Club Management Issue

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.