Tort Reform

[Drummerviper]

Loser pays sound great, but would hinder some truly deserving litigants.

The McDonald's coffee case, likely the reference above is constantly misstated . The verdict was dramatically reduced, and then settled , even lower. There were also bad burns, and evidence of brewing much higher than the industry.

Get rid of strict liability and change the nature of contingency agreements if you want to make some headway.

[Policy Limits]

Strict liability typically only applies to defective products. Most other torts have a negligence standard.

Contingent fees largely benefit the victim as they get a service up front without having to pay a retainer when they weren't planning for an accident to begin with. We also offer the ability to accept Visa MasterCard and Anerican Express but most clients opt for the contingency. Btw the lawyer only gets paid a % if, not when, he wins the case this way.

[KRATEDISEASE]

. Btw the lawyer only gets paid a % if, not when, he wins the case this way.

Oh boy, here comes the Lawyer bull crap sales talk " we only get paid if we win" !! what bull crap sales talk !!

what attorneys forget to mention is " but we only take cases that we are going to win " where is that disclosure ???

The fact of the matter is that lawyers do not "fight" for their clients. In fact they are nothing more than "settlement brokers". Nothing more.

If they actually "fought" for their clients, then they would take marginal cases , and they do not. Attorneys never take cases that have marginal liability with minor injuries---a situation where someone truly need an attorney to fight for them. How hard is it to fight for someone who is paralyzed from the waist below as a result of an injury ? Not hard at all . The Attorney just has to broker a fair settlement.

Real fights that NO Attorney wants to fight is the case of marginal liability where it is not sure that someone is 100% at fault and where the injury is minor and may be only worth $5G because it is a small injury like a small scar or a small laceration on the arm.

Mr. Policy Limits is still in his mid 30's so if he got out of law school at say 24, then he has been out for 10 years. So this explains why he still believes the sales bull crap that he is spewing. Its not his fault he is repeating the Lawyer talk mantra. If what he repeated was so true there would be no lawyer jokes. I do not hear people repeating Doctor jokes at parties.

I am sure that Mr. Policy limits is a great attorney that I myself would use. Not knocking him. Just exposing the mantra that they teach in law school.

Just do not believe the mantra that they sold him at law school that Attorneys help clients. Attorneys only help themselves. This is why there are lawyer jokes.

And do not call them ATTORNEYS..... they are Liar-yers

Come on all you attorneys, lets fight !! Bring it on !! lets have some intellectual "cage" fighting....

[Policy Limits]

Umm actually I've lost some cases, no one wins 'em all. And try paying to work from litigation visits to experts to staff and payroll. In some cases I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on expert witnesses and years worth of depositions discovery & pre trial procedure. No such thing as no work involved

[Drummerviper]

I think I have a good grip on the cases to which SL applies after 35 years of having tried cases in over 40 states.

On contingency , I have seen case after case where lawyers took their share and ridiculous costs out and left their clients holding the bag , without any consideration of lowering their percentage. It is one of the most abused fee arrangements known to man.

[Granger73]

It comes down to goal comparability. Seldom are the attorney's and the client's the same.

[KRATEDISEASE]

Umm actually I've lost some cases, no one wins 'em all. And try paying to work from litigation visits to experts to staff and payroll. In some cases I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on expert witnesses and years worth of depositions discovery & pre trial procedure. No such thing as no work involved

AH HAH !! already got you onto the floor mat. Now I just need to get you to tap out....

1) loosing cases does not mean that you "fought" for the client. Fighting for the client is appealing the case in a higher court regardless of cost incurred.

2) I never said that Attorneys did not work for their clients. I just said attorneys in general do not "fight" for their clients. I say they are settlement brokers.
Real estate agents also show multiple houses to clients over long periods without a sale and still pay their overhead and advertising costs. So are they fighting for their clients also ? No, they are "Brokers" also getting paid on a "win" or sale.

3) Question/TEST.------- AND DO NOT LIE..... will you accept a case where someone is severely injured and there is NO insurance ? and your only source of payment is taking a property lien ? If you answer yes then I will drive up to meet you in person to shake your hand AND then call you a liar TO YOUR FACE. I have never ever, ever, ever met an attorney that will take a case if there is NO insurance involved. This is because they are settlement brokers, no different than real estate brokers or stock brokers. Brokers only chase sales on commission.

DISCLOSURE- this is NOT a personal attack on Mr. Policy Limits. I am sure he is a fine qualified attorney. This is an attack on the legal Profession as a whole. Please do not read the above and think that Mr. Policy Limits is in anyway anything less than a stellar, well qualified, competent , successful legal counselor.

[Policy Limits]

1.). I always appeal to the Supreme Court. 2.). I fight zealously for each client 3.). I don't take uninsured cases but only because it will be an empty judgment wherein both myself and the Plaintiff can be listed as creditors on a bankruptcy petition & will be wiped out, so it's a waste.

I'm not saying the system is perfect and I'm not speaking for all lawyers. But I can tell you that thousands and thousands of people have benefitted from our work.

- - - Updated - - -

Tap that.

[Policy Limits]

I think I have a good grip on the cases to which SL applies after 35 years of having tried cases in over 40 states.

On contingency , I have seen case after case where lawyers took their share and ridiculous costs out and left their clients holding the bag , without any consideration of lowering their percentage. It is one of the most abused fee arrangements known to man.

Hey what's your practice area? Can we trade garages??

[Drummerviper]

I am a defense lawyer, and I agree that for a plaintiffs' lawyer to take an uninsured case with the hope of satisfying some lien may not only raise expectations of someone who has been through enough , it may in the end also put them in the hole. Sounds noble enough.

[KRATEDISEASE]

1.). I always appeal to the Supreme Court. 2.). I fight zealously for each client 3.). I don't take uninsured cases but only because it will be an empty judgment wherein both myself and the Plaintiff can be listed as creditors on a bankruptcy petition & will be wiped out, so it's a waste.

I'm not saying the system is perfect and I'm not speaking for all lawyers. But I can tell you that thousands and thousands of people have benefitted from our work.

- - - Updated - - -

Tap that.

Tap this bro... you have already conceded and have gone down by saying " I don't take uninsured cases but only because it will be an empty judgment wherein both myself and the Plaintiff can be listed as creditors on a bankruptcy petition & will be wiped out, so it's a waste."

Then you sugar coat it and negate it or neutralize it by stating "But I can tell you that thousands and thousands of people have benefitted from our work. "

You are not even fighting me !! and you say that attorneys fight for their clients ? point proven

[KRATEDISEASE]

I am a defense lawyer, and I agree that for a plaintiffs' lawyer to take an uninsured case with the hope of satisfying some lien may not only raise expectations of someone who has been through enough , it may in the end also put them in the hole. Sounds noble enough.

I am a street corner un-schooled "lawyer". My advise is always free and is usually dispensed while standing on a milk crate on the corner of a busy street.

Have never lost a case/debate against any attorney yet.

Usually its the client that complains about his or her attorney's lack of zest.

Funny, every attorney I have met and conversed with or have legal matters with walks away complaining about my zealous pursuit of my own legal interests.


Like I said before, the comedians I have hired have always out done the attorneys in any legal matter, so I hire comedians to represent me.

[Policy Limits]

Convince yourself.

Back to the topic: did u know that most states already have some form of tort reform anyway? In MA you need to clear a threshold of $2 k in medical bills or there's no case. In NY & NJ the threshold is the injury itself; it needs to be disfigurement death loss of a fetus, or total disability. Also most states are no fault with auto claims

[KRATEDISEASE]

Convince yourself.

Back to the topic: did u know that most states already have some form of tort reform anyway? In MA you need to clear a threshold of $2 k in medical bills or there's no case. In NY & NJ the threshold is the injury itself; it needs to be disfigurement death loss of a fetus, or total disability. Also most states are no fault with auto claims

Convincing someone is that act of swaying someone's thoughts. I am not convincing anyone because I am not looking to sway anyone's thoughts.

I am presenting factual evidence which in itself will be judged by those who read it. Nothing more.

I am sorry counselor, but what does threshold have to do with not wanting pursue a case without insurance ? are YOU ( my finger pointing at you ) looking to sway/convince the reading audience away from the core debate here by stating that threshold some how relates as to why you will not take a case where a child is paralyzed waist down even though liability is established at 100% BECAUSE there is no insurance and " it will be an empty judgment wherein both myself and the Plaintiff can be ( possibly) listed as creditors on a bankruptcy petition & will be wiped out, so it's a waste." and YOU say this because you already somehow know that there will be a bankruptcy of the lien in the future ?
ha ha , if you know that there will be a bankruptcy on your lien for this poor child then can you please tell me what the weather will be like in Australia next year on January 21st 2015 ? and please , if you are so good at predicting future events, please tell me what stock will absolutely out perform the markets over the next 3 years.

You are already turning blue from me choking you and I have your leg in a lock, I do not want to snap you leg.

better tap out before you get injured......heh he

[99RT10]

Loser pays sound great, but would hinder some truly deserving litigants.

.

I don't really care. If they have a strong case, a lawyer will take it. If they lose, the lawyer will have to bear some of the responsibility of the loss. It is the only way to get a handle on all the scum sucking lawsuits filed by the scu............ I mean lawyers.

[Sybil TF]

The wheels of justice turn slowly unfortunately. Did you get interest at least? Prejudgment interest is 12% in my state per year, and it starts running from the date of the wrong, not the date of the suit. 1% per month is pretty good when most banks don't pay that annually

Yes I got paid interest. 9% I believe.

[Policy Limits]

I think I have a good grip on the cases to which SL applies after 35 years of having tried cases in over 40 states.

On contingency , I have seen case after case where lawyers took their share and ridiculous costs out and left their clients holding the bag , without any consideration of lowering their percentage. It is one of the most abused fee arrangements known to man.

I usually waive at least some prosecution costs and I either reduce my percentage on the disbursement sheet or have likely done some form of Pro Bono work on unrelated legal matters as the claim was pending. Pro Bono work keeps the client satisfied and can be rewarding for the lawyer even if its not in a financial or economic sense.

[MI Viper]

Nobody likes lawyers until they need 1, a GOOD 1! And I have a very good 1 who is worth his weight in Gold, (and he is a BIG guy, played Linebacker at Vanderbilt). The frivlous lawsuits are hurting the congested court system in the US, and the LESS Gov't involvement in ANYTHING is a good thing....
MI V.

[Sybil TF]

Nobody likes lawyers until they need 1, a GOOD 1! And I have a very good 1 who is worth his weight in Gold, (and he is a BIG guy, played Linebacker at Vanderbilt). The frivlous lawsuits are hurting the congested court system in the US, and the LESS Gov't involvement in ANYTHING is a good thing....
MI V.

Another problem is judges. My court case got delayed by 6 months because my original judge died of a drug overdose. A lot of them are liberal and make unjust decisions.

[Policy Limits]

Lots of Judges are fruit of the political tree and have never practiced in their life. In my state they are appointed for life so good luck getting rid of a bad one. And the job used to be a big scam: up until the 90's they paid zero into the pension system and then turned around and retired at a rate of 100%. Taxpayers are fed up.

There are good ones of course; and i am a fan of utilizing alternative dispute resolution in the form of Arbitration or Mediation on cases.

[whitebeard]

I keep a lawyer on retainer just for the insane chance someone is going to sue over something. The cost is easier than most to handle and in long run it protects me.

\As far as reform, yes we need to stop allowing the frivolous lawsuits. There has to be some logic applied when a case is brought forth. I.E. Nike is being sued because the person wearing them did not realize that there is a danger in beating someone with them.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...er-air-jordans

This is one suit that needs to never been filed and the clerk who did should have the ability to say no. Second case that I think should be filed is against individuals like Barney Frank or John Kerry if their actions as a member of government benefited their personal income in any way. This is something that was reported prior, but of late has been swept under the rug. I feel this is the reason term limits are needed badly.