perform "Insurance medical examinations" some of whom rake in about $1,000,000.00 per year, having not seen a real patient they have had to care for in up to five years. How do they make money? By blaming your condition on everything but your job. Get a reliable reputation for screwing claimants and the insurance industry will beat a path to your door."


Do you really think a doctor makes $1,000,000 a year doing insurance exams???

[Mike Irwin]

Oakie,

Another way to look at that list, too...

Truman: Captain, Field Artillery, served in World War I. Later promted to reserve Colonel.

Eisenhower: Graduate, USMA, General of the Army

Kennedy: Lieutenant, USNR

Johnson: Lt. Cmdr, USNR, awarded the Army Silver Star for service in the South Pacific as a Navy Army liaison.

Nixon: Lt. Cmdr, USNR, all around creepy guy.

Carter: Graduate, USNA, Lieutenant, USN

Reagan: Captain, USAR

Bush I: Lieutenant, USNR, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action.

Clinton: Boot, Scoot, & Boogie, Duck & Cover, whatever...

Bush II: Uh... I ain't touching this one with a 10-foot pole...


But, regarding the US Congress, I THINK that more Congressmen and Senators are practicing attorneys than not. I'm still looking for that information, though...

[Blackhawk]

Nonsense.The rich get better justice since they can afford the highest priced Lawyers.Justice is justice. On what do you base your statement?

If you mean criminal justice, people with money acquired legitimately seldom do the crimes. OJ's not a good example, BTW.

If you mean civil justice, those same "rich" people typically don't sue McDonald's for the coffee they stupidly spill being too hot.

With or without tort reform, trial lawyers make more poor people rich by far than they make rich people richer.

[Zundfolge]

Believe it or not the profit motive is the main thing that keeps lawyers honest (yes, I used lawyers and honest in the same sentence ... think how bad they would be without the profit motive).

You think some bureaucrat with the title "lawyer" is going to give a damn about you or your case when he's paid the same whether he wins, looses or does nothing, and more importantly will still get the same number of clients even if he looses all his cases?

Look at the example of socialized medicine ... you have people in Canada, Great Brittain and others flocking to the US for treatment since they can just pay and get service instead of waiting for a year for an appointment (many times the bureaucracy hoping they'll just die so they don't have to treat them).


In collectivism (be it socialism or communism or whatever you want to call it) all the "abuses" and "injustices" that seem to fall in favor of the "rich" will be replaced with abuses and injustices that fall in favor of the politically connected.

At least most of the rich provide jobs and create wealth ... the politically connected are just lumps that suck off the productive like vampires.

[JPM70535]

Without bashing Lawyers too badly, I would like to say that for every argument for leaving the legal system the way it now stands, there is a stark example of why the system needs to be completely overhauled. One of the most outstanding, the case of the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled her cup of coffee, and scalded herself. SHE WON. This woman, due to her own ineptitude caused herself injury and yet McDonalds, who had done nothing more that give the woman what she ordered, (a hot cup of coffee) had to pay for her injuries. A scrupulous lawyer would have told her to suck it up and not be so careless in the future, but thanks to the efforts of what I call Bottom feeders, McDonalds had to pay an outlandish amount, a sizeable portion of which was skimmed off by the same bottom feeder. The net result is that McDonalds in all liklihood had to increase their prices to offset the cost of the judgement and the resulting jump in their Liability insurance rates. And guess who pays for it all.

YOU DO





What do you call a busload of lawyers on the bottom of a lake??

A GOOD START!!

[SDC]

You'll love this one; here in Canada, the lawyers just won an exemption for themselves from the "money-laundering law"; ie. if you deposit $10,000 dollars in the bank, your BANK has to report this fact to the government, but if you give that same money to your lawyer, he DOESN't have to report it. Apparently, reporting these things makes it so much more difficult to defend racketeering and drug cases, so the lawyers and their friends in government cooked up this little "fix". Have you ever wondered why so many lawyers end up as politicians; it's just the other side of the sheet of toilet paper.

[publius]

Brilliant:

In collectivism (be it socialism or communism or whatever you want to call it) all the "abuses" and "injustices" that seem to fall in favor of the "rich" will be replaced with abuses and injustices that fall in favor of the politically connected.

At least most of the rich provide jobs and create wealth ... the politically connected are just lumps that suck off the productive like vampires.


Coronach,
While the tort reform you describe may discourage some frivilous claims, it will also prevent less welathly people from litigating decent claims. No one will take a case unless they are assured of winning, since they will not want to end up paying their opponent's legal fees.


I'm a fan of "loser pays." Would it create a bias against suing unless you had a really good case? Yes. Do we now have a bias IN FAVOR of suing, even with a really weak case? Yes, we do. Even if your case is hopelessly weak, it's going to cost quite a bit to defend, which is a major incentive to settle even really bad cases, which in turn is a major incentive to bring them. The Brits have loser pays, and it's working OK there.

Last but not least, this bit of class warfare demands a reply:
How many of you think that its a good thing that the rich always get better legal representation than the poor??????


I DO!! I'll say it loud! I think it's a good thing that the rich get better food, better housing, better educations, better transportation, better health care, etc, etc, and yes, I include lawyers in the list. Making things better for yourself and your family is why people work hard to anticipate and fulfill the needs of others for money. That's the source of wealth, and we need to encourage it as much as possible. The alternative is that we all be equally impoverished and dependent upon government masters.

[justice4all]

Around here it's something like two Big Macs for a buck. I think it was much more a few years ago.

And if your case is hopelessly weak, good luck finding someone who will represent you for a percentage of the damages.

[publius]

Aren't those who are representing the localities suing gun makers to recover the costs of violent crime working on a contingency fee basis? I'd call that a weak case.

[justice4all]

There's a difference between weak and "hopelessly weak". Hopelessly weak was taken directly from one of the posts above.

[Imago]

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking that fewer laws and a less convoluted legal system would mean that the need for expensive legal defense would also be less. Why should our laws be confusing? Is our society really that complicated? I mean, I'm no brain but I doubt that I am alone in finding the law to be an intellectual maze. Maybe before we formally socialize (*shudder*) the practice of law we should review and modify our legal code.

[Marko Kloos]

Why should our laws be confusing? Is our society really that complicated?

Our laws are confusing because they are written by lawyers, who have a vested interest in maintaining their livelihood. The complexity of the U.S. tax code alone keeps millions of people fed and employed. How much interest do you think H&R Block has in lobbying for a less complicated tax code?

[Zundfolge]

I've heard a lot of support of "looser pays". But IMNSHO it is extremely short sighted and naive to believe this would make things better (especially for the "little guy").

The "evil" rich will just hire teams of high priced lawyers who's only job is to be high priced enough that the "little guy" will face total financial devastation if he looses and will decide to drop the case.

Contrary to popular myth, most legal cases are not "cut and dried" or obviously "frivolous" like the McDonalds coffee case. I'd say that there are very rare civil cases where one party is 100% in the right and the other 100% in the wrong.


I'm with Imago on this. Certainly we need some sort of tort reform and a simplification of the legal code, but Socialized Law and Looser Pays are just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Soap]

For those who cant afford $200-$1000 per hour when they get arrested, they have to rely on the public defender who is often much less experienced, and less competent than say the prosecutor/ AG, and the private lawyers. This makes justice less than blind and grossly unfair for the poor.

And ladies and gentlemen, witness exhibit #75,484,786,499 for yet another incentive to not be poor. The poor can't afford much of anything. So that provides an H U G E incentive to not be poor. If we remove the incentives to not be poor, we will have a ton of poor on our hands who are living off of tiny minority of wealthier people. With discipline and the proper incentives, in a lifetime, one can go from living paycheck-to-paycheck to being very successful monetarily. Every single year I'm better off monetarily and I started with nearly nothing. Here I am at 21 doing just fine. Yet I have to hear about how bad it is for the poor. I'm tried of hearing about the plight of the poor. Don't be poor. Easy solution to an easy problem.

[Zundfolge]

Amen, Daniel Flory :)

I think its time we started passing out copies of Friedrich Hayek's The Road To Surfdom and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

[another okie]

Lawyers are not, repeat not, the majority in my legislature.

"Our laws are confusing because they are written by lawyers, who have a vested interest in maintaining their livelihood. The complexity of the U.S. tax code alone keeps millions of people fed and employed. How much interest do you think H&R Block has in lobbying for a less complicated tax code?"

You just disproved your own point. Henry Block and his brother are accoutants, not lawyers. Law is complex because society is complex. I can only assume anyone who doesn't understand this has no experience with bureaucracy, or finance, or real estate, or...

Mike Irwin: You are absolutely right. Presidents should have military experience. I agree with that 100%. Clinton is the only one since WWII without it, and I think the country was willing to elect someone without that experience because the cold war was over and there seemed to be no big threats on the horizon. How wrong we were! Clinton treated the first WTC bombing in 1993 as a law enforcement matter, a big mistake.

W was an Air Force Reserve fighter pilot during the Vietnam era. He was not in combat, but at least he has military experience.

[publius]

There's a difference between weak and "hopelessly weak". Hopelessly weak was taken directly from one of the posts above.

Spoken like a lawyer! I should know! Both parents and a brother are lawyers.

I'd still like to see those cities pay the legal costs of the gun makers if they should lose, as they richly deserve to do. Did I leave out a word? Sorry. Assigning responsibility to a company which makes a product because someone else criminally misused that product is hopelessly weak. Happy now? ;)

The "evil" rich will just hire teams of high priced lawyers who's only job is to be high priced enough that the "little guy" will face total financial devastation if he looses and will decide to drop the case.


Is that how it works in England? I don't know.

Loser pays would create a bias against suing unless you had a really good case, no question about it. There's also no question that our contingency system creates a bias in favor of suing, and a bias in favor of asking for HUGE awards (so ridiculously huge that they're routinely reduced on appeal). Those biases are harmful, driving up the costs of everything we do.

[Lone_Gunman]

I believe trial lawyers are the largest single private contributors to political campaigns.

As an example, for every $1 donated by physicians, trial lawyers donate approximately $10.

[publius]

Disclaimer: I got this in an email from a friend. I've taken no steps to research the accuracy of it. The first place winner sounds suspiciously like a widespread urban legend, so a visit to snopes.com might be in order....


It's time once again to review the winners of the annual "Stella Awards." The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating McDonalds, the man who alleged that eating at McDonalds has made them fat, was filed after the 2002 award voting was closed. This suit will top the 2003 list without question.

Here are this year's winners:

5th Place(tie):

*Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

*A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord.. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

*Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who had climbed over the fence into the yard and was shooting him repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinsk of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football game), having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motorhome. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.

[LawDog]

In the above-cited cases, I'm not so much seeing a problems with the lawyers as I am seeing one with the jurors.

LawDog

[Dorrin79]

:cuss:

never socialize anything.

Not to say some tort reform wouldn't be a good thing.

But if you think socializing law would improve it you're

1) delusional
or
2) incredibly naive

:cuss:

oh, and those cases in the email above are fake. UL stuff.

[SteveS]

The cases mentioned above are urban legends. Check snopes.com or any of the other urban legend sites.

I don't mind having the loser pay, I just do think it should happen all the time. I think if someone had a legitamate, non-frivilous claim, they should not have to pay their opponents legal fees. As for the English system, they have a hugely subsidized legal system. If you lose (and you have legal aid), the government pays.

[Zundfolge]

I just do think it should happen all the time.
I'm assuming thats a typo and you meant don't not do.

The closest thing to "loser pays" we should ever consider is allowing someone who is sued and wins (or the case is dropped or dismissed) the right to sue to recoup their expenses (and JUST their expenses) ... and even then they should have to prove that the suit against them is frivolous.

[Master Blaster]

The closest thing to "loser pays" we should ever consider is allowing someone who is sued and wins (or the case is dropped or dismissed) the right to sue to recoup their expenses

They do already have the right to file a counter suit to recoup expenses. They just have to be able to affford a lawyer or convince one on contingecy fee basis to take their case.

Loser pays is a good idea, It makes it more costly for a lawyer to sue on a contingency fee basis. It does already cost the lawyer to sue contingency fee, the cost is his time and the salaries of those who work for him as well as fees and expenses.

If I recall the original tobacco lawsuit "Rose Cippilone vs Loilard et al" went on for 17 years and cost the NY lawfirm that took the contingency fee suit $53 million to pursue.

Often Insurance companies and even defendants will settle out of court to avoid a prolonged lawsuit because even if they win they will expend hundreds of thousands defending a suit, so they settle for "nusience value."

[Mike Irwin]

"Mike Irwin: You are absolutely right. Presidents should have military experience."

Oakie,

Well, I don't necessarily agree that a President must have military service, nor was that the point I was attempting to make, but certainly believe that a candidate should not have tucked his tail and run when presented with the opportunity/necessity to serve.

[Tim Burke]

With or without tort reform, trial lawyers make more poor people rich by far than they make rich people richer.This is true, if you discount the trial lawyers that they make richer. If I recall the original tobacco lawsuit "Rose Cippilone vs Loilard et al" went on for 17 years and cost the NY lawfirm that took the contingency fee suit $53 million to pursue.So for 17 years they had 31 lawyers at $100,000/year working solely on this case? Yeah, right. Or was it 15 lawyers @ $200,000 year. Or was it a billion copies at 5 cents each? The lawfirm had to come up with some incredible cost to justify their contingency fee. I doubt the number has much basis in reality.
The contingency fee allows lawyers to take poor cases, with severe injuries, to court. Invariably, these suits target deep pockets, rather than the actual responsible parties. For example, the McDonald's coffee case, any of the smokers v. tobacco cases, or the shooting victim vs. gun companies cases. If they win, it's like hitting the lottery. If they lose, all they are out is their time.
To fix this, make the loser pay, and if the losing attorney is on a 1/3 contingency fee, make him responsible for 1/3 of the cost if he loses.
This guarantees that weak cases won't be brought to trial just because there might be a big judgment, and the attorneys will aggressively pursue the plaintiff's case.I'm not spending three years of my life, after my BA, and tens of thousands of dollars, to enter a profession in which everyone is paid according to some set governmental scale.How about 8 years after a BS, and a hundred thousand dollars to do exactly that. Have you looked at medicine, lately?

[buzz_knox]

Our laws are confusing because they are written by lawyers, who have a vested interest in maintaining their livelihood.

Hey, don't blame us alone for that. Many of us bloodsuckers say "WTH (as in Heck, Oleg)?!" when it comes to the legal provisions we have to deal with.

While some of it is due to lawyers, a lot of it comes from legislatures trying to carve out exemptions and exceptions for their contributors; judges trying to either honestly fix bad language or trying to massage the language to get the results they want; the legislature reacting to the judge; the judge reacting to the legislature; and all the while, lawyers arguing over what is said.

A total screwed up mess, and infinitely better than all other remotely reasonable alternatives that we can or have tried . . . except, of course, electing me benevolent dictator for life. Then, things would make sense.

[Blackhawk]

except, of course, electing me benevolent dictator for life. Then, things would make sense.:D

Get in line, Buzz. Get in line! :D

[Bahadur]

How about 8 years after a BS, and a hundred thousand dollars to do exactly that. Have you looked at medicine, lately?You got that right!

In some situations, the practice of medicine can be economically ridiculous. I know at least one female M.D. who had to make a rather painful decision. Because her husband worked, she wanted to work half-time to make more time for her children. It turned out, however, that her income at half-time would be almost matched by the liability insurance cost! So, She chose to leave the practice, depriving her community of valuable social resource.

Quite a few full-time pediatricians now only make around $80,000 a year after paying for liability insurance. That may sound like a lot to some people, but for someone who studied at a university for 4 years, went to a difficult medical program for another 4 years and spent working on less than minimum wage (per hour) as a resident for 4 more years while racking up $150,000 in debt to achieve that level of education, it isn't.

There is a reason why we are having M.D. shortages, particularly in "less desirable to practice" rural areas.

[publius]

The contingency fee allows lawyers to take poor cases, with severe injuries, to court. Invariably, these suits target deep pockets, rather than the actual responsible parties.

Yeah it is funny how deep pockets seem to attract lawsuits more than actual wrongdoing does. Incentives matter.