lawsuit industry report

[BillCA]

Eghad,

Unknown. As my neighbor is a witness and not one of the parties involved, he may never know the answer to your question.

As a reference, my neighbor's brother broke his 3rd & pinky fingers a few years back playing basketball (he fell). Cost of his hospital visit: $2300 which included minor surgery to insert a pin. I figure if similar bills were incurred, six weeks of healing time, lost wages, etc. fairness would say it would be less than $25,000. If we add in "pain and suffering" you might get $5,000.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

? for STAGE 2

Quote:
they used the data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, a consulting firm. Their data has being used for research in grad school. It's considered fairly reliable in academia (finance, economics).

Tort cost being 2-3% of the GDP is something that is quoted by other sources such as Hoover Institute. For example, if you listen to the following debate, you will also hear it.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2934356.html

I don't know if the reputation of other posters on this thread are as sterling as the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, but I would consider the reputation of TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN in higher regards than most people's credentials, including my own.
I'll challenge both their credentials and their motivation. I already illustrated to you that the 3 beefs that they have are patently false. AS far as being used for research in grad school, I'd say that carrys as much weight as most other things used in grad school... not much.

I'll put my experience up against whatever survey or "data" they have. Just because you read it doesn't make it true.

STAGE 2,

1. so how many peer reviewed journals used the data set collected by you? I've lost track of papers that used data collected by TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

2. how many papers and articles at Knowledge@Wharton used the data collected by you?

3. how many books on econometrics and regression analysis used data collected by you? I know of at least one graduate level book on regression analysis which used data set from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Stage 2

The third statement is my personal favorite. Several of the lawyers who won the huge lawsuit against big tobacco were Baylor lawyers (my alma mater) and I've talked with them at length. At trial there were either 3 or 4 lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Now do you honestly think that in a case worth hundreds of millions of dollars there are only going to be 3 or 4 attorneys working on the case? Give me a break. Both sides had armies of attorneys working around the clock.

As far as filing an "original" brief I don't really know what that has to do with anything. Its customary for the lead attorney(s) to file briefs and motions with the court even if they don't actually write it. Unless its something utterly crucial, they usually farm it out to an associate, review it, and slap their name on it. Thats the practice of law.

Let's say there is a $100M award representing 10,000 plaintiffs supported by 20 attorneys (2 trial attorneys and 18 staff attorneys). Let's say the attorneys get 40% of the award and plaintiffs get 60%.

Each plaintiff gets $6000.

20 attorneys who worked on the case get $40M....that works out to $2M/attorney.

The point is that staff attorneys compared to other occupations are getting paid an abnormally large amount of money, even compared to doctors or most other small business owners. You are talking about wages in the range of thousand to tens of thousand of dollars per hour.

That's a lot of money for paperwork for the non-trial attorneys. Actually, it's a lot of money even for trial attorneys.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

STAGE 2, ? no. of Nobel Prize

AS far as being used for research in grad school, I'd say that carrys as much weight as most other things used in grad school... not much.

I'll put my experience up against whatever survey or "data" they have. Just because you read it doesn't make it true.

thank you for your enlightenment. If I may ask, how many Nobel Prize did you receive so far? By your humble post, I'm sure you are a true master and a teacher who would put someone like Markowitz (Nobel laureate in economics science for his seminal paper on Modern Portfolio Theory) to shame.

If you can tell all of us on this board the year and the field in which you received Nobel Prize, I would highly appreciate your kindness, your august sir.

Waiting with breatheless anticipation...


--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Free market capitalism mandates only one thing...profits. If a capitalist can get away with exploiting a worker or selling shoddy products, o well.

Government, as expressed by the people, limits the power of capitalits to explot workers.

The legal system takes care of shoddy products.

Sorry, it depends on the market.

1. In developed country like U.S. or Western Europe, if a company lies or sells shoddy products at high price, they lose reputation and hurt their company stock price and lose future sales (assuming competitive market). This has being observed over and over again in various markets in U.S.

You can see this in local market. If a restaurant had an outbreak of food poisoning or even a rumour about it, they will lose sales. You can see it in national market when consumer complaint becomes widely known and company loses sale and either reform or close down that particular product line.

It's being very widely observed and known that hint of litigation by SEC or dishonesty by public company result in rapid decrease in company stock price.

The only exception is environmental contamination. This is because consumers doesn't seem to care enough if the company contaminated the environment or not.

2. Litigation within the industry results in less industry growth (less newer products, higher price than otherwise) and decreased employment (less workers).

You see, if a company screws a customer, that company loses portion of future sales via loss of reputation.

3. Workers are selling their labor to companies. As far as I know, we no longer have indentured servitude in U.S. The only unjust case is when worker/employer contract is not transparent. The other unjust case is closed union system...this results in restricting the supply of workers and preventing more people from entering that field than otherwise.

Some of this is covered in the book "Freedomnomics" by Lott and/or covered in various research literature in finance and economic.

--John

 

[STAGE 2]

STAGE 2,

1. so how many peer reviewed journals used the data set collected by you? I've lost track of papers that used data collected by TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

2. how many papers and articles at Knowledge@Wharton used the data collected by you?

3. how many books on econometrics and regression analysis used data collected by you? I know of at least one graduate level book on regression analysis which used data set from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

I'm not quite sure what data set you are speaking of. What Ido know is that what you posted was full of half truths, distortions and blatant falsehoods. I have my own issues with our legal system, but I know a hit piece when I see one and this is such a piece.

As far as things like "regression analysis" and "econometrics", I've never been very impressed by academics who like to use big words. What does impress me is the opinion of someone who actually is involved in what they are talking about as opposed to some academic who is so far removed from the topic that they can't even bother to produce a neutral piece.

Let's say there is a $100M award representing 10,000 plaintiffs supported by 20 attorneys (2 trial attorneys and 18 staff attorneys). Let's say the attorneys get 40% of the award and plaintiffs get 60%.

Each plaintiff gets $6000.

20 attorneys who worked on the case get $40M....that works out to $2M/attorney.

The point is that staff attorneys compared to other occupations are getting paid an abnormally large amount of money, even compared to doctors or most other small business owners. You are talking about wages in the range of thousand to tens of thousand of dollars per hour.

That's a lot of money for paperwork for the non-trial attorneys. Actually, it's a lot of money even for trial attorneys.

Ah yes, the evil class action. Here's the bottom line. If the plaintiffs representing the class don't like the fee arangement they are free to draft another agreement or take their case to another lawyer.

As far as the class members, your hypo in incorrect. The main plaintiff will usually recieve a rather large part of the judgment. The other class plaintiffs will usually recieve a very small sum. However they too have the ability to opt out of the class if they don't like this arrangement and are fully notified of their rights and options before the case begins. So what we have is a bunch of people who if they don't opt out, recieve part of the judgment for NOT DOING A SINGLE THING.

As far as the attorneys, in a case such as this, the number of nights with less than 4 hours of sleep is measured in MONTHS not weeks or days. This goes for every attorney, not simply the ones in the courtroom. Quite the contrary, staff attorneys put in as much if not more work than the leads in the case.

Whats even funnier is your break down of the fees. If you honestly think that a partner and his co-chair are going to split a judgment even steven with the first year associate who's been drafting motions, interrogs and taking depos, the please give me their number cause I'd love to send them my resume.

As as aside, you'd be shocked as how important "paperwork" can be in a lawsuit. A single word in something such as the defendants answer can win or lose a case. That you have such a cavalier to things like this show me you have zero experience in the legal world.

thank you for your enlightenment. If I may ask, how many Nobel Prize did you receive so far? By your humble post, I'm sure you are a true master and a teacher who would put someone like Markowitz (Nobel laureate in economics science for his seminal paper on Modern Portfolio Theory) to shame.

If you can tell all of us on this board the year and the field in which you received Nobel Prize, I would highly appreciate your kindness, your august sir.

Waiting with breatheless anticipation...

Jimmy carter won a nobel price too, so that should tell you how much weight that holds with me.

That aside, could you please explain to me how an economist knows squat about law. I'm sure he's a real smart guy, but for the same reason I don't have my accountant (as intelligent as he is) do a valve job, I'm not going to hold out anyone who doesn't have a law degree as a authority on the law.

Everything you've written is about how swell the people who wrote this piece are rather than what they actually wrote. You haven't said anything about the problems I have raised which tells me that in spite of all your awe for this organization you don't have anything else than something you've found in a google search and don't really even understand the issues being argued.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

2 Stage

As far as things like "regression analysis" and "econometrics", I've never been very impressed by academics who like to use big words. What does impress me is the opinion of someone who actually is involved in what they are talking about as opposed to some academic who is so far removed from the topic that they can't even bother to produce a neutral piece.

Regression analysis and econometrics are common tools used by non-academics and academics alike. If you don't use tools like that, it's very hard to distinguish between chances and bias, as well as find out which factors are truly significant.

Quote:
Let's say there is a $100M award representing 10,000 plaintiffs supported by 20 attorneys (2 trial attorneys and 18 staff attorneys). Let's say the attorneys get 40% of the award and plaintiffs get 60%.

Each plaintiff gets $6000.

20 attorneys who worked on the case get $40M....that works out to $2M/attorney.

The point is that staff attorneys compared to other occupations are getting paid an abnormally large amount of money, even compared to doctors or most other small business owners. You are talking about wages in the range of thousand to tens of thousand of dollars per hour.

That's a lot of money for paperwork for the non-trial attorneys. Actually, it's a lot of money even for trial attorneys.
Ah yes, the evil class action. Here's the bottom line. If the plaintiffs representing the class don't like the fee arangement they are free to draft another agreement or take their case to another lawyer.

As far as the class members, your hypo in incorrect. The main plaintiff will usually recieve a rather large part of the judgment. The other class plaintiffs will usually recieve a very small sum. However they too have the ability to opt out of the class if they don't like this arrangement and are fully notified of their rights and options before the case begins. So what we have is a bunch of people who if they don't opt out, recieve part of the judgment for NOT DOING A SINGLE THING.

As far as the attorneys, in a case such as this, the number of nights with less than 4 hours of sleep is measured in MONTHS not weeks or days. This goes for every attorney, not simply the ones in the courtroom. Quite the contrary, staff attorneys put in as much if not more work than the leads in the case.

Whats even funnier is your break down of the fees. If you honestly think that a partner and his co-chair are going to split a judgment even steven with the first year associate who's been drafting motions, interrogs and taking depos, the please give me their number cause I'd love to send them my resume.

As as aside, you'd be shocked as how important "paperwork" can be in a lawsuit. A single word in something such as the defendants answer can win or lose a case. That you have such a cavalier to things like this show me you have zero experience in the legal world.

I've known doctors and small business owners. Their workday is frequently extremely long and stressful.

Here is the main difference:

Doctors and small business owners create positive economic output (more jobs, products, etc.).

Litigation results in less new products, less jobs, and less economic output. This has being found to be true across variety of industries.

I can see CEOs getting paid millions of dollars, but they unlike attorneys, create jobs.

Quote:
thank you for your enlightenment. If I may ask, how many Nobel Prize did you receive so far? By your humble post, I'm sure you are a true master and a teacher who would put someone like Markowitz (Nobel laureate in economics science for his seminal paper on Modern Portfolio Theory) to shame.

If you can tell all of us on this board the year and the field in which you received Nobel Prize, I would highly appreciate your kindness, your august sir.

Waiting with breatheless anticipation...

Jimmy carter won a nobel price too, so that should tell you how much weight that holds with me.

Nobel Prize in finance/economics science is far less political and more practical than Nobel Peace Prize. That's like saying Nobel Prize in medicine is in the same league as Nobel Peace Prize. For example, Markowitz's work is used in Wall St. today in managing probably very large amount of money.

That aside, could you please explain to me how an economist knows squat about law. I'm sure he's a real smart guy, but for the same reason I don't have my accountant (as intelligent as he is) do a valve job, I'm not going to hold out anyone who doesn't have a law degree as a authority on the law.

Everything you've written is about how swell the people who wrote this piece are rather than what they actually wrote. You haven't said anything about the problems I have raised which tells me that in spite of all your awe for this organization you don't have anything else than something you've found in a google search and don't really even understand the issues being argued.

Cost of tort and product litigation are one of many issues that have being studied in the area of finance and economic. Here's a sample paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226587

For example, if you get cross sectional data across wide variety of industry which includes product litigation information, you can create a mathematical model on effect of litigation on industry. Most probably, some techniques from econometric will be used.

Substantial number of people at Hoovers Institue and Cato Institute have economics background, and these people do write about tort reform. Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams are economists.

The field of public choice covers this area to some extent. I have being studying it for number of years.

So how does your credential compare to TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN whose data is used by business and academia alike?

So how does your credential compare to Milton Friedman (Nobel laureate for his work in monetary economics) or to Markowitz(Nobel laureate) since academic research is "not worth much"?

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

STAGE 2, how about John R. Lott?

That aside, could you please explain to me how an economist knows squat about law. I'm sure he's a real smart guy, but for the same reason I don't have my accountant (as intelligent as he is) do a valve job, I'm not going to hold out anyone who doesn't have a law degree as a authority on the law.

In Freedomnomics, John Lott who is an economist writes about law.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when a company is sued, why very often, that company's stock prices go down.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when a company spends large amount of money in legal costs, hiring goes down for everybody except the lawyers.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when funds allocated for new products are eliminated due to legal cost, that new products will not be coming because of cut-back.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that putting all those warnings and product safety features that may not be desired by everybody actually raises the cost of the product for everybody.

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

STAGE 2, Trial Lawyers, inc. report

used data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

Data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN is widely used in business and academia alike. Even articles/papers from Wharton have used it.

TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN is a consulting firm which does data collection and analysis.

I like the Trial Lawyers, Inc. report because it's readable unlike research papers that I'm accustomed to reading.

--John

 

[STAGE 2]

Regression analysis and econometrics are common tools used by non-academics and academics alike. If you don't use tools like that, it's very hard to distinguish between chances and bias, as well as find out which factors are truly significant.

Yet they have no bearing on whether a lawsuit is valid. If the suit is valid, what in the world does economics have to do with it.

I've known doctors and small business owners. Their workday is frequently extremely long and stressful.

Here is the main difference:

Doctors and small business owners create positive economic output (more jobs, products, etc.).

Litigation results in less new products, less jobs, and less economic output. This has being found to be true across variety of industries.

I can see CEOs getting paid millions of dollars, but they unlike attorneys, create jobs.

Not only is that a pure opinion, its a ridiculous one at that. Last time I checked, doctors were in the business of treating patients. They themselves are the product. The don't create anything except (hopefully) healthier people.

As far litigation resulting in less jobs, this too has no basis in fact. I have no doubt that litigation has resulted in the firing of people and the ending of companies, but I also have no doubt that litigation has created new markets and new companies in response to changing law.

And as far as attorneys not creating jobs, I can't believe you said that. Attorneys have the ability to create jobs out of thin air. Ever heard of a private firm?

Again however, none of this has anything to do with the validity of lawsuits. Even if I were to take everything you just said as truth, that has no bearing on whether real legitimate lawsuits are being filed.

Nobel Prize in finance/economics science is far less political and more practical than Nobel Peace Prize. That's like saying Nobel Prize in medicine is in the same league as Nobel Peace Prize. For example, Markowitz's work is used in Wall St. today in managing probably very large amount of money.

And yet he's still an economist which has no bearing on the legal system.

Cost of tort and product litigation are one of many issues that have being studied in the area of finance and economic. Here's a sample paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=226587

For example, if you get cross sectional data across wide variety of industry which includes product litigation information, you can create a mathematical model on effect of litigation on industry. Most probably, some techniques from econometric will be used.

Substantial number of people at Hoovers Institue and Cato Institute have economics background, and these people do write about tort reform. Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams are economists.

The field of public choice covers this area to some extent. I have being studying it for number of years.

Thats great. However its also largely irrelevant. If we carried your analysis over to the field of medicine, we would be deciding which procedures to perform solely based on cost. That means no more open heart surgery. This would be and is ridiculous. We don't make decisions solely based on cost, we make decisions based on importance. The same applies to the legal system.

So how does your credential compare to TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN whose data is used by business and academia alike?

So how does your credential compare to Milton Friedman (Nobel laureate for his work in monetary economics) or to Markowitz(Nobel laureate) since academic research is "not worth much"?

In the legal arena, my credentials are far more reputable than Mr. Freidman's. Namely because he has no credentials.

As far as tillinghast goes, if you give me 10 different consulting firms, I can show you 10 different forms of data. Your piece is so fraught with problems that it made me laugh out loud. The hypothetical situations you have given are also an impossibility. If you've been studying this stuff for years then you should know the basics of a class of a class action suit and how fee arrangements work. However from what you previously posted, you've shown you don't have the foggiest idea.

But lets put Mr. Friedman aside for a second. What exactly are your legal qualifications? Ever tried a case? Ever represented a client? Do you even have a law degree?

In Freedomnomics, John Lott who is an economist writes about law.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when a company is sued, why very often, that company's stock prices go down.

Nope, but that says nothing about why the company was sued. If a corp is caught dumping toxic waste and gets sued I guarantee you that their stock will go down. Are you suggesting that their shouldn'e be a lawsuit?

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when a company spends large amount of money in legal costs, hiring goes down for everybody except the lawyers.

See above.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that when funds allocated for new products are eliminated due to legal cost, that new products will not be coming because of cut-back.

So what. Show me where the law says that companies have a right to have funds for R&D. If you have a business and place products into the stream of commerce then you have assumed the risk of litigation. Thats life.

Again, as I illustrated above, looking at the economic side says nothing about the suit and its validity.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that putting all those warnings and product safety features that may not be desired by everybody actually raises the cost of the product for everybody.

And in some cases it saves the consumer money because it protects a company from being sued, or al least prevents a judgment.


Again in all of this you are missing the point. I have issues with the legal system. We have grown too litigious in our society. That doesn't mean however that every lawsuit isn't valid and that the courts are the proper place for some disputes.

My point is that there won't be any solution reached by using the information in the piece in your original post because its mostly false. That hasn't changed and you haven't said anything to the contrary.

used data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN.

Data from TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN is widely used in business and academia alike. Even articles/papers from Wharton have used it.

TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN is a consulting firm which does data collection and analysis.

I like the Trial Lawyers, Inc. report because it's readable unlike research papers that I'm accustomed to reading.

And not only are they capable of being wrong, their data isn't applicable here. Looking solely at the economic effects of lawsuits doesn't have anything to with their validity.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

STAGE 2, how about an Emory University law professor?

Quote:
I've known doctors and small business owners. Their workday is frequently extremely long and stressful.

Here is the main difference:

Doctors and small business owners create positive economic output (more jobs, products, etc.).

Litigation results in less new products, less jobs, and less economic output. This has being found to be true across variety of industries.

I can see CEOs getting paid millions of dollars, but they unlike attorneys, create jobs.

Not only is that a pure opinion, its a ridiculous one at that. Last time I checked, doctors were in the business of treating patients. They themselves are the product. The don't create anything except (hopefully) healthier people.

As far litigation resulting in less jobs, this too has no basis in fact. I have no doubt that litigation has resulted in the firing of people and the ending of companies, but I also have no doubt that litigation has created new markets and new companies in response to changing law.

How about Dr. George B. Shepherd, Assistant Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law? His finding was in one of the papers he published:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226587


_____________________________________________________________________________________
The Causes and Effects of Liability Reform: Some Empirical Evidence
THOMAS J. CAMPBELL
Affiliation Unknown
DANIEL P. KESSLER
Stanford Graduate School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
GEORGE B. SHEPHERD
Emory University School of Law January 1995

NBER Working Paper No. W4989


Abstract:
We provide empirical evidence both on the causes and the effects of liability reforms.

Using a newly collected data set of state tort laws and a panel data set containing industry-level data by state for the years 1969-1990, we (1) identify the characteristics of states that are associated with liability reforms and (2) examine whether liability reforms influence productivity and employment. We present two central findings.

First, reductions in liability levels are associated with increases in measured productivity and employment in most industries that we studied.

Second, liability reforms that reduce legal liability are generally positively correlated with measures of political conservatism.
_____________________________________________________________________________________


BTW, it's not opinion. If you at look at financial report, it becomes apparent.

And as far as attorneys not creating jobs, I can't believe you said that. Attorneys have the ability to create jobs out of thin air. Ever heard of a private firm?

Litigation acts like transaction tax and lowers economic output. This is beyond dispute. When a legal firm specializing in industry litigation expands, the money for that expansion had to have come from some industrial corporation.

That corporation now has less money to create new products and hire new people to expand.

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

STAGE 2, peer reviewed journal

In the legal arena, my credentials are far more reputable than Mr. Freidman's. Namely because he has no credentials.

As far as tillinghast goes, if you give me 10 different consulting firms, I can show you 10 different forms of data. Your piece is so fraught with problems that it made me laugh out loud. The hypothetical situations you have given are also an impossibility. If you've been studying this stuff for years then you should know the basics of a class of a class action suit and how fee arrangements work. However from what you previously posted, you've shown you don't have the foggiest idea.

There is a mechanism in peer reviewed journal which corrects erroneous claim.

Supposed you wrote a paper in Journal of Finance and claimed that high degree of litigation had no impact on industry growth and employment, and in fact, according to data you collected resulted in more product innovation and increased employment.

People who read your paper are going to analyze your claim very thoroughly because it goes counter to everything one normally learns about finance.

Data collected by TILLINGHAST is used in peer reviewed journals (in fact, I've lost track of number of papers which used it).

Economic impact of litigation is widely studied by economists and finance people.

I don't need a law degree to study economic impact of litigation.

--John

 

[revjen45]

Lawyers in the legislature is a violation of the separation of powers. They are officers of the court and should not be allowed to write their own meal tickets in the legislative branch. Lawyers should be banned from the practice of Law while they are legislators, and for the time they were legislators after they are removed by election or retire. Voting for a lawyer is like letting a tapeworm tell you what to eat.

 

[STAGE 2]

First, reductions in liability levels are associated with increases in measured productivity and employment in most industries that we studied.

Second, liability reforms that reduce legal liability are generally positively correlated with measures of political conservatism.

Lets see, if we reduce the level of responsibility that a corporation has, then profits are going to go up. Now thats a revolutionary concept. So I guess lakes are perfectly acceptable for toxic waste, because thats the argument you are making.

You economic studies have no way of separating proper lawsuits from improper lawsuits. Any restrictions are going to cost businesses. Are you suggesting that we have no regulation or accountability for anything? Ford should be able to make the pinto again?

Litigation acts like transaction tax and lowers economic output. This is beyond dispute. When a legal firm specializing in industry litigation expands, the money for that expansion had to have come from some industrial corporation.

That corporation now has less money to create new products and hire new people to expand.

You've got 3 things all jumbled into one here.

First, litigation may lower economic output of a particular corporation. This is entirely possible and has happened. However this 1) does not address whether or not the company deserved to be sued and 2) ignores the possibility of a new market opening up in response to the lawsuit and any subsequent law, which has happened.

Second, it is not the case that law firms expand in response to judgments won. The size of a law firm has nothing to do with how many judgments are won and everything to do with what type of litigation they are engaged in as well as who the partners are. If your theory was correct, the plaintiffs firms should be huge, when in fact it is the other way around. Defense firms typically employ anywhere from 50 -300 attorneys. Plaintiffs firms however are much smaller having anywhere from 5-15 attorneys.

Finally, while it is true that after paying a judgment, a corp has less money, this AGAIN has nothing to do with the validity of the suit.

There is a mechanism in peer reviewed journal which corrects erroneous claim.

Supposed you wrote a paper in Journal of Finance and claimed that high degree of litigation had no impact on industry growth and employment, and in fact, according to data you collected resulted in more product innovation and increased employment.

People who read your paper are going to analyze your claim very thoroughly because it goes counter to everything one normally learns about finance.

Data collected by TILLINGHAST is used in peer reviewed journals (in fact, I've lost track of number of papers which used it).

Economic impact of litigation is widely studied by economists and finance people.

Again thats great, but it has nothing to do with the law. You are asking the wrong people to find solution because even if what they discovered was a problem, these folks know nothing about the legal system, how it works, or even where to begin.

Your premise is that lawsuits decrease productivity. No one here is disagreeing with that. What you are ignoring is the lives that are saved and the people that are prevented from being injured because of the lawsuits.

XYZ Corp may have to pay out a huge judgement because it used asbestos in building an apartment, but is it not better that they stop using the stuff so people dont die rather than have more people croak so productivity can continue?

I don't need a law degree to study economic impact of litigation.

I'll take that as a no. And you're right, you don't need a law degree to study economic impacts of litigation. But don't sit there and tell me what needs to be corrected, or that its even a problem, because you aren't qualified to do so.

Thats the problem with all of your posts. You aren't merely illustrating the economic impact, you are presenting the point of view that is bad and by inference lawsuits are bad, when you have no experience with the legal system.

Its kinda like the people who pass gun laws who know nothing about guns. They have volumes of "peer reviewed" data but they have no understanding of crime or firearms.

 

[STAGE 2]

Lawyers in the legislature is a violation of the separation of powers. They are officers of the court and should not be allowed to write their own meal tickets in the legislative branch. Lawyers should be banned from the practice of Law while they are legislators, and for the time they were legislators after they are removed by election or retire. Voting for a lawyer is like letting a tapeworm tell you what to eat.

Then I expect farmers to abstain from anything dealing with agriculture, business owners abstaining from voting on anything dealing with business regulation, doctors abstaining from voting on medical reforms. See how dumb this is sounding.