![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 ____________________ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |