Club Management Issue

The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead, it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard, and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid of
the bad ones.




"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Dan Thompson wrote:
Now, how are you going to pay your lawyer in that lawsuit? Job
prospects
for quadraplegics are pretty dismal.

First, your presuming I'm broke to begin with and that my
income stops with the accident. Neither is necessarily
true. The argument for "increasing access to the courts"
is commonly used to rationalize contingency fees. Does
this increase in suits result in a net-net greater good
for society? I don't think so.

While, on one hand contingency allows someone with little
money to file a suit and possible receive a huge award, on
the other, *someone else* is paying that award whether it
is reasonable or not. How can a jury determine the
"appropriate" punitive damage amount? These costs are
passed on to society. Does society in the U.S. benefit
more from this trade off than in Japan or England?

I'm not an expert on this but I think the crimes of
"maintenance" and "champerty" went back to biblical times.
Contingency seems to be the combination of these two.
If not eliminated perhaps Contingency should be limited to
"maintenance" by allowing the lawyer to recover his costs
from the spoils but not profit from them (champerty). A
slippery slope to be on though...

And that's great you like the loser pays theory. What if you lose?
What if
the product wasn't defective after all? How are you (the loser) going
to
pay? What if, at the end, you can't pay?

I think you more eloquently state my argument than me.
Clearly, as done in much of the rest of the world, the
prospective plaintiff had to consider a potential down
side as well as a possible up side then a better balance
would be achieved.

Should you be required to prove you could pay if you lost, before you
even were allowed to file a lawsuit?

Interesting question. In most states you have to prove
you have insurance or deep pockets to license a car
because you are creating a potential liability by putting
that car on the road. When you file a suit you create a
potential liability as well.

But, my position depends on more personal responsibility
that most Americans have the stomach for so I doubt things
will change. Fewer and fewer companies will make risky
products (like vacuum pumps) and your daughter may not
have access to a doctor to deliver her child.

Dude wrote:
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal protection.

Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider
excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and*
most importantly, impose "loser pays."

What good for the goose is good for the gander...if a
lawyer expects to profit from 1/3 of the spoils when he
wins then he should pay 1/3 of the other sides costs if he
loses.

The point is to build a natural check into what is now a
run-a-way system not to preclude the really injured from
recourse.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own.

I agree. There seems to be no incentive for them to do so.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message


Ok, how about this, keep contingency fees but consider
excluding punitive damages from the fee calculation *and*
most importantly, impose "loser pays."


What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public
fund" that benefits society at large.

I'm not so upset about the idea of contingency as much as I am about a jury
awarding $40M to somebody too stupid to realize the coffee is hot.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the "bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other "public
fund" that benefits society at large.


Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
John T wrote:

What about "winner does not receive punitive damages"? Contingency is
still
there, the truly wronged are made as right as money can make them, the
"bad
guys" are still punished, but the courts are not treated as the lottery
they
sometimes seem to be. The punitive awards in this scenario would go to
a)
the general fund; b) a designated "victims' fund"; or c) some other
"public
fund" that benefits society at large.


Good idea; why not go a bit further and eliminate
punitive damages? Today their primary purpose is lawyer
enrichment. Since the purported intent is to deter bad
companies from making dangerous products why not simply
leave this to criminal courts? In this way the injured is
paid for their actual losses and


the party causing the
injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell mate.

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

Doug Carter wrote:

the party causing the injury faces the possibility of being Martha's cell
mate.

Dave Stadt replied:

I would gladly accept the death penalty over a month in a cell with Martha.

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Yeah, I'd rather kill her too, but I don't think that's an option... ;-)

Gee, that seems a little harsh for lying to a government
lawyer.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The problem with contingency fees is not that they are a bad idea, it is
that they are abused. They are still necessary to assure equal
protection.

The Bar does not live up to its high calling to police its own. Instead,
it
handcuffs itself as if it had no care or concern for the good of anything
or
anyone other than lawyers. Lawyers should be held to a higher standard,
and
their licenses more easily revoked. If the Bars are going to maintain a
monopoly, they should be forced to do a better job. Unfortunately, all
the
legislatures and courts are full of Bar members, so don't hold your
breath.

Our judges are no longer empowered to be judges. They are too hamstrung
by
the legislature (who are rightly upset due to judicial activism). In my
opinion, a good judge should have more power to tell a lawyer to take his
ridiculous motions and suits and stick them where they belong.
Unfotunately, that is no longer the case in this country. Due to the
system's inability to weed out or remove bad judges, the whole thing has
gone haywire.

What we really need to figure out is how to get better judges and get rid
of
the bad ones.

Judges are all members of the ABA, too.