Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
We have GOT to do something about litigation....
- Thread starter curling
- Start date
Testosterone boy
New member
It is drowning this country.
After you have been slapped with a bullshit suit, you will understand.
After you have been slapped with a bullshit suit, you will understand.
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Loser pays? Sounds like a good idea. However, what happens if your child is killed by possible malpractice of a doctor. You are pretty sure that it was malpractice but you arent 100 percent positive. You go to trial with the BEST of intentions..and Lose.
The costs of the trial could be extremely high. Now if you have plenty of money, you will take the chance. if you are poor, you may NOT sue because you MAY lose.
Youre system would be GREAT for insurance companies and reckless drivers and bad doctors. Is that who you are trying to protect?
curling said:
Loser pays? Sounds like a good idea. However, what happens if your child is killed by possible malpractice of a doctor. You are pretty sure that it was malpractice but you arent 100 percent positive. You go to trial with the BEST of intentions..and Lose.
The costs of the trial could be extremely high. Now if you have plenty of money, you will take the chance. if you are poor, you may NOT sue because you MAY lose.
Youre system would be GREAT for insurance companies and reckless drivers and bad doctors. Is that who you are trying to protect?
Testosterone boy
New member
Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
People can sue for free or almost free though. Should not be incouraged that much. It costs more to defend than to sue.
I agree............loser pays has too many pitfalls.primetime21 said:
People can sue for free or almost free though. Should not be incouraged that much. It costs more to defend than to sue.
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
Better yet, you loose you die!
Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Who am I trying to protect? Us, that's who. Because they(big companies and bad doctors don't pay for those suits we do. I will tell you who it will cost. It will cost the plaintiff attorneys and people with weak cases. Because they should foot the bill if they lose. Sure they will only take good cases but they are at least good cases.
You know life is a crap shoot. Sometimes people mess up accidently and they shouldn't be sued for that. That is just life. Now if someone intentially is negligent then they deserved to be sued. But not everyday mistakes. Another thing these lawsuits are causing good doctors to split the town I live in. And you know what I would gladly sacrafice a 100 lawyers to save one doctor. And I am serious as a heart attack. If there was a 100 lawyers going to get shot by terrorist or one doctor. i would ask terrorist if he had enough bullets.
primetime21 said:
Who am I trying to protect? Us, that's who. Because they(big companies and bad doctors don't pay for those suits we do. I will tell you who it will cost. It will cost the plaintiff attorneys and people with weak cases. Because they should foot the bill if they lose. Sure they will only take good cases but they are at least good cases.
You know life is a crap shoot. Sometimes people mess up accidently and they shouldn't be sued for that. That is just life. Now if someone intentially is negligent then they deserved to be sued. But not everyday mistakes. Another thing these lawsuits are causing good doctors to split the town I live in. And you know what I would gladly sacrafice a 100 lawyers to save one doctor. And I am serious as a heart attack. If there was a 100 lawyers going to get shot by terrorist or one doctor. i would ask terrorist if he had enough bullets.
Testosterone boy
New member
That happens because if something goes wrong in a wedding, the odds of a bride suing are extremely high.Y_Lifter said:
Yet weddings pay no more. Do the math.
The bride goes to court with these horrendous tear jerker stories, I have been there.
People make mistakes, we can't sue everytime someone makes a mistake.
spike1205
New member
Women are crazy--how many of those suits actually win and does any insurance carrier cover florists for that occaision (might be worth it ins. companies if it is as rampant as you say)
loser wins only hurts the poor, most people that get sued can afford it, if you dont have the money to pay then you cant really lose--effectively judgment proof
loser wins only hurts the poor, most people that get sued can afford it, if you dont have the money to pay then you cant really lose--effectively judgment proof
Testosterone boy
New member
The fact that someone gets sured says nothing about their being able to afford. it. Idiots think that having a business = deep pockets. Businesses have well over a 95% failre rate at a few years.spike1205 said:
We wind up charging a lot more for the same service and quit doing business with ordinary consumers as quick as we can.
People get over on businesses big time. You start out wanting to provida a great service at a great price, after you have been fucked enough..........you just charge quite a bit for stuff you didn't use to.
Nothing worse than getting threatened over something you tossed in for free or at cost.
You can easily lose a lawsuit despite being close to broke. The judge does not look at your bank account.
Testosterone boy
New member
I meant business owners.........not the unemployed.Bullit said:
Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
if it;s not malpractice, it's not malpractice.
Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough, since everyone likes a settlement, especially lawyers who get a fee without having to "win" anything.
It is, or it isn't. You win, or you lose.
primetime21 said:
if it;s not malpractice, it's not malpractice.
Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough, since everyone likes a settlement, especially lawyers who get a fee without having to "win" anything.
It is, or it isn't. You win, or you lose.
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
It's not about what is malpractice, and what isn't malpractice. It's about whether you can convince a jury that it's malpractice.
A settlement is like a bird in hand - it's better than two in the bush. Granted, it will be lower than a jury verdict - but there's a big possibility that the jury might find for defendant.
A settlement gets the plaintiff a smaller lump sum, and saves him the aggravation, time, and money involved with discovery, motion practice, etc.
MattTheSkywalker said:
It's not about what is malpractice, and what isn't malpractice. It's about whether you can convince a jury that it's malpractice.
A settlement is like a bird in hand - it's better than two in the bush. Granted, it will be lower than a jury verdict - but there's a big possibility that the jury might find for defendant.
A settlement gets the plaintiff a smaller lump sum, and saves him the aggravation, time, and money involved with discovery, motion practice, etc.
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
You obviously have something so wedged up your ass about lawyers, that nothing anyone says that defends the occupation will matter to you.
The fact is that cases are rarely black and white. if they were black and white you wouldnt need judges and juries.
Your implications that cases that arent 100 percent shouldnt go to trial is idiotic. You think people who go to court must be 100 PERCENT positive that they will win? give me a break.
You go to court if you think you have been wronged. It is then the judge or jury to determine if the case is worthwhile. If the case is total bullshit, the opposing side will make a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint before much money has been spent.
As for this statement that you made "Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough." What is your problem? You are coming off like T-boy (no offense T-boy). No one said that almost is enough. But "Maybe" is enough to bring a case to court. But OF COURSE "maybe" is NOT enough to win at trial. Who said it was? No one even inferred that.
The fact is that judges/juries are here to resolve disputes. You have 2 sides that think differently. One side thinks the doctor made no mistake, while the other side thinks that the doctor committed malpractice. So they go to a judge/jury to find out who is right. GREAT SYSTEM!!!
MattTheSkywalker said:
You obviously have something so wedged up your ass about lawyers, that nothing anyone says that defends the occupation will matter to you.
The fact is that cases are rarely black and white. if they were black and white you wouldnt need judges and juries.
Your implications that cases that arent 100 percent shouldnt go to trial is idiotic. You think people who go to court must be 100 PERCENT positive that they will win? give me a break.
You go to court if you think you have been wronged. It is then the judge or jury to determine if the case is worthwhile. If the case is total bullshit, the opposing side will make a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint before much money has been spent.
As for this statement that you made "Sounds like you're entrenched in a system where "almost" or "maybe" is enough." What is your problem? You are coming off like T-boy (no offense T-boy). No one said that almost is enough. But "Maybe" is enough to bring a case to court. But OF COURSE "maybe" is NOT enough to win at trial. Who said it was? No one even inferred that.
The fact is that judges/juries are here to resolve disputes. You have 2 sides that think differently. One side thinks the doctor made no mistake, while the other side thinks that the doctor committed malpractice. So they go to a judge/jury to find out who is right. GREAT SYSTEM!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
yes, and there are 10000000 phiolsophical discussions about this we could have, but to what end? Until the truth serum arrives and philospher-kings rule the Earth, the jury trial is the means by which disputes will be resolved.
There is no point in a productive discussion to discussing the shortcomings of the system that cannot change. We can change "who pays" but the trial by jury is Constitutional.
Yes, it also precludes a trial which means that there will be no case law, and no precedent for use in subsequent suits, because almost all settlemetns come with a clause that says "defendant makes no admission of liability" or similar language.
Ironically, because these settlements cannot be used as evidence in subsequent suits (whereas a finding by a jury can be), the costs of litigation actually go UP with a settlement, because every future case has to be litigated separately.
Yes, settlements make everything MORE expensive. Are you law student?
All that happens with a settlement is lawyers do less work and get paid faster. That's it!
asiansINC said:
yes, and there are 10000000 phiolsophical discussions about this we could have, but to what end? Until the truth serum arrives and philospher-kings rule the Earth, the jury trial is the means by which disputes will be resolved.
There is no point in a productive discussion to discussing the shortcomings of the system that cannot change. We can change "who pays" but the trial by jury is Constitutional.
Yes, it also precludes a trial which means that there will be no case law, and no precedent for use in subsequent suits, because almost all settlemetns come with a clause that says "defendant makes no admission of liability" or similar language.
Ironically, because these settlements cannot be used as evidence in subsequent suits (whereas a finding by a jury can be), the costs of litigation actually go UP with a settlement, because every future case has to be litigated separately.
Yes, settlements make everything MORE expensive. Are you law student?
All that happens with a settlement is lawyers do less work and get paid faster. That's it!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Same to you, no? Other side of the coin yes?
Difference between us is, while you go to the same trough every day to eat, I am part of something that has already taken approximately 25 lawyers out of practice, put a national law firm out of business, and changed the fee schedules for numerous others.
And that's just the beginning.
I am walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
True. That's why the system was conceived for judges and juries, not settlements.
The point is that people should only invoke the legal system if they are confident they have been wronged. The "loser pays" system guarantees that plaintiffs will sue ONLY when they feel that they are truly wronged.
You know and I know that many case are brought in hopes of getting a settlement.
Yeah, and with a loser pays model,that case would not have even arrived.
This is emotion not logic, has nothing to do with the subject of the post.
When they settle the process is derailed. Let's try these cases, like you said, and hand the bills to the losers.
primetime21 said:
Same to you, no? Other side of the coin yes?
Difference between us is, while you go to the same trough every day to eat, I am part of something that has already taken approximately 25 lawyers out of practice, put a national law firm out of business, and changed the fee schedules for numerous others.
And that's just the beginning.
I am walking the walk as well as talking the talk. True. That's why the system was conceived for judges and juries, not settlements.
The point is that people should only invoke the legal system if they are confident they have been wronged. The "loser pays" system guarantees that plaintiffs will sue ONLY when they feel that they are truly wronged.
You know and I know that many case are brought in hopes of getting a settlement.
Yeah, and with a loser pays model,that case would not have even arrived.
This is emotion not logic, has nothing to do with the subject of the post.
When they settle the process is derailed. Let's try these cases, like you said, and hand the bills to the losers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Settlements may make things more expensive in the long run. But in the short run, the client (who should always come first) gets paid faster.
Would you rather have plaintiff's attorneys bring all cases to trial? If that happened, the attorneys would stop accepting a percentage of the award as their fee, and they'd start billing hourly like defense attorneys.
Then the poor schmucks who got screwed over by big, bad businesses wouldn't be able to afford an attorney who could go against the Cravaths and Skaddens of the corporate world. Their kids would have to start turning tricks on the corner to pay for poppa's medical bills.
MattTheSkywalker said:
Settlements may make things more expensive in the long run. But in the short run, the client (who should always come first) gets paid faster.
Would you rather have plaintiff's attorneys bring all cases to trial? If that happened, the attorneys would stop accepting a percentage of the award as their fee, and they'd start billing hourly like defense attorneys.
Then the poor schmucks who got screwed over by big, bad businesses wouldn't be able to afford an attorney who could go against the Cravaths and Skaddens of the corporate world. Their kids would have to start turning tricks on the corner to pay for poppa's medical bills.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Short run thinking is not the way to legislate.
With a loser pays system, this is not an issue. The plaintiff either wins, which means that they pay nothing, or they lose, which means the case was without merit, and should pay.
asiansINC said:
Short run thinking is not the way to legislate.
With a loser pays system, this is not an issue. The plaintiff either wins, which means that they pay nothing, or they lose, which means the case was without merit, and should pay.
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
If cases dont settle y ou will need a 300 percent increase (at least) in the amount of judges. And you would need alot more juries. That is not practical. Not even in the least.
Again, handing the bill to the loser is something out of the mouth of big insurance companies. Imagine Grandma Jones. She has been the victim of a terrible accident and believes it wasnt her fault. However, she is not 100 percent sure a jury would think so, since there are no witness (aside from the 2 parties). (remember most cases have no witnesses. Its usually he said/she said).
back to grandma. SHe has a broken hip and will never be able to walk again. However, if she sues and loses (because the jury HAPPENS to believe the defendant/insurance company version of the story) she will have to pay out thousands in atty's fees that she cannot afford because she lives on a fixed income. So eventhough she would have probably won at trial or even settled, she is now stuck with nothing. Who is going to help grandma now? Matt?
I will respond to the rest of your arguments when i get back from the gym.
MattTheSkywalker said:
If cases dont settle y ou will need a 300 percent increase (at least) in the amount of judges. And you would need alot more juries. That is not practical. Not even in the least.
Again, handing the bill to the loser is something out of the mouth of big insurance companies. Imagine Grandma Jones. She has been the victim of a terrible accident and believes it wasnt her fault. However, she is not 100 percent sure a jury would think so, since there are no witness (aside from the 2 parties). (remember most cases have no witnesses. Its usually he said/she said).
back to grandma. SHe has a broken hip and will never be able to walk again. However, if she sues and loses (because the jury HAPPENS to believe the defendant/insurance company version of the story) she will have to pay out thousands in atty's fees that she cannot afford because she lives on a fixed income. So eventhough she would have probably won at trial or even settled, she is now stuck with nothing. Who is going to help grandma now? Matt?
I will respond to the rest of your arguments when i get back from the gym.
atlantabiolab
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
I have nothing against the legal system, which is a major safeguard for individuals against violations of liberty, but it has a major downfall: people. Since it is composed of individuals, it, like all professions, is very prone to abuse, and when it becomes heavily indoctrinated in unethical practices the good suffer the animosity of society.
If it is not black and white, then how can it be concluded? Ethics is about "black" and "white", "good" and "bad", not greys. A person must be wronged to warrant restitution. Simply because they "think" that they are wronged means nothing. Reality dictates this, there is no middle between "right" and "wrong", they are contraries.
Not that they are positive that they would win, but positive that they are wronged, truly wronged, not inconvenienced, not hoping for settlements. People should know how to determine they are wronged, and when they don't and waste the courts' time, then I propose the use of a present power of judges, which is fining them for "frivolous use of the court".
Actually major factors in trials is jury selection and theatrics. Being a scientist, I can attest to the use of pseudo-science and emotionalism that is utilized to sway a jury. This is a major reason why I don't agree with "loser pays", since truth is not the goal, but illusion.
Try being a juror if you have a degree, have a political stance --Hell!--even a job could preclude you. Lawyers have learned to pick the lowest common denominators of society to judge cases, essentially those who are easily manipulated.
Great system, if it weren't for people. With the collective hatred of business men, corporations, etc., the jury tends to have a preconceived bias against them, not the mention the common belief that "well he/she/they have money anyway, so it won't hurt them."
primetime21 said:
I have nothing against the legal system, which is a major safeguard for individuals against violations of liberty, but it has a major downfall: people. Since it is composed of individuals, it, like all professions, is very prone to abuse, and when it becomes heavily indoctrinated in unethical practices the good suffer the animosity of society.
If it is not black and white, then how can it be concluded? Ethics is about "black" and "white", "good" and "bad", not greys. A person must be wronged to warrant restitution. Simply because they "think" that they are wronged means nothing. Reality dictates this, there is no middle between "right" and "wrong", they are contraries.
Not that they are positive that they would win, but positive that they are wronged, truly wronged, not inconvenienced, not hoping for settlements. People should know how to determine they are wronged, and when they don't and waste the courts' time, then I propose the use of a present power of judges, which is fining them for "frivolous use of the court".
Actually major factors in trials is jury selection and theatrics. Being a scientist, I can attest to the use of pseudo-science and emotionalism that is utilized to sway a jury. This is a major reason why I don't agree with "loser pays", since truth is not the goal, but illusion.
Try being a juror if you have a degree, have a political stance --Hell!--even a job could preclude you. Lawyers have learned to pick the lowest common denominators of society to judge cases, essentially those who are easily manipulated.
Great system, if it weren't for people. With the collective hatred of business men, corporations, etc., the jury tends to have a preconceived bias against them, not the mention the common belief that "well he/she/they have money anyway, so it won't hurt them."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
How do you propose we legislate?
I appreciate and understand that you've put a large national law firm out of business. Good for you. With so much contact with lawyers, I'm sure you know that occasionally cases with lots of merit lose, for whatever reason.
I now direct you to primetime's example of Grandma Jones. That is a more direct way of getting across my earlier point of plaintiff's attorneys billing hourly.
What do we do in cases like Grandma Jones?
MattTheSkywalker said:
How do you propose we legislate?
I appreciate and understand that you've put a large national law firm out of business. Good for you. With so much contact with lawyers, I'm sure you know that occasionally cases with lots of merit lose, for whatever reason.
I now direct you to primetime's example of Grandma Jones. That is a more direct way of getting across my earlier point of plaintiff's attorneys billing hourly.
What do we do in cases like Grandma Jones?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
Isn't ethics a human creation? Do people not have differing ideas of what is "right" and what is "wrong?" Maybe not at the extreme ends of the spectrum (e.g., killing is almost always considered wrong) but the middle ground in "reality" is not black and white.
I'm all against frivolous suits, even though they put money in my pocket. But what's your point?
It's really not a matter of whether someone was truly wronged. It's a matter of whether they can prove it to the jury, as you stated below.
All in the name of zealous representation. If the other side is going to do as much, not doing so could cost your client the case.
That's true but quite unfortunate. I know of a very good doctor that was sued a time or two too many, and his insurance premiums increased to an amount way above his salary, thus making it financially unfeasible to practice in the area. Many locales are experiencing an exodus of doctors in "high-risk" fields such as OB/GYN, neurosurgery, etc. Very sad for those who live in the area... but what to do?
atlantabiolab said:
Isn't ethics a human creation? Do people not have differing ideas of what is "right" and what is "wrong?" Maybe not at the extreme ends of the spectrum (e.g., killing is almost always considered wrong) but the middle ground in "reality" is not black and white.
I'm all against frivolous suits, even though they put money in my pocket. But what's your point?
It's really not a matter of whether someone was truly wronged. It's a matter of whether they can prove it to the jury, as you stated below.
All in the name of zealous representation. If the other side is going to do as much, not doing so could cost your client the case.
That's true but quite unfortunate. I know of a very good doctor that was sued a time or two too many, and his insurance premiums increased to an amount way above his salary, thus making it financially unfeasible to practice in the area. Many locales are experiencing an exodus of doctors in "high-risk" fields such as OB/GYN, neurosurgery, etc. Very sad for those who live in the area... but what to do?
atlantabiolab
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
It is a human creation to the extent that physics is a human creation, to the extent that microbiology is a human creation, etc. Ethics is the science of human action. It is the investigation of "right" and "wrong" actions, if it is subjective then you cannot claim anything is right or wrong, even murder, rape, slavery, etc.
Your argument is a common misconception, that only the universally accepted morals: murder, theft, etc. are true morals. How can one objectively claim that these actions are immoral, and not be able to determine if abandoning one's child is immoral, or adultery is immoral, or incest, etc? What makes the major crimes reasonable and the latter subjective?
We have accepted the irrationalist ideologies of deconstructionalism, positivism, Marxism, that there is no real "right" and "wrong" simply social constructs agreed upon by the consensus of the day, capable of flux at any given time.
asiansINC said:
It is a human creation to the extent that physics is a human creation, to the extent that microbiology is a human creation, etc. Ethics is the science of human action. It is the investigation of "right" and "wrong" actions, if it is subjective then you cannot claim anything is right or wrong, even murder, rape, slavery, etc.
Your argument is a common misconception, that only the universally accepted morals: murder, theft, etc. are true morals. How can one objectively claim that these actions are immoral, and not be able to determine if abandoning one's child is immoral, or adultery is immoral, or incest, etc? What makes the major crimes reasonable and the latter subjective?
We have accepted the irrationalist ideologies of deconstructionalism, positivism, Marxism, that there is no real "right" and "wrong" simply social constructs agreed upon by the consensus of the day, capable of flux at any given time.
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
How many things in life are 100 percent certain. If an accident occurred at 3 AM and there were no witnesses, under your theory NO ONE could win since there is NO way of knowing who committed the wrong.
However, in our system there are certain factors to consider. one of which is the juries ability to determine who is being more truthful. A judge can determine that since the defendant hit the plaintiff in the rear of the car that the defendant is negligent, UNLESS the defendant comes up for a reason for following too closely.
There can never be a PERFECT system. However, the american system is damn good. I dont represent plaintiffs or defendants. I watch the system work daily. I see the right thing being done more often than not. Is it perfect? No. But what in our lives is perfect?
atlantabiolab said:
How many things in life are 100 percent certain. If an accident occurred at 3 AM and there were no witnesses, under your theory NO ONE could win since there is NO way of knowing who committed the wrong.
However, in our system there are certain factors to consider. one of which is the juries ability to determine who is being more truthful. A judge can determine that since the defendant hit the plaintiff in the rear of the car that the defendant is negligent, UNLESS the defendant comes up for a reason for following too closely.
There can never be a PERFECT system. However, the american system is damn good. I dont represent plaintiffs or defendants. I watch the system work daily. I see the right thing being done more often than not. Is it perfect? No. But what in our lives is perfect?
primetime21
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
This is were you lose me. Most cases settle. Actually most cases settle before the case is even brought to court.
And then once brough to court, many cases settle before the day of trial.
And then at the day of trial most cases then settle before a jury is even picked.
And then after a jury is picked, most cases settle before the jury makes a decision.
Here is an example. In one particular courthouse (that is VERY busy), one judge has been on the bench for about 3 years. That judge has had maybe 12 cases go to a jury. However, approximately 150 cases have settled by him or his assistant or by the parties without any assistance by the court.
Most parties (plaintiffs and defendants) are afraid of trials and are afraid of what a jury can do. So they often settle to avoid a jury. Once in a while, when a case just cant be settled it goes to a jury. Usually they do a good job. Occasionally, they fuck up. However, even if they fuck up there are still remedies the aggrieved party has to get the mistake corrected.
MattTheSkywalker said:
This is were you lose me. Most cases settle. Actually most cases settle before the case is even brought to court.
And then once brough to court, many cases settle before the day of trial.
And then at the day of trial most cases then settle before a jury is even picked.
And then after a jury is picked, most cases settle before the jury makes a decision.
Here is an example. In one particular courthouse (that is VERY busy), one judge has been on the bench for about 3 years. That judge has had maybe 12 cases go to a jury. However, approximately 150 cases have settled by him or his assistant or by the parties without any assistance by the court.
Most parties (plaintiffs and defendants) are afraid of trials and are afraid of what a jury can do. So they often settle to avoid a jury. Once in a while, when a case just cant be settled it goes to a jury. Usually they do a good job. Occasionally, they fuck up. However, even if they fuck up there are still remedies the aggrieved party has to get the mistake corrected.
VicTusDeuS
New member
Read that book the Runaway Jury by John Grisham...I had to read that for my business law class. Very interesting book but a little far fetched in the end when the main people never got hit for insider trading.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We have GOT to do something about litigation....
That's the classic argument for the system as it is - what about this poor little old lady against the big bad mean corporation?
The thing is, the fact that one has to point to such contrived examples to argue for the conitnuation of this system is itself evidence that the system is heavily flawed.
asiansINC said:
That's the classic argument for the system as it is - what about this poor little old lady against the big bad mean corporation?
The thing is, the fact that one has to point to such contrived examples to argue for the conitnuation of this system is itself evidence that the system is heavily flawed.
spike1205
New member
Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker
Ironically, because these settlements cannot be used as evidence in subsequent suits (whereas a finding by a jury can be), the costs of litigation actually go UP with a settlement, because every future case has to be litigated separately.
--------------------------------------------
if only a small percentage actually make it to trial and the rest are settled how does that cause higher litigation costs except on defendants (most of whom have, wheteher you believe it or not, perpetrated some act that casued someone to sue, except in fraudulent cases). As for judicial system economy settlements are great for clearing the calendar and settling issues without the need for a magistrate or for jurors--thus saving time and money --money from everybodies pockets (ie taxes)
how does that cost go up--the costs on the system would be far greater (through spread through the tax base) then the cost to those who have to defend (ie insurance companies). So the cost in the long run would be greater if there was a restrcuturing of the legal system away from settlement
Ironically, because these settlements cannot be used as evidence in subsequent suits (whereas a finding by a jury can be), the costs of litigation actually go UP with a settlement, because every future case has to be litigated separately.
--------------------------------------------
if only a small percentage actually make it to trial and the rest are settled how does that cause higher litigation costs except on defendants (most of whom have, wheteher you believe it or not, perpetrated some act that casued someone to sue, except in fraudulent cases). As for judicial system economy settlements are great for clearing the calendar and settling issues without the need for a magistrate or for jurors--thus saving time and money --money from everybodies pockets (ie taxes)
how does that cost go up--the costs on the system would be far greater (through spread through the tax base) then the cost to those who have to defend (ie insurance companies). So the cost in the long run would be greater if there was a restrcuturing of the legal system away from settlement
spike1205 said:
Law student? lawyer? Just wondering.
The costs are higher with settlements because subsequent lawsuits do not allow for introduction of what was discussed during settlement talks as evidence. Settlements are almost always negotiated "without admission of liability" meaning subsequent litigation against the same party has to commence fom day 1. This is done tolimit class action possibilities, but results in the same cases being brought over and over.
This has the double impact of precluding a true remedy for a wrong, increasing the costs of litigation, and foricng the defendant to raise prices and take money away from core business activities (lay people off, stop investing) to pay the settlements. Everybody loses, except the lawyers collecting fees.
For excellent examples, look into some pharmaceutical settlements involving Prozac, Zoloft and the like.
Then as to the issue of defendants "wronging someone": the idea of a tort system and the current standards for negligence (reasonable person, duty breached) have become comical and need to be legislated away. The courts have turned into a fiasco of class warfare.
Those increased tax costs would be offset by the drop in the number of lawsuits. The decreased prices of goods and services as companies breathed a little easier would actually benefit everyone, except lwyers.
I'm not saying that the tort system doesn't need some type of reform, but you haven't addressed this point:
How does a poor person who has been wronged afford an attorney?
Here are some replies to answers you may come up with:
If loser pays, then most personal injury attorneys still working on a contingency basis will only take cases that they are 110% sure they can win. Most cases are not like that.
Say what you want about black and white, right and wrong, morals, deconstructionism, etc. But the reality of the courtroom is that despite a definite wrong suffered by plaintiff, the evidence may not be convincing enough for the jury. Then what? Let's say plaintiff loses. Plaintiff's attorney doesn't get paid. This happens a few times, and the PI attorney can't eat as well as he formerly did under the non-British fee system.
So sooner or later the PI attorney will switch to billing hourly. With rates at several hundred dollars an hour, and with most cases taking years before completion, what is an indigent injured to do?
How does a poor person who has been wronged afford an attorney?
Here are some replies to answers you may come up with:
If loser pays, then most personal injury attorneys still working on a contingency basis will only take cases that they are 110% sure they can win. Most cases are not like that.
Say what you want about black and white, right and wrong, morals, deconstructionism, etc. But the reality of the courtroom is that despite a definite wrong suffered by plaintiff, the evidence may not be convincing enough for the jury. Then what? Let's say plaintiff loses. Plaintiff's attorney doesn't get paid. This happens a few times, and the PI attorney can't eat as well as he formerly did under the non-British fee system.
So sooner or later the PI attorney will switch to billing hourly. With rates at several hundred dollars an hour, and with most cases taking years before completion, what is an indigent injured to do?
asiansINC said:
I know. I've managed litigation of over $300M of cases.
We're talking past each other. Settlements aer not designed to "get poor people justice." The plaintiff doesn't settle, the defendant does. Defendants settle when they think they'd lose at trial, or when it is cheaper for them to pay one settlement than it is for them to risk:
1. A high jury award
2. Their negligence becoming public record. (The real cost in many cases)
A defendant would rather pay one plaintiff than 1000, so they settle with no admission of liability.
In a situation of one-time negligence, settlements are again an economic decision. Allowing a plaintiff to get paid without a trial creates a huge number of prospective plaintiffs. Make them try the case and allow the market to sort it out.
The free market will work its magic here too. If the PI atty has to bill hourly and can't get business, he either goes back to contingenyc, or goes out of business. Onlylawyers who can win trials will take cases. What's wrong with that?
You're saying plaintiffs don't settle, defendants settle.
Previously you said that plaintiffs often start suits in hopes of settlement.
I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive, but still...
I mostly agree with everything you've said. But you haven't answered the question, and I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.
In the loser pays system that you advocate, how does a poor person with a definite injury but with less definite evidentiary proof afford an attorney?
Previously you said that plaintiffs often start suits in hopes of settlement.
I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive, but still...
I mostly agree with everything you've said. But you haven't answered the question, and I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.
In the loser pays system that you advocate, how does a poor person with a definite injury but with less definite evidentiary proof afford an attorney?
asiansINC said:
A system has arisen that incentivizes defendants settling. Plaintiffs know this, and if they don't, there are plenty of PI lawyers around.
[qute]
I mostly agree with everything you've said. But you haven't answered the question, and I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are.
In the loser pays system that you advocate, how does a poor person with a definite injury but with less definite evidentiary proof afford an attorney? [/QUOTE]
The fee model doesn't have to change. The PI atty just has to be able to win a trial.
asiansINC said:
I think the plaintiff attorney should eat it as a cost of doing business. I mean the plaintiff attorney is the one most likely to gain shouldn't he put up the money as a cost of doing business?
I mean what does the defendant get out of the deal when they win? Nada. Oh no I forgot they get to pay $50k to $75k to their defense attorney. Sheesh what a prize for winning huh?
spike1205
New member
curling said:
Plainitff's attorneys do not profit on every case they take--the lawyer pays all costs up front inhopes of coollect his percentage on a victory, so he does "put up his money as a cost of doing business"--when he loses a case or is unable to settle he loses.
sometimes in the representation of a client who may need money more immediately (no insurance/needs surgery/broke and unable to work do to injury) even if the attorney believes more cash will be offered later or will be won at trial. what happens then if settle ments are not as accessible?
Similar threads
