Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash

Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by
attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to trial.
This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of
frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money to
avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such a
lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the
requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling.

A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

Jim

A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

First, it's "loser". If you're any looser with your spelling, people
will brand you a loser.

Second, while a loser pays system sounds attractive for the reasons you
cite, it also has a chilling effect on legitimate suits by
small-resource folks against larger companies, who are more likely to
win at trial simply through outspending on lawyers. That's also a
common tactic - drown the assaulting party in their own legal fees until
they run out of time and money, even before the trial starts. "Loser
pays" doesn't address this, and in fact exacerbates the problem.

This empowers larger companies to take advantage of small fry.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim B" wrote in message
...

Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to
trial.
This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of
frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money
to
avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such
a
lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the
requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling.

A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist
on
a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the
defendants
legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.


An excellent idea. It will never happen.

Jim B wrote:

Most civil lawsuits are settled between the parties without going to trial.
This method is often used by the suing parties lawyers as a method of
frightening the defendant into paying the suing party huge sums of money to
avoid an actual trial. It's a tactic. Often the costs of defending such a
lawsuit, if you take it all the way through a trial, will exceed the
requested pre-trial amount the suing party asks for settling.

A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

Jim



I'm not sure a "looser" should have to pay, the the loser certainly
should! :-)

Matt

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:22:29 -0600, "Jim B"
wrote:

A "looser pays" law would give all parties rushing to sue anybody and
everybody pause to consider the consequences should the defendant insist on
a trial and prevail. The suing party would then have to pay the defendants
legal and other expenses incurred defending himself from the lawsuit. I'd
vote for a looser pays 3x winners expenses.

Most frivolous litigants have no assets and you would never collect in
a loser pays system.

What we need is a 'loser's lawyer pays' system.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Stefan wrote:

Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by
attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

True, but attorneys file the suits and it is the threat of a great
number of suits or a class action suit that causes the settlements. It
is the settlements before at trial occurs that causes the problems as
much as it is the large occasional settlements. Dow-Corning settled in
the implant suits when it wasn't even at fault. That is simply wrong
and is a result of lawyers filing lots of suits that cost a fortune to
defend against. So the lawyers take a lion's share of the blame, but I
agree that judges and juries have their fair share as well along with
the plaintiffs.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dow-Corning settled in
the implant suits when it wasn't even at fault. That is simply wrong
and is a result of lawyers filing lots of suits that cost a fortune to
defend against. So the lawyers take a lion's share of the blame, but I
agree that judges and juries have their fair share as well along with
the plaintiffs.

Matt


Yeah, in the case of the silicone breast implant fiasco, it was a judge
in Alabama, where one of the class actions landed, who unilaterally
decided, despite a lack of medical evidence, that silicone was causing
all kinds of medical problems. That one ignoramus, who essentially set
himself up as an expert in epidemiology, was the cause of huge awards
being distributed. It took some years for the science and analysis to be
done to disprove a connection to all the systemic diseases that award
recipients claimed to have gotten from silicone.

On Mar 3, 10:56 am, Stefan wrote:
Admittedly I don't know much about the US legal system. But to my
knowledge, sentences are still made by judges and juries, not by
attorneys. So blame the judges, juries and maybe the legal system, but
not the attorneay who just try to make the "best" of it.

Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
failed to keep the playing field level...

denny

"Denny" wrote

Stephan, you have a point... The blame does fall onto the shoulder of
the courts (especially the Supreme Court) and the congress which has
failed to keep the playing field level...

At the end of the day the blame falls on the plaintiffs, who are willing to
ignore everything they know about what is fair and just, all in the pursuit
of a fast buck.

Lawyers can do nothing without clients.

BDS