Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack my friend,

Before I post, or even read your article, which will be deleted? #1 or #2?
Thanks

You’re absolutely right, these are out of hand, and very frivilous!

We need a complete overhaul of our court system if you ask me! It’s gone way to far….. guilt or innocence run second to how much money can be made!

Lately, juries are just as disappointing to me also! STOP REWARDING IDIOTS!!! If you spill coffee on your crotch, suck it up and get over it!

We have got to stop paying good tax money on these “carnival act” cases……..they should never even make it to trial!

Jack,

(my question was anwsered before my post, sorry).

I agree entirely with you on this one.

This class action crap needs to end!
Look at the big tabacco settlement, the STATES got mega cash, and most just threw it into the general fund!
My Father once got a letter in the mail, it explained there was a settlement in a class action suit(he knew nothing about), it contained a check for him(oh goodie..free cash), the check was for 12cents! no crap! 12 cents!

I wonder what the ammount of lawyers check was for?

Jack, absolutely right. I don’t have a problem with trial lawyers existence, I might need one someday for things I say here. But, the day, a couple decades ago, that America decided to legislate allowing them to advertise, was a very bad day for America.

It was a bad day because it married lawyers to advertisers, which vastly increased the cost of representation in this country. It was a bad day, because it opened the floodgates to false suits.

These results in turn led to tort reform which seriously limits the rights of those legitimate claimants who should have their day in court but, can no longer afford to even approach the courts.

I am with you on this one. Same arguments apply to advertising by Doctors. Was a time when they were limited to the Yellow pages, an ample source for finding a doctor. Now health care costs have skyrocketed in part, due to the marriage of doctors and advertisers, as well as the adversarial role between lawyers and doctors. This is ugly, because the supply and demand of the situation created incentive for doctors to cram 2 to 3 or even 4 times as many patients into the same time schedule to keep up with the advertising, insurance, and litigation costs. Net result, runaway health care inflation in this country.

I’, just trying to educate myself here. Can something be done legally to people or lawyers that waste tax payers $ on frivolous lawsuits?

Traci,

I love the fact that you brought up the burgerdoodle coffee suit.
Did you know that a big part of her settlement was based on the fact that she Might not be able to have sex again?

She was about Freaking 90! She hadn’t been hosed since truman was in office!
How could a lawyer even present that with a stright face?

Burgers went up 5cents, and everyone get cold coffee.

It is time for all good people to recognize that predator lawyers are a big problem in this country. We all pay the price for their fancy cars and big houses. Let’s start getting mad about it.

I used to work at a law firm (not as a lawyer, as a software developer; and only for about 18 months; it was all I could take, and didn’t like the idea of working somewhere that made me feel dirty). Not all lawyers are bad, but that profession, like some others (e.g. politics, clergy, media, etc.) have a way of attracting parasites more so than others (e.g. fire-fighter, paramedic, doctor, construction worker, etc.).

I increasingly became embarrassed and ashamed.
I asked my wife to not tell my parents I worked at a law firm, because they still thought I played piano at a whorehouse.

Also, have you noticed, many politicians were lawyers before they became politicians ?

Unfortunately, the people we need, like George Washington, are the very opposite that populate the halls of government.

And, the judges were lawyers before they became judges. Thus, the government is in league with the lawyers. Look at John Edwards. Guess how he got rich? Lawyers profit from the misery and chaos of others. Having worked at a law firm, I know first hand, that the truth and justice were the last thing on most people’s mind. Mischarging and over-charging was common. A lot of things were common that would be banned and severely discouraged or punished in any other corporation.

After working at a law firm, I now understand all the jokes…
_______________________________________________
The penalty for laughing in court is 6 months in jail.
If it weren’t for that, the jury would never hear the evidence.
_______________________________________________
What do you get when you cross a snake with a lawyer?
Incest.
_______________________________________________
Why don’t lawyers frequent nudist colonies?
No one has pockets.
_______________________________________________
It was so cold last winter, the lawyers had their hands in their own pockets.
_______________________________________________
Talk is cheap until you hire a lawyer.
_______________________________________________
A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a 100 men with guns.
_______________________________________________

Kevin,

Good point! There is something that can be done to stop all these lawsuits.

Make the plaintiff pay the defendants attorney fees and costs if they lose the case! No exceptions for any civil suit.

I would say that everyone should have to fund their own attorney fees up front, except for the fact that many that truely have been wronged could never afford to file a suit.

I dont see much disagreement in this thread. I wonder if it’s worth it to the democrats to take their money. It comes with a lot of baggage. They got to get it from somewhere I guess.

David;

You have an interesting point in looking at how the advertisers marriage with attornies affects society. Here is a further view of that:

The real problem is that the advertisers have convinced the public that someone is to blame for anything that happens. Slip on an icy sidewalk—-the homeowner should have salted it better. The fact that one might live in the icy Northeast and should know that sidewalks are inherently slippery doesnt enter into things.

Spill hot coffee in your lap?? Well, Mickey D’s should have foreseen that you would be so dumb as to place the cup there.

SOMEONE is to blame—-SOMEONE must pay—-SOMEONE must have been negligent.

The ugly secret is that we are all SOMEONE. Every time a person wins a frivolous lawsuit, or cheats an insurance company, we SOMEONEs end up paying for it. True its only a penny here and a penny there, but it adds up.

Every once in a while, its refreshing to hear someone say, “It was MY fault, and I’ll bear the responsibility.” It used to happen all the time—-now very rarely.

Beagle,
What happens when a lawsuit is awarded in lower court but is overturned in a Supreme court? Should the Judge and/or Jury of the lower court be liable? I certainly don’t think so but, on the flip side, how can you hold someone liable for costs if it actually won a lower court case? I think that there should be a way to stop these suits before they get to court.

Without question frivilous law suits and meaningless class action law suits have got to stop. I am assuming that we are exempting things like the Love Canal incident however.

There has been a class action lawsuit advertising on TV in my area for over two years. It is for people with Mesotheliomia. This is a rare lung disease that is contracted by having been exposed to massive amounts of asbestos over some long period of time.

The interesting thing is that if you are quick enough to read the fine print at the bottom you will find that depending upon where you live you must contact a specific law firm, if you live elsewhere you contact a different one and so on.

Also there are disclaimers most of which pertain to the fact that the invitation to join the class action is not an indicator that there will be any financial settlement.

Kevin,

I would never try to take someones right of appeal to a higher court away.
Appealing to a higher court costs lots of money, and at the point of losing in the lower court, you will have to pay the fees up front to go to a higher court.
Beyond having to pay the front costs, if money was awarded to the plaintiff, from the point of judgement, interest will start on that ammount that would make a loan-shark blush if you lose again in the end.

Most frivlous cases would be stoped before they were filed if the loser had to pay the fees and costs.

Kevin,

The problem, of course, is figuring out how to stop these cases, without stopping legitimate cases in the process. In general, Democrats prefer to err on the side of allowing legitimate cases, while Republicans prefer to err on the side of stopping frivolous ones.

I’m not sure which one is better.

For starters, the sum of the lawyers fees in class action lawsuits should not exceed the lowest payout of a single plaintiff.
Then truth in advertising should extend to attorneys.
Attorneys involved in cases that have such a wide disparity of probability, as in the silicosis, should be taken before the bar for disciplinary action, and hope there are enough honest attorneys on the bar committee to deal with it uprightly.
Judges many time have discretion in dismissing cases. When a case is presented that appears to have no merit, the judge should dismiss without prejudice. That way if there is a legitimate case to be made let the plaintiffs side develop a real case.

Rob,
Many cases that go to court are just average joe V average joe.
I’m not sure its just political unless you factor in that attorneys , by a wide %, tend to be democrats.

It is costing everyone money on everything you buy. Right ,left, or center, we all pay for it.

The Lawyers are the “Educated Profesionals” in all of this, For them to take on frivolous lawsuits should came with greater risk, such as paying more in losses, suspension, or even dibarment in some cases (get ‘em were it hurts ‘em the most, their wallet). People that try to make $ out of these suits should not be left of the hook, there aren’t a lot of people that aren’t educated enough to know what makes a frivolous lawsuit. I think common sense takes care of knowing what is and isn’t frivolous.

I get those from time to time, and don’t even know how my name got on their lists.

The idea of a class action, in theory, isn’t so bad. However, in reality, the lawyers get almost ALL of the money.

And the government allows it, because they’re in league, or consist of lawyers too. And, when they don’t have anything else to do, they create more useless laws that already resemble existing laws, and heap upon the system so much crap, no one knows what’s going on (by design), but do nothing to enforce those laws. Perhaps, government would do better to try to enforce some of those many laws, rather than creating more unnecessary laws.

“I think common sense takes care of knowing what is and isn’t frivolous.”

Yes. Common sense. But you are talking about people in charge that have none. When the all mighty dollar is first and foremost, common sense goes out the window.

There must be a course in ‘How Not to Use Common Sense’ when studying to be a lawyer.

I have a cousin who became a lawyer. After being one for a couple of years she has decided that it is not the profession she would really like to be in for many of the reasons stated above by d.a.n..
She doesn’t even like to talk about her job. She doesn’t like the way things are done. From the way she talks, it is like being in some sort of ‘secret club’ where non-lawyers are nothing but lower class citizens and the pawns of the wealthy attorneys.
Coming from a ‘working class’ family it is hard for her to ‘turn her back’ on the average citizen.
Maybe she will be the one who helps make some changes.
I hope.

Beagle,

“I’m not sure its just political unless you factor in that attorneys , by a wide %, tend to be democrats.”

Another useless statistic.

If you need a lawyer do you care who he votes for?
Is it any of your business?

I am all for tort reform, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Beagle said: ” Most frivlous cases would be stoped before they were filed if the loser had to pay the fees and costs.”

Beagle, here I could not disagree with you more. What you are saying above would preempt anyone without means from filing suit no matter how eggregious the offense against them. What you suggest would close the court system and therefore the hope of justice, to all who lack discretionary resources to sue.

Do you really want justice to exist for only those who can afford to lose?

I agree 100% with all the posts here that feel that this is out of control… Having nothing relavent to add regarding the actual topic I must just say

I increasingly became embarrassed and ashamed. I asked my wife to not tell my parents I worked at a law firm, because they still thought I played piano at a whorehouse.

That may well be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard on Watchblog! Well put D.a.n!

What you are saying above would preempt anyone without means from filing suit no matter how eggregious the offense against them. What you suggest would close the court system and therefore the hope of justice, to all who lack discretionary resources to sue.

Do you really want justice to exist for only those who can afford to lose?

David, I would agree with Beaglewith this one to an extent… There needs to be a penalty to the loser for bringing in a frivolous lawsuit. I don’t believe that a blanket statement of “if you lose a lawsuit you will pay the fees” should be adopted exactly for the reason you stated. However, a judge should have the ability to throw a lawsuit out as frivolous, and in those cases some monetary penalty should be enforced. Of course the person should be able to appeal in order to keep judges honest, but again, if the appeal is thrown out the penalty should then just compound. This would allow those with real cases to use the law as it should be used, while making those that are just trying their next “scam” think twice.

What about the lawyers that are behind a lot of these frivolous law suits? Maybe they should be punished or fined too? Perhaps we should allow law suits, but let the jury decide in the end if it was a frivolous law suit.
If not, no penalties or fines.
If yes, fines should be proportionate to ability to pay. After all, there are some laws regarding abuse of the system. Some people like to sue for everything. Perhaps something in-between is required? Otherwise, there’s nothing to stop the ambulance chasers from clogging up the courts with every new attempt or strategy to reap huge rewards from large settlements. Also, perhaps there need to be some sort of caps on the lawyers compensation. Some of these parasites are making many millions per year off of these frivolous law suits.

Rocky, David,

Rocky if you read my post I was respondind to another that implyed the political thing.
I have many friends that are attorneys, the fact that most are Dem.’s was only used to prove my point that most court cases are, little guy, verses little guy. Politics shouldn’t be a factor in this debate.

David, The cases I was talking about are Contingency cases, anyone without large sums of cash could still file them, but the attorneys themselves would refuse to take frivious ones.
If the lawyer fronts the cash for the case, they would be liable to pay the costs if they lose.
If someone has a; There is no doubt, you were wronged case, any lawyer will take it, they still would.
The present system allows for someone that is truely wronged to slip through the cracks because lawyers that take those types of cases,they only take the ones that they might win the lotto in the end. They also take cases they know they can settle out of court just to avoid attorney fees.

The current system doesn’t protect the little guy, it just screws them and everyone else over.

At any rate, what we have with these frivolous law suits is legal plunder.

The legal system has been perverted to allow the very thing they were originally supposed to prevent.

And, lawyers, and the government created it.

Brad, that seems to me as crazy and idea as a law that says the government must pay all costs for any case which it prosecutes and loses. Very quickly, the government would refuse to prosecute any criminal cases except those where there is a signed confession.

Think about it. This is exactly what happens to modest means person whose case is valid and NOT frivolous. They would be asked to take the risk of filing bankruptcy as the price to access justice in the courts.

I personally would not risk bankrupting my wife and child’s lives in order to pursue General Motors in an auto repair scam which bilks customers of 1000 to $1400 a pop with defective air conditioner repairs. I choose this example because it is one of those in which a real injustice is being perpetrated but, the outcome of such a suit would be very much a gamble. We all know the truth does not guarantee justice in courts.

The loser pays rule usually requires the loser to pay the winner to the extent of HIS OWN legal expenses. So if you spend $1000, you could only be assessed that amount, even if your opponent spend many thousands.

Another good rule would be to eliminate contingency fees. If a lawyer thinks your case is good enough, he should feel no compunction about charging you and you should feel none about paying his fees.

If the amount is too small for that, it belongs in small claims court without the need for a lawyer.

What’s the diffenance between a lawyer and a catfish?

Well David, It didn’t take a couple of years for you to come up with something I can agree with you on. Your point on the marriage of lawyers and advertisers is right on the money.

It seems like I see 10 to 15 ads every night for some kind of class action lawsuit. Its getting to where I hate to see the commercials come on worse that I ever did.

The differance between a lawyer and a catfish is, one is a bottom crawling scum sucking scanvenger, and the other is only a fish.

Thanks Ron, I thought we would find a bridge if we travelled opposite sides of the stream long enough.

Rail at the lawyers all you want. I do, too. But the real culprits are the judges. They are supposed to be the control over these idiot suits and dumb juries. You shouldn’t stop a lawyer from bringing in a case, but you ought to have judges with sense enough to throw the case out of court. Some of these judges that allow these things to proceed in court must have IQs in inverse proportion to the greed factor of the lawyers and plaintiffs.

I would hope I’d not have to provide examples.

Jack said: “If a lawyer thinks your case is good enough, he should feel no compunction about charging you and you should feel none about paying his fees.”

That puts us back to a place where only those with discretionary income they can afford to gamble can afford a shot at justice. A place heralded by a number of conservatives. That is just plain wrong and shores up the Republican dual caste system of their dreams.

I treat bad Lawyers the same way I treat bad Corporate Executives, Doctors and HMOs.

Do Republicans care that some of their Main Contributors defrauded millions of people?

I am aware the only a few Executives do this but so do a few lawyers. I advise Republicans to clean their own garbage first before their SUV tips over and explodes.

Beagle,

“Rocky if you read my post I was respondind to another that implyed the political thing.”

Please, don’t take my remarks as a personal affront. I am only commenting on what you wrote.

Aldous
So tell me how you treat Bad Corporate Executives, Doctors, and HMO’s. You mentioned each catagory in the plural, so you have treated or are now treating those catagories in the multiple. Gee, most of us can only have one HMO, Doctor. Now Corporate Executives is a different pix. What is the average contact with Corporate Executives that occurs with the people on this site. Then narrowing it down to only the bad Corporate Executives. Since you are so pro democrat, let us start with the Heinz company. All those off shore locations for their products, displacement of American workers in behalf of corporate profits, and you know the rest, probably.
Then do Democrats really care that some of their main contributors were involved in security violations? Hint. Hint. China.

David,
This is only the second time I’ve agreed with you. Lets not make a habit of it or people will think either you’ve moved right or I’ve moved left. Just kidding.

d.a.n
The legal system has been perverted to allow the very thing they were originally supposed to prevent.

And, lawyers, and the government created it.
HOW TRUE

A few years ago I was in Atlanta. I stoped for a red light, and had just down shifted my pickup into second gear (I have a granny low gear) when I was hit from behind by a women in a sub compact.
My truck wasn’t damaged and I wasn’t hurt so I didn’t file a claim with her insurance company. About three mounths later I got a notice from the Fulon County Courts that this women was suing me for $150,000 claiming the wreck was my fault.
The reason she claimed was because I was stopped in her line of travel.
Now tell me some ambulance chasing lawyer didn’t convence her she could collect a lot of money if she sued.
The case was thrown out of court with predijuce.

Ron, you didn’t agree with me. I agreed with you. The magnanimity is all mine. :-)

And that is how easy it is to create a debate. Egos, they do so much good, and so much harm.

The Problem With The Legal System

Lots of generalizations concerning lawyers flying about here.

I have no problem with lawyers being fined for bring frivolous cases before a court…there’s a rule against it in the federal courts (see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. I assume many states have similar rules.

Yes, there are ‘bad’ lawyers. However, the vast majority of them work within the law.

mattLaw, I agree. It would be frightening to live in America without access to an attorney. When you need one, they are a godsend.

That said, lawyers have a penchant for contriving things in America in such a way as to make it very risky to not have a lawyer in the family. As a president of a homeowner’s association, I witnessed two attorneys, our associations and that of the builder, create such differences that they ended up sueing each other, and our homeowners association was caught in the middle without direction and reliable advice from either. It was a mess and it they cost us for their own bickering. At one point, I retained a third attorney to explore sueing the other two for the charges they racked up on our books fighting each other.

Absurd!

If you can make any generalizations about lawyers, it it this: They are in league with government. The government and lawyers (in general) abuse the system. There are too too too many examples. But, the recent Tobacco class actions suits come to mind. Who got rich from those ? The question is this: Do lawyers, in general, provide any net benefit to society ?