Just an Idea

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
Most of all these BS lawsuits out there against industies are powered not by damaged victims... but by money hungry shark-like lawyers.
Not all lawyers are bad - I know several that are good and decent honorable men... But I also know some who are in a nutshell - scum of the earth.
The lawsuits against Philip Morris and the other companies are all about money. The greedy state people and the lawyers are the ones who are going to get almost every penny out of the damages or settlements.
I propose a simple little idea:
Reasonable Limits -
Lawers should be paid BY THE HOUR at similar pay scales as police officers, or other public servants - and they should have no personal financial interest in the outcome... maybe a 10% bonus on his salaried time if the lawyer's clients win.
People seeking damages should only be allowed to seek a resonable award. 3 million because the idiot spilled hot coffee on himself? Maybe 6 bucks for a tube of ointment... Guy smokes all his life and gets cancer for it? instead of 18 million - how about 100 K for the medical bills, and a nice card... "Thanks for the business all these years!"
If you buy a car - and the cars cant stop due to a factory defect - that is different. Medical bills and paying for the damages to the vehicles...
I dont believe in the "mental anguish" damages and all the other crap. Hey - Life IS stress people - Earth is Hell, and we are all in it... And you wussies need to get over it. Life aint fair - and you cant make your self rich by crying foul.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
How about if, when a municipality sues a private entity, the city has to rely on the public defenders that they give to the criminals. The city has lawyers at its disposal. Were I a resident of one of the cities, regardless of the verdict, I'd look into filing some kind of suit against the city for paying out so many tax dollars to these New York bozos when they already have a bunch of lawyers to begin with.
 
The problem with by-the-hour is that some less fortunate individuals would not have the resources to obtain competent representation.

I think one way of curbing some of the ludicrous lawsuits is to have the loser pay for the entire process. This idea, however, has been shot down time and again. The reason I think is because (they say) it would deter people with plausable claims from suing. Personally, I think its a bunch of lawyers affraid of losing thier high paying jobs.

- Ron V.

------------------
 
How about the idea of Socialized legal services. Using the model of Socialized Medicine espoused by the current First Lady in her ill fated revamp of the Health care system. Attorneys would have to take cases based on some bureaucrat handing them out. They would be paid fixed salaries, not a part of the winnings.

Then our legal system would be like medicine in Canada, everybody would have equal access to basic services but the big cases would be parceled out to lawyers on a waiting list.

The legal profession is bleeding this country dry. Why do we need 70% of the lawyers in the world with less than 10% of the worlds population? Everything we buy, eat or use is "taxed" by the legal system. In other Civilized countries Lawyers are not among the most revered professions. I won't ever get into what they have done to our political system.

My family atorney is a great guy, has helped me out on numerous occasions, but the high rollers and politicians are little more than scam artists.

Geoff Ross

------------------
Damn!...I need more practice!
Pi$$ off the left, register to vote.
 
Lawyers are not among the revered professions on my list.

However, there are those who do serve a legitimate purpose. And those who hold to a high ethical and moral track deserve our respect. While those who do not, deserve our distain.

Unfortunately, most of them seem to fall into the latter catagory.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
FYI. FWIW. ETC.

Most lawyers are indeed paid by the hour. Unless they are required to do pro bono.

Ideally, many would argue that lawyers ARE public servants. Hence the required pro bono work. It varies from state to state.

It is sad but true to an extent that you could buy justice. In that, I mean a deep pocket can go a long way to getting good legal representation. It's not decisive, but it does stacks things more towards your favor. And again, many states try to balance that out by forcing lawyers to do pro bono work.

Civil suits are indeed about money. I mean, how do you arbitrarily measure pain and suffering? A thousand personally signed get well cards? So, the idea of taking money is a way to discipline, maybe even punish. For example, if a company made an unsafe product, and lost a vast amount of money from a subsequent lawsuit, it will take a heavy toll on their business itself. This becomes an incentive for the said company to make their products safe to prevent more monetary loss. I'm not saying this is a good way to go about dealing out justice. Seriously, if you know a more practical way, please say so. Unfortunately, I do not have one.

Lawyers are monitored by their respective state bar associations for unethical legal practices. In other words, if you find a snake in the grass doing something illegal, then find out who your state bar assocation is and file a complaint. Trust me, no state legal body is going to take a black eye to their reputation just because one idiot attorney decided to break the rules. And no lawyers I know of want that kind of heat on their back.

If you feel an attorney's practices are not necessarily illegal, but unethical nonetheless, double check with the association's ethical guidelines. All state bar associations will have their own set of guidelines. If the said attorney's practices fail to follow the guidelines, then you can file a complaint.

Unfortunately, lawyers are professionals like any other. Yes, they are hired guns. So long as you pay them, they'll do pretty much what you ask of them to. And like any other professionals, they are not suppose make any value judgements of their own. They have a job to do like everybody else and it's not always very glamorous like the way Hollywood protrays them. It is unfortunate because this is the part where lawyers get their bad reputation. That's too bad because the mark of a truely good lawyers is one with morals, follow the guidelines and the law, but has the professionalism to get the job done even if the attorney himself or herself disagrees with the client.
 
The problem here is not lawyers, but their cohorts in the legal field, the judges.

It seems that the judges (lawyers themselves) have been allowing claims to be heard that would never have been allowed into court 30 years ago. It seems to me that there used to be a standard of common sense. Lawyers used to tell clients with frivolous claims that they'd be laughed out of court at best or that the lawyer wouldn't file it for fear of being sanctioned for wasting the court's time. Now the standard is that anyone can be sued for anything (except for the government who can decide who it will allow to sue it).

We need to get back to common sense standards as to what kind of conduct is actionable. This can be done in two ways. Our legislators at the state and federal level can write laws reforming the civil tort system and put common sense back or oour judges can start dismissing these frivolous claims with predjudice and sanction those who would bring them before the court.

I am afraid that there is zero chance of either one happening. Our legislators are attorneys for the most part and all the judges are attorneys.

Another disturbing trend is for governments to involve themselves as plaintiffs in these actions. This is usually a way to accomplish objectives through the courts that they cannot reach through the legislative process.
The suit against tobacco was more about shaking down the big corporations for for money then it was about public health. The suits against gun manufacturers are all about putting them out of business or getting them to agree only to do business with them (the governments). I think the big push to allow HMOs to be sued is more about putting the HMOs out of business so the government can step in and socialize medicine (a goal that the couldn't achieve in congress even with a liberal democratic majority in the House of Representatives).

Maybe the only solution is to begin electing non lawyers to office.
Jeff
 
Your definitely right about the Judges working for the attorneys. If you had the opportunity to watch the decisions the judge makes during a civil trial it always adds to the money you are paying the lawyer. Example You have a scheduled hearing and you show up with your 250dollar an hour attorney and his 140 dollar per hour assistant and the 90 dollar an hour para legal and the judge holds up the proceeding 2 hours and then reschedules the hearing till next week. As My attorney says Judges are lawyers who were starving being a lawyer or they wouldn't want to be judges. It has been my personal experience with attorneys that they are double billing leaches that the world would be better off without!!!! If you watch them do depositions and the waste of your money doing them when you tell the
Person being deposed doesn't have the information your attorney wants and he still takes 2 hours for him the paralegal and the recorder. I was involved in a lawsuit that I won after two years and it only cost me $250,000 to win.Thats Justice? I guess I should clarify the remark about attorneys. To say the Ones I have had any dealing with have been leaches.
 
First, go to the Bar Assn. ? They are lawyers and the black eye would come if they gave the guy the boot.
You don't trust LEO to goveren themselves, and rightly so. Why then do we trust Lawyers and Doctors to Decide, when a lowly cretin of a Patient or Client has a valid complaint. Talk about Us vs Them.

I like loser pays I know it will not pass but it's fair, ad to it the Plantiff pays the Defendant half of what he ask the court to award if he loses.
Also a Lawyer found bringing a frivolis suit should be Disbared for 5 years first offense and life on the second offense. That would end alot of "Fishing Expeditions".

[This message has been edited by Raymond VanDerLinden (edited October 24, 1999).]
 
An interesting proposal, George. The last time I pondered this, I thought that the attorney's contingency fee should not exceed 200% of his usual hourly rate, regardless of the size of the award. This would mean that it would not make sense for a busy attorney to pursue any claim that he didn't think he had at least a 50% chance of winning, and it would prevent the attorneys from viewing litigation as a lottery that they get to play without buying a ticket.
It isn't as nearly as strict as your proposal, but it's a start.
It also has _NO_ chance of being implemented. The Democrats belong to the trial lawyers, and they would never permit it.

------------------
TB., NC
rosie.acmecity.com/bebe/6/index.html



[This message has been edited by Tim Burke (edited October 24, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top