I am in exact agreement on this. I honestly believe that this is the
single common denominator in the lawsuit equation. The lawyers wanted
the law changed to open the floodgates and that's exactly what they did.
They lobbied their cohorts in government and got the law changed. It's
been a constant rape of every deep pocket available ever since.
If you are indeed an attorney not involved in all this mess, you have my
deepest sympathies.
I'm sure, that like any profession, there are good and honest people out
there just trying to do their jobs and make an honest living. Lawyers as
individuals are no exception to this rule.
But collectively.................what lawyers have done to their
profession is to turn it into something that can arguably be discussed
as a wing of organized crime.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


"SR" wrote in message
...
Great point about advertising. There was a time when Bar rules didn't
allow advertising. There was then a Supreme Court case that said it
was protected free speech. I think we can trace a lot of the problems
with the legal profession and system to that point in time.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:53:10 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

I'm not in that much disagreement with your position on this either.
There's no question, to me at least, that the public is a large part
of
the problem. Collectively the public seems to be easily led by any
and
all sources that specialize in the path to the fast buck. It's
unfortunate, but lawyers are the catalyst that is necessary for the
corruption to succeed, and as such, must take a great deal of the
responsibility for the unfortunate condition we find the legal system
in
today.
You literally can't take a young person in school today and talk to
them
about ethics when every night on TV they see some fast talking
attorney
advertising for anyone and everyone who might have fallen down at
some
supermarket to "call me immediately for a free interview" and to
"make
sure you get what's coming to you". The unending ads by lawyers
surfing
the public each night and day, 24 hours a day, for slip and fall,
social
security disability, and God knows what else has totally destroyed
any
conception of ethics the public once had for the legal profession.
Add
to this, the unending appearance each night of one lawyer after
another,
bellowing and talking over each other making their case for or
against
one thing or another; all costing the public vast amounts of tax
dollars
or personal investment losses as these "hearings" and lawsuits play
themselves out, and you have a constantly deteriorating situation for
the legal profession.
It's a sad state of affairs really, and I have no idea what the
solution
is or even if there ever will be a solution. The quest for the fast
buck
is just too tempting for both the lawyers AND the public. The two
together are a formula for disaster.
I'll tell you this much. I honestly feel at this point in my life
that
the ONLY solution to the open ended lawsuit issues facing this
country
lies in the situation finally becoming so bad that the economy ends
up
taking a down side hit so bad that Washington HAS to take action as
the
market forces dictate that to take no action will be disastrous for
the
economy. Perhaps then, the market will FORCE the government to take a
hard line stand on the tort issue and finally pass legislation that
controls what lawyers can advertise for, and what actually makes it
through to the litigation stage.
Who knows really. As I said, I'm just a simple airplane driver
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"SR" wrote in message
.. .
I don't think you said much of anything that I disagree with. I
agree
there needs to be change. I agree the system is profit driven (for
lawyers and clients and a lot of other people - professional
experts
for example). In fact I pointed out two changes that I think could
have a huge affect either taken together or seperately. I didn't
"inadvertantly prove our point". It was intentional. There are
currently deterrants present to keep frivolous lawsuits from being
filed, but obviously they aren't enough or they aren't the right
kind.

I didn't try to convince anyone the system isn't corrupt. If I
thought the system was fine I wouldn't suggest changes. Don't
think
for a minute that these suggestions are only made by me on usenet.
It
doesn't matter to those who make money on the current system (not
just
attorneys) that I am a lawyer, the minute any change to their way
of
doing business is suggested you are the enemy. I don't think
lawyers
have any special ability to make changes to this than anyone else.
In
fact if all the non-trial lawyers wanted to change the system it
still
wouldn't happen without the support of the general public.

I will say that simply calling names and complaining without any
idea
how the system really works now is probably counterproductive (not
suggesting this is you). This isn't specialized secret knowledge.
In
fact most of the practical stuff is not even taught in law school.
I
know it because I took the time to learn because I want to see
change
take place.

Consider this example. There are a lot of non-pilots out there who
think GA in the U.S. has too much freedom and needs to be changed
now.
How seriously do you take their arguments if when they make them
they
can't get anything right about the way the current system is run?
Do
we take seriously the media and anyone else who refers to every
small
airplane as a Cessna? Not that we would necessarily agree with
their
suggestions otherwise, but isn't it real easy to dismiss them as
not
knowing what they are talking about?


On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:23:01 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

I'm sorry; I'm just a simple airplane driver, but I fail to see
the
logic in your response.
All I see is one long post saying people don't understand the
issues
involved with the system and how it works followed by the rest of
the
post being devoted to nothing but the COST law as that pertains to
the
lawyer; not one word about truth about justice; or about fairness.
But
you're right, it IS about cost; and it IS about profit. It's a
business!!!
I fear you have inadvertently proved our point. Under the present
court
system in the United States, you get one of several scenarios if
you
go
to an attorney and have a just case. You get the "we don't even
charge
you...come on in and talk to a lawyer " first meeting with an
attorney
who then uses that meeting to determine the exact worth of your
"case"
to him/her as that relates to possible financial return for the
attorney. If the attorney sees financial gain through lawsuit
(which
usually turns out to be pure extortion of a large corporation)
they
take
the case for the potential. They in effect gamble on the
potential.
This
has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with
PROFIT!
If, on the other hand, you have a just case, but no potential to
the
attorney can be seen in the initial interview, the attorney will
advise
you quite quickly (time is money you see) that representation will
cost
you plenty if you want to go ahead with the lawsuit against Joe's
Hardware Store where the clerk accidentally shot your leg off with
a
gun
he was showing you. Now if that clerk only worked for DuPont!!!!
:-))
I'll tell you straight up I'm no expert on the legal system. Don't
pretend to be either; but I know a snake oil system, created by
snake
oil salesmen and run by snake oil salesmen when I see one, and
whether
you as an attorney yourself aren't involved in the lawsuit
business
going on in the United States by your cohorts, you'll never
convince
me
that the system isn't as corrupt as it obviously appears to me,
and
to
millions of average people like me.
Instead of telling us all about how expensive it can be if you
lawyers
make a mistake and have to pay, when all of us are fully aware of
the
gigantic profits that are available to lawyers who DON'T make
mistakes;
why don't you just go straighten out your system so no one is
unfairly
charged.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




"SR" wrote in message
.. .
I think tort reform is something that certainly needs to be
discussed,
but I just wonder how come all the people offering suggestions
to
this
"huge" problem haven't bothered to figure out how the system
works
currently. A disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I have nothing at
all
to
do with tort law (most lawyers don't).

There is no real deterrent in the system for
any lawyer to "roll the dice" and see what happens.

Really? Do you have any idea who fronts the costs for this
losing
lawsuit? The lawyer. Even if the costs are only $20k as you
suggest
(a very low number) that's a certain amount of "deterrent". Yes
the
fee contract says the client is responsible for the costs, but
most
of
the time they can't come anywhere near affording them and the
only
way
the costs are reimbursed is out of a settlement (what you get if
you
settle out of court) or judgement (what you get if you win in
court -
juries and judges don't give settlements). Even if the client
can
afford the costs many times the lawyer can't get paid back
because
the
client blames them for the loss and the lawyer risks a
malpractice
lawsuit if they try to collect. But still, I will agree this
must
not
be too huge a deterrant because frivolous lawsuits keep getting
filed.

Client wins ten mil settlement.....lawyer gets
3.3 mil less time filing papers, phone calls, research, and a
few
days in court,
let's say $20k. Client loses.....cost $20k

filing papers, deposition transcript costs (depositions taken by
other
side), deposition court reporter and transcript costs
(depositions
you
take), expert fees (including travel time and time spent sitting
around waiting for trial to start only to be told their aren't
enought
judges and you are going to have to come back in 3 months), time
the
lawyer sets aside for trial only to be rescheduled by the court
at
the
last minute, time in court for status conferences and settlement
conferences, time for arbitration or mediation (a mandatory
precursor
to trial in some jurisdictions and with some kinds of cases),
and
so
on. All of this normally comes out of the client's
(plaintiff's)
pocket if they win (judgement) or settle (settlement), but if
not,
the
lawyer often eats these costs.

But change that to Client loses....cost $20k + $500k
(defendant's
cost)=$520k.

How come the plaintiff's costs are only $20k and defendant's
costs
are
$500k? I assume you are including the defendant's legal fees in
"costs" but not mentioning the plaintiff's legal fees if
defendant
loses. If the plaintiff loses then most likely their own
lawyer
is
out the $20k in costs and the plaintiff (not their lawyer) is
responsible for the $500k in defendant's costs. This is the
same
plaintiff that cannot afford to pay back their own lawyer for
costs.

And won't
most defendants be more willing to fight it out in court if the
cost
of winning is $0."

Why wouldn't they also factor in the cost of losing if they go
to
court? Not only would they have to pay a judgement, but the
plaintiff's costs as well. The proposed loser pays costs
system
does
not only work in one direction. I would also point out it is
not
only plaintiff's who use the cost of litigation as a way of
squeezing
settlements out of the other side. Defendants also use this
leverage
when negotiating with plaintiff's.

A lot of frivolous cases won't even be filed if a lawyer has to
put a
half mil of his
own cash on the line."

Neither will many cases with merit. Remeber it is not always
the
poor
helpless defendant versus greedy trial lawyers and their even
more
greedy clients.

Oh yea, and make them post a bond to cover the defendant's
estimated
expenses
before the case goes to trial.

Why wouldn't the defendant then also have to post a bond to
cover
plaintiff's costs if plaintiff wins?

A better solution all around is to simply get rid of juries in
civil
cases. If juries were rational in their decisions then
defendants
wouldn't be afraid of frivolous suits going to trial and trial
lawyers
(a very imprecise term since it really also includes the lawyers
going
to trial for defendant) won't be as interested in taking the
frivolous
cases because they won't be able to use the leverage of
defendant's
fear of juries. But juries for the most part are not rational.
There
is a joke about defendant's not wanting to be tried by a jury of
12
people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

The alternative to juries could be a judge or group of judges in
combination with court selected experts of the appropriate
specialties
for the trial. The experts would be chosen by the court so that
they
would not tend to have allegiance to one side or other since
they
wouldn't have to worry about getting future work from one side
or
the
other. The experts could be paid for by the parties equally or
by
the
loser or however else sounds like a good idea.

I am not trying to pick on you Nomen, no one else posted a
response
showing any more knowlege of how the system works. This is
actually a
good example of how our society has become too specialized for
lawsuits with basically unlimited costs to be decided by lay
juries.

I also do not think the loser pays system is a completely bad
idea.
The entire rest of the western world uses it and has for a very
long
time and there aren't any real moves afoot in the other
countries
to
change it. It works as well in countries as different as Sweden
and
Portugal. There's no reason why some version of it wouldn't
work
here. I just think that in order to have an adequate argument
over
making a change there should be some REAL, not anecdotal,
knowledge
of
how the system works now.




On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:50:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
] wrote: