"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

No problem. We disagree.
Dudley Henriques

OK, but do you mind if I ask how you would fix it? I'll
tell you how I'd approach it. I'd look at bad decisions and
the applicable law. If the case was correctly decided,
according to the law, then I'd change the law. If it was
incorrectly decided, then I'd try to figure out how we can
get better decisions.

How would you approach it? Would you prohibit people from
hiring attorneys? Try to instill stronger ethics in
attorneys or what? Prohibit lawsuits entirely? I'm
genuinely interested as to what you think would help.
--


Right now there is little down side for an attorney or client to take a case
on a contingency basis.The client isn't out any money if they don't win. The
attorney's time spent on unsuccessful cases is just the cost of doing
business and in many if not most cases they can settle for something even
when they really don't think they can win in court.

There needs to be something there that costs the attorney and the client in
cases where there really isn't a case. How about three different rulings a
jury could make in any given case.

1. Guilty- Claimant wins.
2. Not Guilty- Claimant loses
3. This is a silly ass suit- Claimant and their lawyer pays 3x defense cost.