1 Firstish.
Glad to be on a new, non-smelly thread!

2 Anyone mentioned that Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure?

3 Another reason to support Perry,

4 FWIW, when people talk about trial lawyers in this, they really mean plaintiffs lawyers. I know lots of defense attorneys who are trial lawyers that are all for tort reform (and will still have plenty of legitimate business with it.)

5 While the instinct is a good one and gives you a sense of his approach to how the law should work, it's not clear to me if it's really an issue that plays at the national level.

Most folks only know this issue at the "maybe he can put a stop to all of these absurd lawsuits and outrageous awards" level, and that is enough.  It is a winner.

6 John Coale, a former trial lawyer who has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats over the years

And unless Perry was the nominee, would somehow be voting for the Republican. Sure he would. This is the problem with his sort of complaint: these guys are already hard core Democrat supporters, they weren't going to vote for the Republican anyway.

7 One of the 1st lessons I learned when I got into the Real World, working for a living, was "Vote your wallet".  Been with me ever since.

8 And let's be specific, it is plaintiffs' trial lawyers who oppose Perry, not other types of trial lawyers. Although, come to think of it, if you cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits you reduce the fees paid to defense lawyers as well. But, still mainly contingent fee trial lawyers oppose Perry. Not suprising since the plaintiffs trial lawyers have always supported democrats.

9 It's one of many aspects of his governership that he has in his kit bag.  All people really have to do is look at the relative prosperity of Texas.  'Nuff said.

10 "The governor has pushed through a string of tort reform laws, including a 2003 measure putting a monetary cap on non-economic damage awards."

Curtis' Mom hardest hit...

11 Being able to say 'Lawyers oppose me' is a good thing.

12 My former Neighbor, the Iranian cardiologist, paid over 125k a year in malpractice insurance. I thought he was lying. Come to find out, that was a low figure.

13 "And let's be specific, it is plaintiffs' trial lawyers who oppose Perry, not other types of trial lawyers." What do these ambulance chasers think they're going to be doing if Obamacare ever gets rolled out? Could it be that they are confident in their abilities to squeeze blood from a stone?

14 The trial lawyers have always been in for the Dems. That is why every law the Dems write has something in it to make it easy to sue.

But I has always heard Alabama was the trial lawyer paradise for awards and CA was the paradise for shear numbers.

15

There are a few conservative plaintiff's lawyers, don't forget. 

I think we forget that one of the core defenses against tyranny is the jury box.  Juries aren't stupid.  They punish what needs to be punished. 

Can the jury get things wrong?  Sure. 

But the "hot coffee" case is a perfect example:  the coffee wasn't just hot, it was SCALDING at 195* or so.  McD's brewed and kept it that way to eke the most coffee flavor out of the beans, the woman who got the crappy cup was an elderly woman, and the burns were so bad that she needed extensive skin grafting afterward. 

What got the punitive damages?  It was far from the first time this type of cup and the scalding coffee had hurt people.

People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

16

My former Neighbor, the Iranian cardiologist, paid over 125k a year in malpractice insurance. I thought he was lying. Come to find out, that was a low figure.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at August 22, 2011 12:28 PM (ZDUD4)

That is a low figure.  Obstetricians and Anesthesiologists pay double that easy, sometimes more depending on the market.

17 Tort reform is a cornerstone of real healthcare reform, as opposed to the socialist crap included in Obamacare.

18 If Perry’s the nominee, the trial lawyers will come out of the woodwork to support Obama, where I don’t know that they would now,” he predicted. “Most of the guys I know don’t like [Obama], think he’s screwed up the economy or taken Bush’s bad economy and made it worse. But when your livelihood, your money’s on the line, it concentrates the mind.”

See, this is rather revealing. The concern isn't whether Perry's changes are good or bad for Texans, but merely that they are bad for trial lawyers.

19 Lawyers are fucking parasites^*

_{*myself excluded of course}

20
People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 12:31 PM (UaxA0)

See, that's what I always said about presidential decrees.

Oh, and letting all the illegals stay? You are welcome.

21 A couple of O/Ts..

1)   Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure..

And

2)  Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush today..

22 I'm a recent Cal bar member (but not a practicing attorney yet).  I say the trail lawyers have been part of the problem so good on Perry.  Nobody is sympathetic to lawyers so I imagine this would be a popular position. 

23 I clerked for a Fresno law firm after my 2nd year of law school. My first assignment was assisting a partner who was defending a doctor in a med-mal case. The plaintiff was Hmong, a sizable ethnic group in Fresno, who refused to wear a sling for her broken arm as prescribed by the doctor which, of course, led to deformation of the arm. She preferred the old country medicine, rubbing bat wings on her arm. I remember thinking there was some stupid, starving lawyer who filed that piece of crap. Of course, it cost quite a bit, I am sure, to defend that case.

24 2)  Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush today..

Posted by: Dave C at August 22, 2011 12:34 PM (vYdFh)

And at the top of the hour, Mark Belling will step in as guest host to the guest host to interview the guest host about his new book.

Too funny listening to Steyn explain that.

25 I said this in the last post, but it is more applicable   here.  I  really like the fact that Perry aims his fire at issues and defeating Obama.  The other candidates-especially Huntsman, Pawlenty and Santorem seem to aim more towards the other candidates than Obama or the issues.  Since the media aims mostly at Perry, when our candidates do too, it seems like piling on, and they make themselves look weak and petty.

26 I think a few ad spots highlighting John Edwards as the quintessential poster boy for trial/plaintiff lawyering should do more than enough to "sweep the leg" out from under these bastards.

27 "Curtis' Mom hardest hit slapped..."

Just funnier that way.  And by a white politician!

28 The trial lawyers have always been in for the Dems. That is why every law the Dems write has something in it to make it easy to sue.

Indeed, so if Republicans are smart, they will start taking it to the trial lawyers...and the Hollywierdoes, and the environuts, etc.

We need to stop playing Marquis of Queensberry rules while the Democrats go by the motto "two men enter, one man leaves."

29 Oh, hell. Drew wrote that. It sounded like Ace. I read everything but the tag.

30 But I has always heard Alabama was the trial lawyer paradise for awards and CA was the paradise for shear numbers.

Posted by: Vic at August 22, 2011 12:29 PM (M9Ie6)

What do think motivated Hollywood to make movies and tv series about rich lawyers?  They are the rat-fangs of the big government vampire.  They have to be made to look like they have everyone's best interest at heart.....for a price, of course.  This propaganda machine has been churning for a long time. 

31 29, That sounds like a compliment, good for Drew.

32

She preferred the old country medicine, rubbing bat wings on her arm.


Take your Hu-mong bat wings and get off my goddamned lawn.

33 All these people coming out against Perry... not working out as they hoped, me thinks.

34 I don't remember the numbers, but I saw something recently that said some absurd number of doctors have moved into Texas specifically citing the 2003 tort reform law.

An often overlooked part of that is a "Medical Review Board" made up of Doctors, Lawyers, and Patients' Rights advocates that you have to convince before you can sue for malpractice.  You actually have to prove that you have a legit case for malpractice before it even gets to a courtroom (think of it like a Grand Jury- you don't have to prove your case, just prove that you've actually got a case in the first place).

35 I think we forget that one of the core defenses against tyranny is the jury box.  Juries aren't stupid.  They punish what needs to be punished.

If it was left up to me I would eliminate tort law all together.  The only thing I would do for civil law on torts would be written contracts. Other disputes would be handled like Judge Woptner. Both sides explain their case and the judge rules.No lawyers involved at all.

36 I see this as a good thing.  Trial lawyers are the parasites of the world (see Edwards, John.)

37 I think a few ad spots highlighting John Edwards as the quintessential poster boy for trial/plaintiff lawyering should do more than enough to "sweep the leg" out from under these bastards.

Posted by: Count de Monet at August 22, 2011 12:35 PM (4q5tP)

It is even better (?) then that. John Edwards wasn't just an ambulance chaser. He was a pro-abortion extremist who made his money claiming to speak for unborn children...

38 A couple of O/Ts..

1)   Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure..

This is never off topic.

39 34, I always thought loser pays would take care of most of that crap.

40

What do think motivated Hollywood to make movies and tv series about rich lawyers?  They are the rat-fangs of the big government vampire.  They have to be made to look like they have everyone's best interest at heart.....for a price, of course.  This propaganda machine has been churning for a long time. 

Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 22, 2011 12:38 PM (TyVdY)

They are called boobs Ed!

41 This tort reforms stuff will allow Perry's people to make Obama wear Edwards like an albatross.

42 Sounds more and more that he'll make a fine vp pick for Teh Sarah

43

First... Kill all the lawyers...

Except the ones on here... and of course Obama is a Lawyer, so we can't threaten him... oh and any lawyer who is just a nice guy, or has a family, or likes dogs, or is any type of Politician or is Ethnic, or a Woman, or Gay, or handicaped....

Did I cover all my Legal Hate Speech bases yet?

 

Legal Disclaimer: the Above is satiracal in nature, and is not meant as any type of real threat, Respectfully, Romeo13's Lawyer

44 Lawyers are just frustrated poets.

45 People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 12:31 PM (UaxA0)

That's what the accused rapist said when I represented him..

He got off free.

46 This tort reforms stuff will allow Perry's people to make Obama wear Edwards like an albatross.

I hadn't thought of that, but it's true.  The trial lawyers (esp. plaintiff's lawyers) coming out against Perry makes it look like "A vote for Obama is a vote for John Edwards."

I wonder if Obama's people (he's not smart enough to think of it himself) ever look at these things and think "With friends like these...?"

47 People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 12:31 PM (UaxA0)

Thank you for proving that the practice of law is a protection racket.

Don Corleone couldn't have said it better: "You hate us until you need us."

48 15
Yes, because we all know that when you order hot coffee the first thing you do is put it between your 79 year old legs and take the top off to add cream and sugar.  She was stupid and foolish and we all paid for it.

49 So...what part of "shooting all the lawyers" are they objecting too???

50 43. ***checks list**** cool, the wife is good I really cant replace this one, she's a keeper

51

A large number of doctors did move to Texas as a result of the 2003 law change.  But there's no evidence that tort reform did anything to reduce the cost for people to buy medical/health insurance.  It appears that the doctors and hospitals kept the malpractice premium reductions and didn't pass the savings on to consumers.

And almost all US states have already adopted some type of tort/lawsuit reform:  http://www.atra.org/reforms

52

The image lawyers want you to have of them:  Atticus Finch

The image you should have of them:  Nosferatu/John Kerry/John Edwards

53 Lawyer bashing generally goes the way of Congress bashing. Ask someone what they think of Congress. They will say "Congress sucks". Ask them abot their represenitive and they will say "Well, he's a really good guy".

54 Amishdude, Protection racket? Just take your pittance from the insurance company then.

55 "I wonder if Obama's people (he's not smart enough to think of it himself) ever look at these things and think 'With friends like these...?'" Campaign contributions all spend the same.

56

20
People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.
-----

 Ya know...most people are intelligent enough not to stick a paper/foam cup full of hot coffee...between their legs ...while they're driving.

 At some point, we must take responsibility for our own mistakes and for our own stupidity.

 Under which administration did it become much more expensive for businesses to buy liability insurance...and made it easier for tort lawyers to sue those businesses? (Hint: R.R.)

 

 

 

57 and of course Obama is a Lawyer, so we can't threaten him... oh and any lawyer who is just a nice guy, or has a family, or likes dogs, or is any type of Politician or is Ethnic, or a Woman, or Gay, or handicaped....

His wife was a lawyer..  He's a Constitutional lecturer..  Not a Lawyer Lawyer..

I think your threats against lawyers is safe..

58 Posted by: Jim at August 22, 2011 12:45 PM (YwDKF)

Actually, in the year after tort reform passed, all the major insurance companies had a reduction in rates.  I know- I was still working for BCBSTX at the time.

59

The defense ofteh lawyers in post number #15 looks like a cut n paste. Just sayin'. Did anyone even mention the "hot coffee" case?

Anyway, since legal defense is a Constitutional right, and medical care is not, why doesn't Congress devise a single-payer legal system? There should be no such thking as a famous lawyer.

 

60 53 Lawyer bashing generally goes the way of Congress bashing. Ask someone what they think of Congress. They will say "Congress sucks". Ask them abot their represenitive and they will say "Well, he's a really good guy".

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at August 22, 2011 12:45 PM (ZDUD4)

Hmmmm... and most Congressmen are LAWYERS.... could there be a connection there??

Time to call Freakonomics?

61 Rick Perry is a wimp. Shoot a lawyer in the face then call me.

62

>>>People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

If the only people who used plaintiff's lawyers were people who really need them, then why do you people spend so much time trying to scare up clients? Do you think a plaintiff is too stupid to pick up the phone book?

TV ads for lawyers tell you everything you need to know about our broken tort system.

63 My dad told me once that if you need a lawyer to prove a point against your fellow citizens, then, most likely, your point is wrong.

64 Juries aren't stupid.  Bwhahahahaha.

I give you:

OJ Simpson
Casey Anthony

Oh and theses little gems.

http://tinyurl.com/3p6fpul

65 "He lists tort reform among the core economic proposals of his presidential campaign..." Please tell us more how Perry wishes to impose Texas's tort policy on the other 49 states! Is it the Commerce Clause that would empower such action? Tort reform is not a national issue to be decided by the federal government.

66 Did someone actually just say that juries AREN'T stupid?!?!?!

67 Speaking of lawyers, when is some "well-meaning" lawyer going to sue Rick Perry or his doctors for because he had the temerity of getting a treatment using his own farking cells?

Rick Perry's stem cell surgery worries some doctors

Smell the concern just emanating from this article.  btw, as long as Perry signed all the proper consent forms and was well aware of the risk, what is the problem with this?  I fail to see any legal or even ethical concerns over this.

68 Hey!  Where's Perry?

69 66, It was a misprint, they didn't really mean it.

70 it was SCALDING at 195* or so

Oh, and bullshit.  That defies the laws of physics.  There is no possible way for any piece of equipment that McDonald's uses to make coffee that would make a liquid that hot.

The boiling point of water is 212 degrees Farenheit.

I just got a notice from a filthy stinkin' corrupt lawyer that I might be entitled to a whopping TEN DOLLARS because I signed up for classmates.com once.  Yep.  TEN DOLLARS.  Why the horror that I had to go through, whatever it was.

Here's the deal with the class action lawsuit.  No lawyer should be permitted to make more than the least amount that a member of the class gets.

71 "It appears that the doctors and hospitals kept the malpractice premium reductions and didn't pass the savings on to consumers." Jim, Please show the evidence of this. You are an admitted fabulist. Why should anyone believe anything that you write?

72 @70 Why would that be fair since the lawyer did all the work and risked all the cost of bringing the suit? Seems kinda socialist to me.

73 Glad someone mentioned the class action scam, though $10 sounds like a King's ransom compared to the coupons or whatnot that the settlement is often for.

74
All I need to know about trial lawyers comes from the last time I was up for jury duty.......on a slip-n-fall case (I mean really, how cliche'd can you get?).....against a coffee shop who didn't put out a "floor slippery" sign......on a rainy day when most of the local streets were totally flooded.

But the real clincher was when the lawyer allowed her client to walk into the courtroom wearing high heels.

75 Posted by: mpfs, TPT at August 22, 2011 12:48 PM (iYbLN)

Plural of anecdote != "data"  Just sayin'

Posted by: Crispian at August 22, 2011 12:48 PM (ULTcD)

Inasmuch as there is federal tort law... I'd say he can at least impact that.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 22, 2011 12:49 PM (9hSKh)

Of course it worries some doctors.  If it were widely known that all the things promised by embryonic stem-cells had pretty well already been delivered by adult stem-cells, their research dollars might dry up.

76 Perry has acknowledged it is a state-by-state issue.

I don't think he would try to institute any national level tort reform.. he is just mentioning it as one of his accomplishments.

77 Ask them abot their represenitive and they will say "Well, he's a really good guy".

That must be highly context-specific. I've never heard anyone say it—or even express the mildest satisfaction with any work any lawyer has ever done for them.

"I have to have one or the judge will venge-fuck me, and that one already has all my money, so... Yeah."

78 Tort reform is not a national issue to be decided by the federal government. Posted by: Crispian

Um, who the fuck said it was?

79 Amishdude,

Protection racket?

Just take your pittance from the insurance company then.

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 12:46 PM (Xm1aB)

Rather than taking 2/3rds of a pittance while Don Attorney collects his fee.

At least the mafia tells you that they will ask you to render a service later.  They don't take it off the top.

And, again, it never happens to me.  I'm never the one who goes to court.  I'm always the one who pays.

1/3rd of the House, 1/2 of the Senate, all of the judicial branch.  If you start enforcing anything like an ethics rule (say, no bar license holder can ever have held elective office) or actually dismissing people of ethics violations in anything resembling the rate doctors or even accountants are disciplined, you might get a little sympathy.

And their racket is even better.  Since they lose cases half the time, shouldn't they be afraid of being sued themselves?  Not very often, as it happens.

80 75, Of course it worries some doctors. If it were widely known that all the things promised by embryonic stem-cells had pretty well already been delivered by adult stem-cells, their research dollars might dry up. Let's finish this thought. Where do the research dollars go? Universities.

81 She was stupid and foolish and we all paid for it.

Posted by: mpfs, TPT at August 22, 2011 12:45 PM (iYbLN)

Fucking A; that simpleton crone deserved every fucking thing that happened to her, as would I if I did the dumbass things she did.  Every time somebody tries to "explain" to me "how the system worked" it just gets me more pissed off.

82 68 Hey!  Where's Perry? Posted by: Phineas

Aren't you a little young to be posting on a smart military blog?

83 16

My former Neighbor, the Iranian cardiologist, paid over 125k a year in malpractice insurance. I thought he was lying. Come to find out, that was a low figure.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at August 22, 2011 12:28 PM (ZDUD4)

That is a low figure.  Obstetricians and Anesthesiologists pay double that easy, sometimes more depending on the market.

The truly abusrd part of those figures is the relationship to actual documented malpractice incidents. 90% of malpractice claims are filed on a "lets see what they'll pay to make this go away" basis and has absolutely nothing to do with actual acts or omissions by the practitioner. Physicians are REQUIRED BY LAW to have malpractice insurance policies (covering the prescribed limits by law) but the actual policies always grant the insurance company the right to "settle a claim" regardless of the best interests of the policy holder.

Actual malpractice is less than 1/2 of 1% of all medical practice but the insurance costs, lawsuits and damages awarded total almost 25% of healthcare costs.

Wanna lower healthcare? Then listen to the physicians who have been screaming for the last 30 years for tort and liability reform. Easier said than done since the Insurance Industry funnels about 15% of all healthcare premiums straight into political action committees who's job is to keep that from happening.

84 @ 78 weft cut-loop Despite your profanity, you didn't come across as intelligent. Read my post again - wait, I'll repost the quote about Perry's campaign: "He lists tort reform among the core economic proposals of his presidential campaign..." How can it be a core economic proposal for his presidency....if he doesn't think it is to be decided by the federal government? *plays Jeopardy music*

85 @79 I seek not your sympathy. I'm just trying to highlight the obvious, sometimes a lawyer can really help you.

86

15--There are a few conservative plaintiff's lawyers, don't forget. 

35 years at the bar says otherwise.

I think we forget that one of the core defenses against tyranny is the jury box. 

Really, hows the jury box doing against the onslaught of socialism here in the US?  Oh that's right, juries don't have a say on such things, except to the extent that they vote. As for voting, see "stupid," below.

Juries aren't stupid.  They punish what needs to be punished.

Good lord. Now we have Bar Association socks posting at AOSHQ?

87 Tort reform is not a national issue to be decided by the federal government.

Posted by: Crispian at August 22, 2011 12:48 PM (ULTcD)

It seems to me there is a Federal Bar.  In order to be in that lucky club, then you have to dance.

Live by the barrier to entry, die by the barrier to entry.

88

This is another data point to fill in the big picture for the general election and the "undecideds" or "independents" or whatever they're calling them these days.

Having a pack of (rich) greedy lawyers opposing Perry will be too funny.  Maybe he could throw another log on that fire and propose a special tax on contingency awards or something.

89 Jon Hunstman is a scrunt.

90 The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And I hate lawyers

91 While the instinct is a good one and gives you a sense of his approach to how the law should work, it's not clear to me if it's really an issue that plays at the national level. Most lawsuits are heard in state courts and under state laws. That's not something a big Tenth Amendment guy like Perry is likely to try and mess with even if he could (and it's far from clear he could).

Yes, the lawyers will hate him.  He can't take a lot of it to the federal level, but he can to the tobacco and pharm companies that are getting fucked into the ground with frivolous lawsuits and bullshit, so that will drive the costs of health care down on a national level and may keep people in the tobacco states in jobs.

But, the fact that the lawyers say they'd vote for SCO(a)MF over Perry because of their 'livelihood', which will get taxed to holy hell should he win a 2nd term, shows you how fucking selfish and downright stupid they are.

92 My former Neighbor, the Iranian cardiologist, paid over 125k a year in malpractice insurance. I thought he was lying. Come to find out, that was a low figure.

My son was the last baby delivered by our doctor in Scottsbluff, Nebraska in 1980.
His reason was that his insurance was going to cost that much MORE unless he stopped that part of his practice.

I have no idea -- probably don't want to know -- what malpractice insurance costs today.

93 I play juries like a well tuned fiddle.

94

Juries aren't stupid.  They punish what needs to be punished.

They aren't???  Explain O.J. Simpson.

95 91 The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Well, not always, but I understand the sentiment here.

And I hate lawyers

Most of them suck, but the ones who post here and the one lawyer my family used on a few occasions seem...alright, . 

96 2 rockets hit Hof Ashkelon Regional Council Published: 08.22.11, 19:42 / Israel News Two rockets were fired from northern Gaza towards theHof Ashkelon Regional Council. One exploded near a town, while the other hit an open area in the region. No injuries or damage were immediately reported. (Shmulik Hadad) Hell of a truce? Oh and I hate trial lawyers

97 Tort reform is sooo not a federal issue that Democrat POTUS candidate after Democrat POTUS candidate routinely rakes in millions of dollars from lawyers. 

Lawyer who, apparently, didn't realize that the party who controls the White House sets the tone for things like tort reform. 

/s

98 Why would that be fair since the lawyer did all the work and risked all the cost of bringing the suit?

Seems kinda socialist to me.

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 12:51 PM (Xm1aB)

Being against extortion is socialist?  Why does he get to pad his fees from innocent people?  If someone was hurt, then let them get their actual damages and let the lawyer extort money from him.  Don't pad the suit to make it a class so that you can up your corrupt fees.

Besides, there is no "free market" in tort law.  That's why we need single-payer.  Having a lawyer is a "right", isn't it?  Lawyers do things out of their own good will and with no thought to getting rich.

The legal system is set up by we the people.  If we want another system, then we should set up another system.  Lawyers do not provide a good or a service that all parties agree to without coercion.

If a lawyer gets paid, somebody is getting screwed.

99 Most of them suck, but the ones who post here and the one lawyer my family used on a few occasions seem...alright, . Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 22, 2011 01:00 PM (9hSKh) I always make exceptions for my friends.

100 @88 AmishDude By Federal Bar do you mean legal Bar Association? If so, it has nothing to do with tort reform. Yes, the federal government can address tort reform for federal cases. But the vast majority of costs from torts are not due to federal cases or even federal law. So if that's what Perry means, it's mostly a bait and switch.

101 Jon Hunstman is a scrunt.

I resent that. I spend most of my day caring about the little people. The less fortunate. Those who cut my lawn, get my dry-cleaning, floss my teeth and dress me. And to be repaid with comments like this...

102

34 I don't remember the numbers, but I saw something recently that said some absurd number of doctors have moved into Texas specifically citing the 2003 tort reform law.

That statement was taken out of context. There were absurd numbers that were leaving the State of Texas specifically because of issues with the licensing board and the liability issues which made it almost impossible to practice there. Perry deserves some credit but as stated above, the pendelum had already begun to swing his direction before he took office, so he looks a little like Obama trying to take credit where it's not due in this case.

103 Where do the research dollars go? Universities.the leftist collective.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at August 22, 2011 12:54 PM (ZDUD4)

 

FIFY

104

 That's not something a big Tenth Amendment guy like Perry is likely to try and mess with even if he could (and it's far from clear he could).

I've never gotten the impression that Perry, or anyone else in Texas who led the charge on this for that matter, was interested in nationalizing tort law.  It's always been more of a "see, we did it, you should too" kind of deal. 

Disclaimer:  I worked plaintiff's side PI for over a decade so factor that into anything I'm about to say next.

Lawyers are the reason people hate lawyers.  The profession brings the opprobium upon itself.  That's on both sides.  I've seen plaintiff's lawyers attempt to come up with the most ridiculous possible claims simply to haul in a party who may have money since the person who actually did it is dead broke and judgment proof.  I've also seen defense lawyers whose defense is "hey your little old lady shouldn't have stopped at the red light in front of my drunk ass client like that".  Winning is everything.  Absolutely everything.  So you have to heave things like morality and common sense out the window.  Doesn't matter.  You win.  That's all that matters.  The incentive system is such that the worst behavior is rewarded. 

Don't get me wrong, there are legitimate claims out there.  Since I had the strongest stomach, I was the one who got to play find the body part in the scene photographs when a semi plowed through a group of cars.  So.  Yeah.  There are those who deserve money.  There are also those who will do everything they can, including lie their asses off to their lawyers, in order to game the system. 

I am utterly fascinated by the fact that PI lawyers, as a group, tend to support liberals.  There really are few professions out there more red in tooth and claw than the PI field.  I've come to the conclusion that it's guilt, plain and simple. 

 

 

105 The Fox Weather Girl is explaining the tropical storm that might hit the east coast. Absolutely fascinating, and oh real nice boobs also

106 Posted by: Crispian at August 22, 2011 01:01 PM (ULTcD)

I think your points would be more effectively delivered to the trial lawyers who pour millions of dollars into federal campaigns. 

107 2 rockets hit Hof Ashkelon Regional Council
Published: 08.22.11, 19:42 / Israel News

Yet more evidence that Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

At what point do we admit that Gaza is peopled almost entirely by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers/enablers and allow Israel to lay down some smack?

Or, alternatively, at what point does Israel tell us to go fornicate ourselves sideways with a rusty chainsaw, and let loose with the IDF over our protests?

108

Couple of OT's

1. Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.
2.  Are there any morons in Wisconsin? Moving to take a new job there soon.

109 104, Synonymous?

110
Posted by: Jim

^
Jim is a dunce and an Astro Turfer

111 My former Neighbor, the Iranian cardiologist, paid over 125k a year in malpractice insurance. I thought he was lying. Come to find out, that was a low figure.

So, if he works 250 days a year, that's $500/day in additional overhead.   That ain't chickenfeed.

112 First we hang the judges then we hand the lawyers...oh, wait a minute...

113 109, I just left, what do you want to know?

114 @ alexthechick If Perry wishes to use the presidetial bully pulpit to shout about the merit of the Texas tort model, that's one thing. But the article above typifies it as "among the core economic proposals" which would typically mean formally proposing it as president. This is certainly the most palatable translation for those of us who truly respect the 10th Amendment. But it is far from obvious that this is what he meant.

115

If a lawyer gets paid, somebody is getting screwed.

Really?  Every single solitary time?  For example, are you including those who draft wills or property deeds or contracts?  Is it your proposition that every single legal transaction requires someone getting screwed?  I'm dead serious, you've made very very clear how idiotic and avaracious you believe lawyers are, I am simple attempting to delimit the outer edges of your position. 

116 Amishdude I'm a lawyer, and I don't like lawyers. But c'mon, let's not be silly. You only have a right to a lawyer under one circumstance--you're charged with a crime that could result in incarceration and you're too poor to hire your own attorney. Now, if some poor bloke looks at his phone bill one day and sees a spurious charge and finds out it is actually an illegal charge, what's he gonna do say if he's been bilked for a total of $500 over several phone bills and the phone company won't reimburse? Well, what do you propose he do?

117 Posted by: MrObvious at August 22, 2011 01:01 PM (2uovW)

2 years after he took office (3, really) getting the legislation passed is taking credit for something he didn't do?  Remember, the Texas Leg only meets every other year, so, while this might be something that first came up under Bush, it's not something that went anywhere legislatively until Perry was Governor.  That's a little different from BHO claiming credit for his "gutsy call" on OBL.

118 114,  Just looking for a moron meetup there.  And gun laws, I hear they lean conservative toward guns?

119 I'd check into that.

120

Your Honor, I stipulate that alexthechick is one of the good attorneys.

Sorta of a Good Witch of the North in an attorney kinda way.

121 Trial Lawyers for Obama !!!

122
By Federal Bar do you mean legal Bar Association?

If so, it has nothing to do with tort reform. Yes, the federal government can address tort reform for federal cases. But the vast majority of costs from torts are not due to federal cases or even federal law. So if that's what Perry means, it's mostly a bait and switch.

Posted by: Crispian at August 22, 2011 01:01 PM (ULTcD)

I have no idea what Perry means.  I just know that there are many ways to corral lawyers, even at the federal level and one is using the bar association as a club.

You know the real problem with lawyers.  They are the only checks on themselves.  There's nobody overseeing them and even if government would oversee them, all levels of government are chock-a-block with lawyers.

We need civilian oversight of the lawyer-government complex.

123 People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one. Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 12:31 PM (UaxA0) Legal representation is a part of our system of laws. It's good for people to be represented, it's good when the little guy can take on a large, irresponsible entity. What's not good is frivolous lawsuits. Nobody is talking about making frail grandmothers represent themselves against faceless corporate behemoths; we're talking about making it more painful to file frivolous lawsuits.

124

105-- There really are few professions out there more red in tooth and claw than the PI field. 

How do you figure? I've spent the last 35 years at the other side of the table, and know many, many PI lawyers. All, and I mean, all, are hard core libs. All of them.  Not a red bone in their wretched bodies.  Even the Defense side of the bar is fairly liberal, although not nearly to the same extent.

I can count the conservative lawyers I know on one hand.

125

Couple of OT's

1. Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Again: Never off topic.

But the article above typifies it as "among the core economic proposals" which would typically mean formally proposing it as president.

And, again, there is such a thing as Federal Tort law.  Therefore, he certainly has authority to propose legislation that reigns that in.  Further, there's no bar to having a policy that "recommends" that states look at tort reform- as long as such reform is not mandated.

126 btw, as long as Perry signed all the proper consent forms and was well aware of the risk, what is the problem with this?  I fail to see any legal or even ethical concerns over this.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 22, 2011 12:49 PM (9hSKh)

Ipso Facto violation of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause.  A close reading of the prenumbras emanating in this section will clearly and unambiguously show that embryonic stem cells have an equal right to privacy and federal funding in the pursuit of medical glory.  The exclusive use of adult stem cells in Perry's medical treatment is a prima facie case of prohibited discrimination against a protected class.  Cells from aborted fetuses have just a much right to be used in breakthrough medical procedures as any other cells and, to the extent they are not, and notwithstanding any strawman medical efficacy issues, demonstrates a need for affirmative action protections, per se.

127 You win.  That's all that matters.  The incentive system is such that the worst behavior is rewarded.

Reminds me of this excellent scene from The Devil's Advocate.

And Keanu showed just a tiny bit of emotion too, *sniff*.

128 @123 Nobody oversees lawyers? Really? Not disciplinary councils? Oh, don't think those are effective? I've got news for you--doctors aren't the only ones who are forced to purchase malpractice insurance.

129 125, Lawyers need victims. Libtards are perpetual victims.

130 alexthechick, your comment reminds me of this really interesting part of a book on interactivity I just read! About "play" and how the Greeks had two words for playing - one for "WINNING" ("agon" AKA competitiveness) and a separate word for "frolic" type play (paidaia). And that we tend to merge the two too much, thereby "okaying" a lot of really antisocial behavior as just "playing" or you know, "don't hate the playa; hate the game" type stuff. of course my greek spelling is probably way off

131 My class president was a speed dealer all through high school and college.

He's an injury attorney now, and does pro bono work for a gay advocacy group here.  Big effing surprise.  Oh, and he's MARRIED.  TO A WOMAN. (he wasn't all that straight when he was young)

Here in New York, it's doesn't matter how much you tolerate homosexuals, you actually have to suck some dick or else risk being branded a homophobe.
/End barely relevent New Yorker rant

132

Lawyers are the reason people hate lawyers. 

In other words: 99% of lawyers give all the rest a really bad name.....

133
Oh, and bullshit.  That defies the laws of physics.  There is no possible way for any piece of equipment that McDonald's uses to make coffee that would make a liquid that hot.

The boiling point of water is 212 degrees Farenheit.

McDonald's admitted during the case that it kept coffee at 180-190 degrees F.  It also admitted to hundreds of similar incidents over the years.

They also admitted that coffee at that temperature was not fit for consumption, and that most customers didn't know that coffee that hot posed a significant burn risk.

Finally, the woman was not driving, but was in the passenger seat of a stopped vehicle.  Even then the jury found her partially at fault.

McDonald's fucked up by not settling for the $20,000 that she had initially asked for.  The company deliberately distributed a product that it knew was unsafe, without sufficient warning, and with a history of incidents.  The woman sued and won, but was help partially at fault due to her actions (opening the coffee between her knees).

134 People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

If the only people who used plaintiff's lawyers were people who really need them, then why do you people spend so much time trying to scare up clients? Do you think a plaintiff is too stupid to pick up the phone book?

TV ads for lawyers tell you everything you need to know about our broken tort system.

Posted by: spongeworthy

Warning: many people exposed to lesbian pron may have contracted fapathema. lesbian pron exists in many places on the web, including such dens of inequity as AoS HQ. This dread affliction may strike at any time (and sometimnes more than once a day). If you, a loved one, neighbor or family pet has ever even passed someone on the street with fapathema call our offices now!!!

135 Ipso Facto violation of the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause.  A close reading of the prenumbras emanating in this section...

*BLAM*
*BLAM*
*BLAM*

Done?  Alright then.

136

But it is far from obvious that this is what he meant.

It is a little unclear as to what he means, though I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as to this being a more vague here's my approach kind of thing instead of here's my draft bill for federalizing tort law approach.  I cannot remember if he brought this up in his first 100 days thing and I'm way too lazy to go look it up.

I'm also giving the benefit of the doubt on Perry taking credit for this because, off the top of my head, about 80% of the reforms took place before Perry was in office.  But, like Drew said, point to Perry since it pisses off all the right people.

137 @125 This. I've heard many an insurance defense lawyer bemoan tort reform as they rightly see it impacting their potential income.

138 People hate plaintiff's lawyers till they need one.

They're not too fond of prostate exams, either.

139 The Myth of the compassionate Lawyer should go up in flames with the myth of the Hooker with the heart of gold.

140

I can count the conservative lawyers I know on one hand.

Posted by: glowing blue meat at August 22, 2011 01:08 PM (K/USr)

Being a lawyer and being a capitalist are ultimately hard to reconcile.  Capitalism is about 'making money' in the literal sense.  You buy something, add value to it, then sell it.  Like a baker - he takes yeast, flour, etc and makes bread, then sells it.

As a lawyer, however, you operate under the old Roman model - plunder.  Look for targets with lots of wealth, then try to get a chunk of their wealth.  It's all about dividing up a pie of existing money - a distinctively socialist view of economics.

So I'm not surprised most of them turn out to be hard-core libs.  Not only is most of the social platform good for business, the economics makes sense to them.

141 The bar associations do police ethics violations. Filing frivolous lawsuits is an ethics violation. There are legal standards for dismissing cases outright. But I'm not sure what you'd want some unaccountable bar association to do about the amount of damages lawyers zealously seek for their clients. Such limitations on damages need to be enshrined in state laws. Bar associations are not charged with making the law. Legislatures are. "We need civilian oversight of the lawyer-government complex." The state legislatures.

142 the myth of the Hooker with the heart of gold.

See, that was just dyslexia at play.  It was originally, "the Hooker with the heart for gold."  You can see why there might be confusion.

143 "He lists tort reform among the core economic proposals of his presidential campaign..."

How can it be a core economic proposal for his presidency....if he doesn't think it is to be decided by the federal government?

*plays Jeopardy music* Posted by: Crispian

Cripsy, that's Politico reporting that tort reform is an economic campaign issue. All Perry has said that comes close is he is interested in "civil justice reform" that provides a more "predictable civil litigation system."

So this is where we take some ambiguous phrasing from Perry and fashion it into whatever we want as Politico writers. Right? Because we know that Perry's position is going to contain national tort reform.

Or, would that be, you know, making shit up?

*Plays Perry Mason music*

144 *Plays Perry Mason music* LOL

145 Now, if some poor bloke looks at his phone bill one day and sees a spurious charge and finds out it is actually an illegal charge, what's he gonna do say if he's been bilked for a total of $500 over several phone bills and the phone company won't reimburse? Well, what do you propose he do?

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 01:06 PM (Xm1aB)

 

How about sueing to get just the $500 dollars back, plus the legal fee.  Not $5,000,000 for pain and suffering.  Do you see what we're talking about here? 

146

Really?  Every single solitary time?  For example, are you including those who draft wills or property deeds or contracts?  Is it your proposition that every single legal transaction requires someone getting screwed?  I'm dead serious, you've made very very clear how idiotic and avaracious you believe lawyers are, I am simple attempting to delimit the outer edges of your position. 

Posted by: alexthechick at August 22, 2011 01:05 PM (VtjlW)

I paid a good amount for a lawyer to look at my refi, even though the law mandated at least 100 pages of forms that nobody reads.  It wasn't a huge fee, all things considered, so it was part of the cost of doing business.  But I really didn't need him.

Keep in mind, all legal activity falls outside of normal economic transactions.  It's never wholly voluntary.

But let's look at wills. It's a protection racket, really.  You hire a lawyer so that somebody else doesn't come along later...with a lawyer...to screw you out of what you wanted.  So it's extortion insurance.

Is that a bad thing? Well, look at it this way, would you consider it a problem that I was required to buy insurance against being burgled if all of the burglars were insurance agents?

If you would advocate for lawyers not being permitted to be in public office, I could see your point, but the evidence of the profession being wholly corrupt is prima facie.

147

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 22, 2011 01:13 PM (FkKjr)

I don't care about any nuances of that explanation.  I love it.  I'm using it.

It's short, pithy, and it's got a good beat you can dance to.

148

How do you figure? I've spent the last 35 years at the other side of the table, and know many, many PI lawyers. All, and I mean, all, are hard core libs. All of them.  Not a red bone in their wretched bodies.  Even the Defense side of the bar is fairly liberal, although not nearly to the same extent.

I can count the conservative lawyers I know on one hand.

I was unclear.  I mean the profession itself is probably one of the purer forms of ultra competitive fields aka nature being red in tooth and claw.  It is fascinating to me that those who most decry the capitalist system and competitiveness are those who are making their money in a system that rewards exactly what they claim to oppose. 

 

149 @ alexthechick I agree about the value of upsetting the right people. And I don't take any issue with giving Perry credit. But there is support among Republicans for federalizing tort law - which is why Republicans kept insisting upon it for Obamacare. And I find that troubling.

150 *Plays Perry Mason music*

I honestly can't bring up that in my head.
Instead, all I got was the theme for Pink Panther.
I'm calling my lawyer.

151 But the "hot coffee" case is a perfect example: the coffee wasn't just hot, it was SCALDING at 195* or so. McD's brewed and kept it that way to eke the most coffee flavor out of the beans, the woman who got the crappy cup was an elderly woman, and the burns were so bad that she needed extensive skin grafting afterward.

Lawyers love to trot this one out but they're always hysterically wrong. First, the coffee was not as hot as most restaurants (or even Starbucks) offered their coffee at the time. It was all over local news, they went to various restaurants and tested coffee; most of them were hotter than McDonald's.

Second the woman put a cup of coffee between her legs and tried to maneuver her car this way. Somehow, this went wrong, amazingly enough.

Third, even if somehow the jury's decision was remotely rational, the amount given as absurdly disproportionate to the damage she suffered. Her age is frankly irrelevant to any misconduct or bad faith on the part of McDonalds. At most she should have gotten enough to pay for her medical care and some in addition to help compensate for the time she lost while in the hospital. Period. She got far too much.

But lawyers just love to throw this one around as if somehow people are unreasonable for being outraged at someone who got made because their coffee was hot.

152

How about sueing to get just the $500 dollars back, plus the legal fee.  Not $5,000,000 for pain and suffering.  Do you see what we're talking about here? 

Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 22, 2011 01:15 PM (TyVdY)

No, he doesn't.  He's merely defending his livelihood.

153 Now, if some poor bloke looks at his phone bill one day and sees a spurious charge and finds out it is actually an illegal charge, what's he gonna do say if he's been bilked for a total of $500 over several phone bills and the phone company won't reimburse? Well, what do you propose he do?

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 01:06 PM (Xm1aB)

Don't we have 367 different consumer agencies...staffed by lawyers...at the federal and state level to complain to?  Especially since the example you picked is more or less a legally-enforced monopoly.

154 "Here's the deal with the class action lawsuit.  No lawyer should be permitted to make more than the least amount that a member of the class gets."

Impossible. You'd be better off simply making class action suits illegal. Lawyers make between $100 and $250 an hour, in my experience. Class action suits are always complex affairs, not least because of the high numbers involved but also, if they were simple and economical open and shut cases of 'you wronged him pay X,' then the individual plaintiffs would pursue their own justice.

So there's a lot of labor involved. Forget the question of whether labor on a class suit is worth $200 or not. That's not relevant. What's relevant is that the lawyer could make that amount by doing SOMETHING ELSE. Their time is valuable. For a given lawyer to take a class action suit at all, he has to be compensated well enough that he is willing to forgo other activities; activities would could be bringing in substantial income. Not counting the costs inherent in pursuing a suit like that anyway, like paying paralegals, research costs (Westlaw... Christ), hours away from family, court fees, and so on.

Awards to class plaintiffs are often necessarily small, because there isn't enough money to go around. Thirty thousand people were injured by corporate financial mismanagement; but as a consequence of that mismanagement, the defendant has diminished assets. Say, $3 million in damages comes out to $100 a pop; but that's before legal fees.  Do you seriously expect a lawyer to take such a case, valid and just as a hypothetical can be, for $100? Less than 1 hour's wages? $30 million would render $1,000 per, or about 5 consecutive hours of legal work for a professional and competent attorney; less than one day's salary.

Absurd. Beyond absurd. This is mere anti-lawyer demagoguery.

155 Jon Hunstman is a scrunt.

I resent that. I spend most of my day caring about the little people. The less fortunate. Those who cut my lawn, get my dry-cleaning, floss my teeth and dress me. And to be repaid with comments like this...

Posted by: Jon Hunstman

You forgot wipe my ass.

156 Don't we have 367 different consumer agencies...staffed by lawyers...at the federal and state level to complain to? Especially since the example you picked is more or less a legally-enforced monopoly. Yes, Yes we do.

157 @146 Sure, hire a lawyer to get your $500 back, and after paying the lawyer his fee, probably at least $500, you can feel vindicated. See what I'm saying here?

158 It does have national implications - every sleazy trial lawyer group in America will be coming after Perry and supporting Obama. They tried in Texas and failed with their boy - Bill White. They will spend hundreds of millions to spread their lies & filth about Perry. Just remember the source. What do you call a bus load full of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A start!

159 Posted by: jwb7605 at August 22, 2011 01:17 PM (Qxe/p)

What are you bitching about? All I get is "The Odd Couple!"

160

Absurd. Beyond absurd. This is mere anti-lawyer demagoguery.

That's a feature, not a bug.

161 @153 see @158

162 What are you bitching about? All I get is "The Odd Couple!"

CLASS ACTION SUIT!

163

AmishDude, thank you for the answer.  While I do not necessarily agree, I do appreciate your taking the time to answer and to set out your position.

As a lawyer, however, you operate under the old Roman model - plunder.  Look for targets with lots of wealth, then try to get a chunk of their wealth.  It's all about dividing up a pie of existing money - a distinctively socialist view of economics.

So I'm not surprised most of them turn out to be hard-core libs.  Not only is most of the social platform good for business, the economics makes sense to them.

Hmmm.  I hadn't thought about it like that.  I shall have to ponder more but that does give some perspective as to what otherwise appears to be a schizophrenic approach.

 

164 @154 Can anyone of them get your $500 back? Didn't think so.

165 67

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 22, 2011 12:49 PM (9hSKh)

I don't see an issue here - he had a procedure done with adult stem cells which have had much more success in procedures than embryonic stem cells.  They're just pissed because he didn't use the golden calf of procedures.  He went with what's arguably a safer route.

Wasn't there a case where a kid developed cancer from embryonic stem cells a few years after the procedure?

166 At what point do we admit that Gaza is peopled almost entirely by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers/enablers and allow Israel to lay down some smack? Or, alternatively, at what point does Israel tell us to go fornicate ourselves sideways with a rusty chainsaw, and let loose with the IDF over our protests? Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 22, 2011 01:03 PM (8y9MW) Yeah about Gaza, but this particular crisis is because the Egyptians have lost control of the Sinai thanks to obama shoving Mubarak out the door

167 Absurd. Beyond absurd. This is mere anti-lawyer demagoguery.

Posted by: dawnfire82 at August 22, 2011 01:18 PM (bIeax)

This is mere pro-class-action-suit demagoguery.

You can't be serious! You are actually defending the obscene scam that is class action in America?

168 @ weft cut-loop It's nice to read it however we want. Oh, he's just saying he wants to present it as a totally optional model. Maybe. If so, I hope he clarifies it. In the article it is called a "core economic proposal" - not a core economic achievement. Maybe he really does want it to be optional. The way the Obama administration recently floated a mere proposal for cereal companies to cut sodium. But Republicans HAVE argued for nationalization of torts. See the ObamaCare debate. I hope Perry clarifies what side of the issue he is on.

169 I'm just trying to highlight the obvious, sometimes a lawyer can really help you. Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 12:56 PM (Xm1aB) ...protect yourself against other lawyers. I am utterly fascinated by the fact that PI lawyers, as a group, tend to support liberals. Posted by: alexthechick at August 22, 2011 01:02 PM (VtjlW) As we've seen in the current administration, liberals "pay back" their donors, with public funds, waivers, corrupt legal advantages, access to lawmaking processes - to at least a greater extent than the other side, in some cases orders of magnitude greater. If you have no ethical concerns to worry about, you always go to the higher bidder.

170 Oh *plays Law and Order music*

171 142 The bar associations do police ethics violations.

In the way that the police self-police.  We have Internal Affairs for a reason.

When lawyers get licenses pulled at the rate doctors do, call me.

Bar associations are not charged with making the law. Legislatures are.

Who the hell do you think makes up the legislatures?

172 UN's Ban says Assad broke pledge to halt violence The hell you say?

173 We need to stop playing Marquis of Queensberry rules while the Democrats go by the motto "two men enter, one man leaves." This time - millions of democrats and Perry enter - Perry leaves and then leads

174 155 "Here's the deal with the class action lawsuit.  No lawyer should be permitted to make more than the least amount that a member of the class gets."

Impossible. You'd be better off simply making class action suits illegal.



Lawyers make between $100 and $250 an hour, in my experience.

Why?  That seems like a lot.

("Why?" is a rhetorical question.  The answer to it makes my point.)

175 @175 Seems like a lot? I've got news for you.

176 95 Juries aren't stupid. They punish what needs to be punished. They aren't??? Explain O.J. Simpson. Explain - Casey Anthony

177 Sure, hire a lawyer to get your $500 back, and after paying the lawyer his fee, probably at least $500, you can feel vindicated.

See what I'm saying here?

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 01:19 PM (Xm1aB)

 

What pisses me off more than civil lawyers, are leftists who claim to be civil lawyers.  Read my post again, asswipe.  If you're really a lawyer, you've just proved my point. 

178 Lawyers? seriously? Rick Perry is a panderer, flip flopper and a RINO of the worst kind. He will say anything come election time. The guy run the Goracle's campaign, ferchrissakes. Listen folks, the US is in deep shit. We need a Thatcher or a Reagan to turn this thing around. RINOs won't do. Palin, God bless her, doesn't have enough experience or gravitas and she polarizes way too many centrists. As much as I dislike Ron Paul's foreign policy positions, I think he is the only guy capable of implementing the kind of reforms that America needs. I don't think a foreign policy disagreement should be the be all end all of determining the best. With regards to foreign policy, what's the worst that could happen? Completely pull out of Iraq/ Afghanistan? Who cares? Ace said the other day that the Bush model of war was completely retarded and a lot of people agreed. I think we could safely pull out and if need be revisit those places 10-15 years down the line if need be. The reality is we don't have the money right now to be on those kind of places. Folks the US is going under, and it won't be because of foreign policy. If you truly want to roll back entitlements and return the US to how the founding fathers intended it to be, Ron Paul is the only guy who can do it. If Ron Paul is the Republican candidate, I can definitely see a lot of independents and centrists getting behind. There are a lot of disenchanted liberals that could support Ron Paul.

179 Protestant church leaders wanted to support Eichmann during trial (Haaretz) Sure why not, salt of the earth and a hell of a nice guy?

180 Soona a/k/a asswipe You don't get your legal fees in these kind of cases dipshit. You can't even sue for them in most instances unless there is some specific enabling legislation that the phone company lobby somehow let slip through.

181 AmishDude, thank you for the answer.  While I do not necessarily agree, I do appreciate your taking the time to answer and to set out your position.

Thank you, lacey.

Look, I make these points in an absurd way to make a point and to make people think.  Of course we need lawyers everywhere we have law.  But lawyers are like ants in a kitchen.  The more there are, the more filth there is. It's not like we should destroy all the ants, it would ruin our ecosystem, but we need to recognize the major problems with a profession that has far too much influence.

What really pissed me off is when Obama was called "brilliant" for having gone to Harvard Law.  I went to high school with a Harvard Law grad.  She wasn't that impressive.  She was nice enough and smart enough, but we'll just say that she didn't finish in the top 2% of a public high school class.

The whole Harvard Law=supergenius thing really got my goat.

182

The guy run the Goracle's campaign, ferchrissakes.

Listen folks, the US is in deep shit. We need a Thatcher or a Reagan to turn this thing around. RINOs won't do.

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and the head of a union.  Is it your position that no one is ever allowed to make a mistake?

Oh, and Ron Paul is a mistake.

Mostly because he's full on bat-shit crazy.

But also because he's unelectable.

183 It's nice to read it however we want. Posted by: Crispian

Read it nothing. You made an argument that Perry wants national tort reform based on one line in the Politico article that cites nothing. If you're going to make a charge, then something approximating a fact usually helps.

Oh, he's just saying he wants to present it as a totally optional model. Maybe. If so, I hope he clarifies it. In the article it is called a "core economic proposal" - not a core economic achievement.

Yes, all characterizations by Politico are impeachable. Not a chance they could be wrong, shaped, or forced. Nope. None.

Maybe he really does want it to be optional.

Good thing we're not accusing Rick Perry of something then.

But Republicans HAVE argued for nationalization of torts. Posted by: Crispian

Ipso facto every Republican is an advocate for national tort reform that contravenes the 10th Amendment ... Yep. Take that one to the bank.

* MAAAAAATLOOOCK *

184

>>>The bar associations do police ethics violations. Filing frivolous lawsuits is an ethics violation. There are legal standards for dismissing cases outright

This is as close to the truth as most lawyers can come when defending their profession. Thing is, they know it's bullshit. The kind of thing you have to do to be disciplined is akin to raping your clients dog in front of their children.

Suppose a lawyer "helps" a client "remember" facts that aid in a lawsuit, say, and those incidents happen to just fall within the stautue of limitations. And suppose there is not a single corroborating witness to these acts in the first place. What's more, let's just go farther afield and posit that the plaintiff has brought to the attorney not a single fact that can be corroborated in any way, but somehow a suit is filed anyway. Couldn't happen, right?

Do you know what discpline the attorney faces for this frivolity? After you pay an attorney to defend you from this crap, you might get lucky and see the case dismissed, since a few judges have no a good nose for bullshit and little tolerance for it. But most likely you're going to court, with all that entails.

Unless, of course, you choose to settle, which we all know would be the wise thing to do.

DIAF.

185 I remember reading the Grab Bag Man in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1988 or so.  One blurb read:  The United States has 6% of the world's population, and 80% of the world's lawyers. 

186 @ AmishDude "Who the hell do you think makes up the legislatures?" Surprisingly, a small percentage are lawyers: google search reveals less than 20% in Illinois. About 25% in Mass. About 10% in Iowa. Don't have time to figure out all 50 states now but a quick search showed that. In any event, we have a citizen body (legislature) to address tort reform.

187

Nobody is talking about making frail grandmothers represent themselves against faceless corporate behemoths; we're talking about making it more painful to file frivolous lawsuits.


And exactly HOW do you target one without nailing the other to the wall?

Loser pays just means the rich get justice and the poor get the shaft.  Eliminating punitive damages just means that if something is economically advantageous to hurt people with, it is economically proper to maximize shareholder value by continuing the practice and paying defense costs.   

I'm pretty damn conservative, by all accounts: Fed Soc for 15 years, religious, pro-life, NRA, vote R unless they're not conservative enough, etc.   Pictures with Scalia, Thomas, Ken Starr, etc.  Never been a voluntary member of ABA, either.  I know the profession has real political problems in its outlook.

But "tort reform" is not an across the board solution too anything.  Med mal is something I can see changing the rules for a bit.  A cap on punitives against practitioners (but not institutions) here is typically justified, b/c any doctor who keeps screwing up his patients is liable to get booted.  That said, the med boards are protection rackets, too.  Ever hear of "peer review"?  Nothing that goes into a peer review session can aver be disclosed or used in court.  So a doc could be a complete fuck up, and as long as he has friends, he's safe from his prior known fuckups.    But malpractice insurance for doctors is OUTRAGEOUS. 

Then again, all insurance is by nature outrageous, since they don't build skyscrapers by charging low premiums and promptly paying claims. 

It is frustrating that lawyers are so necessary in this society b/c of overregulation, a lack of common decency and shame, and unaccountable fictitious persons. 

188

Don't we have 367 different consumer agencies...staffed by lawyers...at the federal and state level to complain to? 

Posted by: AmishDude at August 22, 2011 01:17 PM (T0NGe)

 

Yes.  Consumer Product Safety Commission requires the "Do Not Eat" label on the dessicant packages put into boxes of new electronics.

"Oooooo, look!  Chiclets!!" - - Bill Ingvall

Also, did anyone else study the lawnmower case in Business Law class about unintended usage?  Seems Bubba and his neighbor hoisted Bubba's lawnmower up to trim Bubba's hedges.  Later, appearing in civil court wearing fingerless gloves, Bubba sued the lawnmower manufacturer for not explicitly warning him that using a lawnmower to trim one's hedges would be a bad idea, finger-retentionwise.  I forget if Bubba won any money from that case.

189 Yeah McDonalds should have warned the lady that the coffee was hot. See this is the problem with lawyers. Convoluted logic a/k/a Legal logic. Look at any statute written and it is likely the meaning is still being interpreted. That's why there is case law. Because attorneys can never construct a definitive law. They will always be able to use legal logic to question it's meaning.

190 Why do the economies of scale not apply to the practice of law? Why does competition (we have more lawyers than anyone else) *not* bring prices down? Because the lawyers make the rules.

191

I love these pro civil lawyer trolls.  They're trying to defend their positions of the tort system as it stands now and they can't. 

Y'all are the disgusting shitbags we think you are.  Every one of you.  All of you are nothing but leftist-like vampires sucking the lifeblood out of any kind of vibrant business, innovation or free enterprise ideas.  Suck it, bitches.  People are on to you. 

192
Perry Mason had a great theme.

193 It is mildly amusing, I guess because we all know nothing will really get done, to see those whose "golden ox" is threatened with goring leap forward in slow motion, the pitch-shifted word "NOOOOOOOOOO!" echoing...

194 Yes, yes I am.

195

Lawyers make between $100 and $250 an hour, in my experience.

Why?  That seems like a lot.



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA!

Oh, that's great.  Super funny stuff.  Try $275-400 just about any urban area.  And that's the mediocre defense lawyers.  The good ones are hitting $500-600 or more. 

Plaintiff's lawyers either win or they don't get paid, so they don't really have an hourly rate.

Who you should bitch about is the defense bar, since those are teh ones that actually cost businesses real money, just for showing up (and often doing a shit-all job of it).

196 @spongeworthy "Suppose a lawyer "helps" a client "remember" facts that aid in a lawsuit..." Well there is an evidentiary problem of showing that the lawyer did this obviously. But if it did happen, a case could quite possibly go forward on the basis of that falsified memory. But what do you want to do where it is impossible to know this happened unless the client reveals it toa third party? I agree such a false claim can wreak havoc in an innocent person's life. I know someone sitting in jail on charges which the "victims" have now openly admitted to be false charges because of the defendant's lawyer's waiving of certain rights and the judge's reluctance to drop a case that just might might be true nonetheless. I have great sympathy and feel outrage for such injustices. It's always going to be about proof. If we wanted to change such a basic principle it needs to be enshrined in law.

197 Tell you what, when the insurance companies get rid of all their lawyers whose job it is is to not pay, then I'll jump on board with the anti-lawyer trolls and favor getting rid of the plaintiff lawyer. Fair, right?

198 imp you are incorrect. Casualty Insurance companies ratio of premium to claims paid plus expense averages $1.00/$1.15. They make their money by investing the premium. They also have to keep a cash reserve of anticipated claims cost. They also are one if not the most regulated businesses in the world.

199

All of you are nothing but leftist-like vampires sucking the lifeblood out of any kind of vibrant business, innovation or free enterprise ideas. 


Yeah, the "once-vibrant" pedo-pron enterprise coming out of the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts is down to a mere trickle nowadays.  Scumbag lawyers.

LOL

Your bile tastes delicious, though.  Needs more vinegar.

200 197, Don't forget a set dollar price for every copy the paralegal makes and every document typed and the clock starts for every call made or received and the Private investigator that charges the Lawyer $50 and hour while they charge you $100 and and and.

201 A small southern town had just one lawyer and he was struggling financially.  Then a second lawyer moved to town and set up shop.  Both firms now have more business than they can handle.

202 @202 Simple solution. Don't hire a lawyer.

203

Casualty Insurance companies ratio of premium to claims paid plus expense averages $1.00/$1.15. They make their money by investing the premium.

polynikes

Thank you for putting me to some knowledge, but I don't understand.  Are you saying that an insurance company (any one really) pays more in expenses than it collects in premiums?  That ALL of the ins co's profit is from investment?

204 Tell you what, when the insurance companies get rid of all their lawyers whose job it is is to not pay, then I'll jump on board with the anti-lawyer trolls and favor getting rid of the plaintiff lawyer.

So it is just a protection racket, then?

205 #199 That's laughable. You've been watching too many late night ads.

206 Tell you what, when the insurance companies get rid of all their lawyers whose job it is is to not pay, then I'll jump on board with the anti-lawyer trolls and favor getting rid of the plaintiff lawyer.

Fair, right?

Posted by: Dave at August 22, 2011 01:47 PM (Xm1aB)

 

If it weren't for so many of you lawyers, much of the insurance that we have to have nowdays wouldn't be needed.  Suck on that for awhile, bitch. 

207 #205 yes that's right. There may be on occasion when the loss ratio is close to even or positive numbers but it's rare.

208 Hey bitch, I didn't create the system we now have, and I've indicated, in this post, that I have serious problems with the civil justice system, and that I favor tort reform. I have simply been reacting to the juvenile lawyer bashing you dipshits keep peddling. What, did someone in junior high beat you up and then become a lawyer? Fucking learn something and then we'll discuss, otherwise you can expect more "shut the fuck ups" from me.

209

Yeah, the "once-vibrant" pedo-pron enterprise coming out of the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts is down to a mere trickle nowadays.  Scumbag lawyers.

Yep.  I go to bed every night thanking God that Lawyers are able to make money because people break the law.  Let's not pretend most of their money doesn't come from chasing ambulances.

Your bile tastes delicious, though.  Needs more vinegar.

Lawyers are pirates without the martial acumen.  They are about as useful to society as pirates are.

210 @210 Should have been addressed to soona. Also to amishdude.

211 Jon Hunstman is a scrunt.

I resent that. I spend most of my day caring about the little people. The less fortunate. Those who cut my lawn, get my dry-cleaning, floss my teeth and dress me. And to be repaid with comments like this...

Posted by: Jon Hunstman

You forgot wipe my ass.

Posted by: mpfs, TPT at August 22, 2011 01:18 PM (iYbLN)

--Gerbils fear Rick Perry and Richard Gere.

212

Fine, Soona (and Amish)

Law IS a protection racket.

And finance is an embezzlement racket.

And medicine is a con game.

Capitalism itself?  Pyramid scheme. 

213 Dave based on how you think insurance companies operate you have a lot of room to learn yourself.

214

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 01:47 PM (UaxA0)

 

Just like a fucking lawyer.  Twisting the original argument into something completely unrelated.  I take it you're a lawyer?  Then sue the school that you got your diploma from. 

Go read a little bit, then come back and tell me the difference between "criminal" and "civil" law. 

215 polynikes Yeah, well put some knowledge to me then. I don't know it all, and I'm always willing to learn.

216 From the house in Marthas vineyard to the shores of tripoli I don't give a fuck about you It's all ME ME ME ME ME SCOAMF

217

Oh, I know, instead of the messy, corrupt, and easily manipulated Anglo-American common law tradition, let's adopt that vehicle of economic dynamism the Napoleonic Code.

Or maybe Sharia.

218

52

The image lawyers want you to have of them:  Atticus Finch

The image you should have of them:  Nosferatu/John Kerry/John Edwards

Posted by: Count de Monet at August 22, 2011 12:45 PM (4q5tP)

Ya'll hate us until someone commits a crime against you...then you hope you have a prosecutor who will do something about it. This old meme is a waste of breath and usually comes from people who just don't know how to stop beating a dead horse. The lawyer community, if you want to call it that, hates the bad lawyers. Only 1% of the over 1 million attorney's in the U.S. are members of the Trial Lawyers Associations. So lets get down to the real problem. Liberal progressives want someone else to pay for everything and this is just another avenue to get money for nothing. We have raised generations of kids that now expect that they are never at fault, always right and deserve what ever they want. They have never had a consequence for their own behavior, so it must be someone else's behavior that caused their loss. (Look at things like no longer keeping score so we don't hurt the loser's feelings, no corporal punishment, calling wrong choices MISTAKES as if they are outside of the person's control...) So if I drive my car into the tree in your front yard it must be your fault and juries (remember, they make the decision...or if it does not go to trial, the defendant caves because they know the jury will give it to the cry baby against the corporation) arrive at the verdict and award the money.

219 And by the way, I don't want people to have as their image Atticus Finch when thinking about lawyers. He fucking lost the case.

220

>>>But what do you want to do where it is impossible to know this happened unless the client reveals it toa third party?

I think I was clear what I want to do--take the lawyer out on the street and horsewhip him. After all, he and I both know what he did.

See, there's no recourse in this instance beyond horsewhipping. And that's the problem many of us have with the tort bar. And we're told again and again, "Settle, it is the smart thing."

221

Soona,

No, I just play one on the internets.

Exactly how is the criminal/civil distinction even remotely relevant to the fact that lawsuits and large verdicts have caused my church and other orgs to completely revamp their child abuse policies for fear of being sued?

You don't get a civil jury award against an organization for keeping perverts around by proving a criminal charge.   It's either because they simply employed the perv (respondeat superior), or because they were negligent in some way.

Aside fromyour spittle-flecked vitriol, I'm at a loss to figure out what exactly your argument is, other than that you hate lawyers (which is a great position, but hardly an argument)

Amish makes more sense.  He just believes it's a criminal enterprise because you need a lawyer to fight a lawyer.  Life's not fair sometimes.

222

>>>Oh, I know, instead of the messy, corrupt, and easily manipulated Anglo-American common law tradition, let's adopt that vehicle of economic dynamism the Napoleonic Code.

Where the fuck do you think you are? You believe any of us are going to fall for that crap?

My favorite was the lawyer who asked us if we wouldn't "feel" like we were owed money if we got struck by loose lumber off a truck or something. Who gives a shit how we'd feel?

And what does the Napoleanic Code have to do with tort reform? You're not just a lawyer, you're a very poor excuse for one.

223 Dave,insurance companies are regulated by Bad Faith laws that require they adjust claims fairly. As with many good intentions they've gone overboard with the requirements put on carriers where the bad faith statutes have been used as another tool to extort by plaintiff attorneys. I can provide much more but if I type any more on this I-phone it's going out the window.

224

sponge,

a lot of folks above (if you bothered to read) are not just advocating for "tort reform" but against the entire idea of a legal system that allows representation by hired professionals (i.e. "kill all teh lawyers" >:/ ).

Nowhere did I suggest that "tort reform" is part of the Napoleonic code, though your keen attention to detail and bear-trap-like mind probably were able to read my thoughts from the written word.

225

Exactly how is the criminal/civil distinction even remotely relevant to the fact that lawsuits and large verdicts have caused my church and other orgs to completely revamp their child abuse policies for fear of being sued?

Fear of being sued, rightly or wrongly, has paralyzed most every industry in the country along with your church.  If you think Lawyers sue for anything resembling "justice", you probably think what Obama is doing to the economy is "Making love."

If you have a lot of money, and someone wants to sue you for any reason, no matter how stupid, a lawyer will be there to try to get in on the looting.  He won't give a shit about justice.  His goal is to get loot.  That's the way it is. 

226 polynikes Yeah, I already knew that. I know some lawyers who've done quite well going after insurance companies on bad faith claims. So what exactly do I need to learn?

227

one "tort reform" idea that I'm all for is that if the insurance company lowballs your claim from teh initial offer, and you have to hire a lawyer who then gets you a higher recovery (say by 15% or more), then the ins co pays the fee. 

Like condemnation in some states.  If the gov't gives you a low initial offer, and you have to get ready for trial, and you win, the gov't pays your fees.

That would get ridd of a lot of problems.

Polynikes, I believe you, but I fear that "bad faith" laws are about as enforceable as "frivolous suit" sanctions.  The state Farm v. Campbell case is a prime example. 

228 This is the heart of the beast! Let me tell you Dubya was all about tort reform and nobody wanted to listen then he got no child passed .

229

If you have a lot of money, and someone wants to sue you for any reason, no matter how stupid, a lawyer will be there to try to get in on the looting.  He won't give a shit about justice.  His goal is to get loot.  That's the way it is.


Agreed. 

What's the alternative?

230 You're the one who stated that insurance carrier lawyer's job is is not to pay. Apparently you really don't know about bad faith or how claims are adjusted.

231 The 2003 tort reform also placed caps on medical malpractice suites.

The Texas Medical Board had to hire a bunch to contract employees to process the avalanche of applications received from doctors wanting a license to practice in Texas.

Related: Medical industry in Texas is booming.

232 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

233 #231. Loser pays.

234

poly, no I don't.  That's why I was asking.

Ain't too proud to ask.

235 polynikes You seem of good intelligence. I think you read more into my statement than warranted as I was trying to make a point about the imbalance of power between your average claimant and the insurance companies legal counsel, but whatever. I've represented insurance companies over the course of my career and dealt with many adjusters so please do continue and explain my ignorance.

236 imp my #232 was for Dave.

237 No offense Dave but I wouldn't hire you.

238 No offense polynikes, but I wouldn't let you.

239 I'm thinking for every trial lawyer out there that will vote against Perry, there's a doctor who will vote for him.

240

Loser pays just means that the vast majority of valid cases don't get brought.   Sure the "easy winners" get brought, but small damages cases never see the light of day, and valid, if marginal, big dollar cases might or might not be brought. 

The question is, then, do we want some frivolous suits at the cost of getting most of the valid ones or do we want to exclude huge numbers of people from the justice system?

Sure, business is going to like the fact that it can't be sued for all intents and purposes, but in an amoral society with "profits to earnings ratios" (SCFOAMF) driving the economic decisions of corporate entities, what do YOU think the result would be?

Does injustice exist in your worldview?

241 Sure you would Dave, you're an attorney after all,

242

daniel, daniel, daniel,

 

perry has been a republican longer than reagan was a republican when he became president. as for running gore's campaign in 1988, well compare the 88 gore to the 2000 gore and you see why its not an issue.

243 @243 Oh, I suppose you could come up with a number. It'd be high though. High-maintenance equals high fee.

244 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of miserable failure.

245

Hey, how about those stock purchasing algorithm writers?


You can't be looking at the Dow and loving institutional brokers too much nowadays.

246 Agreed. 

What's the alternative?

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 02:21 PM (UaxA0)

Since you agree that lawyers are essentially looters, they should be treated as such.

Lawyers should be more aggresively charged with malpractice in general and for friviolous lawsuits in particular.  Here's the kicker - the burden of proof should be on them to prove they didn't do anything wrong.

Lawyers should be as paralyzed with fear as they have made every other industry in the US.

247 While the instinct is a good one and gives you a sense of his approach to how the law should work, it's not clear to me if it's really an issue that plays at the national level. Most lawsuits are heard in state courts and under state laws. That's not something a big Tenth Amendment guy like Perry is likely to try and mess with even if he could (and it's far from clear he could).

Some "state law" cases get litigated in Federal Court by way of diversity jurisdiction.  He could certainly get Congress to change the "American rule" on attorneys' fees to the new Texas "loser pays" standard, for Federal litigation - that would not impede on Constitutional principles of Federalism.  And it would help push the states toward adopting that sensible reform.

248

229

one "tort reform" idea that I'm all for is that if the insurance company lowballs your claim from teh initial offer, and you have to hire a lawyer who then gets you a higher recovery (say by 15% or more), then the ins co pays the fee. 

Like condemnation in some states.  If the gov't gives you a low initial offer, and you have to get ready for trial, and you win, the gov't pays your fees.

That would get ridd of a lot of problems.

Polynikes, I believe you, but I fear that "bad faith" laws are about as enforceable as "frivolous suit" sanctions.  The state Farm v. Campbell case is a prime example. 

Posted by: imp at August 22, 2011 02:20 PM (UaxA0)

----------------------

Rule 68 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (since the 1930s or 1940s):

(a)  Making an Offer

More than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. .......

(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer.

If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.

249

I agree that seeking justice from one who has injured another is a redistributionist action by nature.  "Justice" in our society is money.  "Looters" might be one way of saying it rhetorically.  Avengers might be another, bounty hunters yet a third (and probably most accurate).

If you think that all plaintiff's lawyers (or all lawyers) are just criminal "looters," though, that's a pretty untenable position.  Looters should be shot under all circumstances. 

Now take this example:  If some moving van ran over your kid because the driver, disciplined for bad driving and on the job drunkenness in the past, was blotto, then your answer would be what exactly?

The moving company has assets, you have a dead kid.  You get burial expenses, right?  OK.  Nothing else?  Well, hospital bills, maybe, right.  Maybe.  B/c that's just some trumped up bills from a kid who was already dead by teh time he got to the hospital.

Nothing else.  Company's free and clear; after all, they just gave a known drunk a paycheck and a 10,000# truck.  Aftrer all, suing the company would be "frivolous."

Now if you don't really mean "looters," then what is the fair recovery for the family? Who decides?  You?  Obama?

I know, how about a small group of average citizens.  We could call that a "jury."

I'm being facetious for a reason.  What you call "frivolous" was proven to average people as a violation of a set of standards (called elements) that constitute a invasion of a legal right.  The massive verdicts (which is probably what you really mean) are a symptom of the average people's frustration with the system, and their way to help correct that system.  I would submit that it is the nature of the corporate system that juries react against.  But we need limits on liability for innovation and free economy to flourish.   So what's left?

We can't get rid of limited liability entities, and we can't bar people from the justice system if it is going to be worthy of the name.   I submit that we have the least bad system, much like a representative republic.

250
Jim,

The 10 day offer of judgment isn't exactly what I had in mind.  You don't prepare a trial in 10 days, and you only get costs. 

I think the reverse, actually.  The ins co makes an offer of settlement initially, and then if it's too cheap, a lawyer gets involved, and can prove the ins co was too cheap, they pay not costs, but the plaintiff's fees.  That would get rid of probably 60% of "ambulance chasing" lawyers, and make for a generally less litigious society. 

251 " I fear that "bad faith" laws are about as enforceable as "frivolous suit" sanctions. "

Well, fear no more. "Bad faith" definitions and penalties vary from state to state. Some states just sort of pass the whole topic by. Other states make them a very viable and very threatening part of every insurance-related dispute. I can name fifteen states where I know that every lawsuit I see will have bad faith claims included, and the bad faith counts will be more damaging and potentially costly than the actual injury or damage claim itself.

Dumb example: woman falls down on a dry floor, no broken bones, no back or head injury, a claim for a sprained wrist. She makes the claim to the store; the store hands it off to insurance adjuster; adjuster fails to send a certain notification to the woman within 20 days. Statute says this is bad faith." Claim would normally settle for $2000-$4000 at most. With statutory bad faith claim, it's good for $10,000-$15,000.

Big difference, if your state has strong bad faith laws. Big difference in your insurance rates, though, too. For commercial, auto, and homeowners insurance. I see it as a socialist trend - it just ends up gathering money from everyone in your state to pay off the lottery winners.

252

This is the significant part of the Texas law.  It only applies to actions "that have no basis in law or fact:" and which have "no evidence" to support them. It also applies only to the extent that the Texas Supreme Court writes applicable rules.  This is not "loser pays".

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

ARTICLE 1.  EARLY DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

SECTION 1.01.  Section 22.004, Government Code, is amended by adding Subsection (g) to read as follows:

(g)  The supreme court shall adopt rules to provide for the dismissal of causes of action that have no basis in law or fact on motion and without evidence.  The rules shall provide that the motion to dismiss shall be granted or denied within 45 days of the filing of the motion to dismiss.  The rules shall not apply to actions under the Family Code.

SECTION 1.02.  Chapter 30, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 30.021 to read as follows:

Sec. 30.021.  AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN RELATION TO CERTAIN MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  In a civil proceeding, on a trial court's granting or denial, in whole or in part, of a motion to dismiss filed under the rules adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004(g), Government Code, the court shall award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees to the prevailing party. 

253 "What you call "frivolous" was proven to average people as a violation of a set of standards (called elements) that constitute a invasion of a legal right."

Generally, very true.

However, you periodically run into that special class of lawyer who can take a lie and run with it and convince six or ten or twelve normally intelligent jurors that the evil ________ has negligently (killed\crippled\defamed\embarrassed) the poor innocent (child\mom\whoever) and ought to pay trillions at the very least, if the jury doesn't just help you kill _____ themselves.

Great actors, great liars, pushing cases they know either deserve nothing, or maybe some amount they turned down years ago.

John Edwards, making his millions suing the poor baby docs for brain injuries that he knew they had nothing to do with, for example.

And somehow these huge-scale thieves become heroes in some peoples' eyes.

254 Imp, the offer has to be made MORE than 10 days before trial.  But I think you're right.  At least at the federal level, I don't think a counteroffer would make the insurance company liable for your lawyer fees.

255

Great actors, great liars, pushing cases they know either deserve nothing, or maybe some amount they turned down years ago.


Is the solution to the dangers of pointy sticks to make sharpening a stick cost $50? 

Thank you for the statute, by the way.  It's something I fully support on reading it.  "No basis" is a damned high burden. 

Now, we've stupified the culture to such an extent that some people know how to game the system.  That EXACT same thing is true in global financiers and stock analysts.   People will abuse any system you establish.  So the trade-off the "kill the lawyers" folks above suggest is to harm innocent, truly victimized people (by barring their meritorious lawsuits) to prevent John Edwards from getting rich.  I think that's a bad idea. 

256

Jim,

Imp, the offer has to be made MORE than 10 days before trial.

Right, but as a practical matter, that means the offer has to be made after preparation for trial, and all the expense that entails.  In practice, a realistic offer of judgment in fed ct usually comes at the 30th-11th day before trial.  If it's measured off the initial offer from the insurance company, the insurance company has an incentive to do the right (or at least reasonable) thing from the beginning. 

257 "This is not "loser pays"."

Unless you can find some way to distinguish Section G from your basic summary judgment motion, then it is "loser pays" unless you at least make it to trial.

Which simply means that, in many if not most Texas counties, the judges are always going to rule that there is some "factual dispute" remaining, allowing them to deny summary judgment.

And once they do that, the value of the case at mediation goes up tenfold, because of the danger at trial of a wacko verdict.

People sit around and draft these rules and statutes in a vacuum, forgetting that the complete set of rules are going to be administered by other people with maybe very different goals and values. When you throw a new rule like this into one of those counties that always pop up in the Hellhole lists, you're just giving biased and crooked judges more tools with which to bring more outside money into the area.

258 I agree that seeking justice from one who has injured another is a redistributionist action by nature.

You already agreed that's not what they are doing.  They are going after money based upon a pretense of justice.  Actual justice doesn't enter in to it.  It's about getting a chunk of a pile of money. If a lawyer has a case of injustice he can't win versus a case where he can win big if he lies, we know which case he will take.

Now take this example:  If some moving van ran over your kid because the driver, disciplined for bad driving and on the job drunkenness in the past, was blotto, then your answer would be what exactly?

The driver should be charged with a crime, as should the company if they were somehow a party to his drunkenness.  I don't care about getting money.  My kid is dead.  If there are medical bills, they should pay them.  I'm not looking to cash in.  The current system is about that.

Let's flip it around.  Let's say you're a doctor and a woman dies on the operating table of totally unpreventable complications.  Her son shows up with a sleazebag lawyer and sues you.  You have already lost, because you must spend tremendous amounts of time and money defending yourself.  There is nothing in our system to stop this.

I'm being facetious for a reason. 

You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.  The current system is a mess.  Your response is to shrug and say, "do you have a better suggestion?" and then poo-poo that suggestion.

Lawyers need to be held to a higher standard of accountability than they are now.   The legal system in general needs reform - judges are frequently political appointees who shouldn't be near power, juries are staffed by idiots as a rule, and the system runs like the technology is from 1840 as opposed to 2011.  These problems need to be recognized and addressed.

259 "I think that's a bad idea. "

Me too.  Sorry, I was unclear.  Our system, while imperfect, is the best so far. Sadly, we're still open to be gamed by the con artists, and it's those cases that get the press, (and the push for new laws) but generally, an injured person going through our legal system gets a fair shake.

260 "The current system is a mess."

In some ways, it is.  In all ways, it is the best one devised anywhere yet.

I've handled hundreds of cases for insurers. Before that, I handled almost as many cases as a plaintiff's or insured's lawyer. I remain convinced that the vast bulk of cases are resolved fairly and appropriately and with justice. 

261 Lawyers need to be held to a higher standard of accountability than they are now.   The legal system in general needs reform - judges are frequently political appointees who shouldn't be near power, juries are staffed by idiots as a rule, and the system runs like the technology is from 1840 as opposed to 2011.  These problems need to be recognized and addressed.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 22, 2011 03:25 PM (FkKjr)

Some of those problems will always exist. I do think at the level of the Bar, more lawyers should be taken to task. As a self policing profession, we do not do a very good job.  In  many state bar's you never see any true dicipline unless the lawyer messed with the client trust fund. We need to also police lawyers who thumb their noses at the system. Many fail to file appropriate motions, serve parties, show up for hearings, heed the Rules of Professional Conduct and on and on. I don't think the Jon Edwards' of the world would develop into what they are if they were drummed out early for their infractions. At least some would be eliminated.

262 Absurd. Beyond absurd. This is mere anti-lawyer demagoguery.

I can see why lawyers would hate to see this cash cow go away but from an ethical and economic perspective that proposal makes perfect sense. You need to step away from your job and think objectively about this.

Yeah McDonalds should have warned the lady that the coffee was hot.

They should have warned someone that the HOT coffee that they deliberately ordered HOT was, in fact, hot? Are you serious?

The problem with "frivolous" lawsuits is that lawyers define the term completely differently than sane people do. The official definition of a frivolous lawsuit is typically one in which the plaintiff knows the claim is without merit. The definition everyone else uses is "a lawsuit without serious basis, a suit not for justice or to right a wrong but to make money, game the system, or abuse a target."

263

Your response is to shrug and say, "do you have a better suggestion?" and then poo-poo that suggestion.

the iron law of political inertia.


The driver should be charged with a crime, as should the company if they were somehow a party to his drunkenness.  I don't care about getting money.  My kid is dead.

So, the company goes to jail?  All of them down to the stockboy, just the CEO, maybe the entire board?  Criminal justice is not an answer to personal loss.  There is no criminal penalty for a corporation (aside from money fine to the state, but hey, if you want to make government even bigger, just give them control of personal injury verdicts).  That's why the ancient German (Sallic, but they were germanic) tribes invented teh core of our system, the weregeld. 

Money is the only way to restore any type of wholeness for a loss.  You are probably the only person in history to say that a company who hires a drunk who then kills your kid is not liable for anything to you personally.  I reckon your principles would be a little different in action, but hey, none of us is pure.

Still, in my experience, very few people who suffer a true injury at the hands of another are so Christ-like as to just walk away.  If we don't have that financial outlet, you would inevitably see physical violence.

264 I would suggest that "jail" is not the only possible result of a criminal trial, imp.

265

Of course not, CT.  But it is the (pen)ultimate sanction from criminal proceedings.  If the only "justice" for killing someone's child is money to the state (which may or may not be imposed by the judge, since the judge, not the jury, sentences the criminal), then the state takes on an even larger role in society.  The jury box is one of the 3 (or 4) important boxes in our republic

(the soapbox)

the ballot box

the jury box

the cartridge box.

266

that's where I'm going with the whole "jury verdicts are conservative" angle/rationalization.

267 The McD's coffee case is the posterchild of bad examples.

(Now, remember, I'm a defense lawyer.) 

This particular machine was out of adjustment, and even then turned up too hot. It was so hot, it was softening the tops. They had lots of notice that this was dangerous. They had prior burns. I can almost guarantee you've not been served coffee that hot, ever. Most chains that serve drive-through had strict company regs about temp before this happened, as did McD's. This woman's skin came off in sheets.

I can think of hundreds of good examples of outrageous awards. This ain't one of them. 

268

the iron law of political inertia.

Go look up "The French Terror."  When things don't reform in a good way, they reform in a bad one.  Let's try to head that off instead of playing ostrich.

So, the company goes to jail?  All of them down to the stockboy, just the CEO, maybe the entire board?  Criminal justice is not an answer to personal loss. 

Don't be a retard.  You were asking what I wanted, not what I'd get.  Given our current legal system I'd be happy if the driver went to jail. 

I will point out if Blackwater personnel started shooting people in New York, there'd be a whole hell of a lot more than lawsuits going on. 

Money is the only way to restore any type of wholeness for a loss.

It's not going to.  Believing otherwise is bullshit.  But this is far afield of what we are discussing.

You are probably the only person in history to say that a company who hires a drunk who then kills your kid is not liable for anything to you personally.

If I want something, it will be criminal charges, not money. I don't give a shit about money if my kid is dead.  Lots of people have this attitude.  Lots of other people are greedy and think a tragedy is an excuse to cash in.

Still, in my experience, very few people who suffer a true injury at the hands of another are so Christ-like as to just walk away.  If we don't have that financial outlet, you would inevitably see physical violence.

Yes, looting on the streets and so forth.  Wait a second...we, um, have that.

Our system is pretty far divorced from the noble notions you advocate.  It's about exactly what I said - seeing a pile of money, having a pretense to try to get it, and going after it.  Any justice which occurs is accidental.

269 259 "This is not "loser pays"."

Unless you can find some way to distinguish Section G from your basic summary judgment motion, then it is "loser pays" unless you at least make it to trial.

Which simply means that, in many if not most Texas counties, the judges are always going to rule that there is some "factual dispute" remaining, allowing them to deny summary judgment.

--Agree. How many cases have pleadings that have no basis in law or facts and without any evidence?   Not many.

270 I can think of hundreds of good examples of outrageous awards. This ain't one of them.

One more time: you can order coffee at any restaurant around McDonalds and get it hotter. Their coffee was not remarkably hot compared to the business standard.

And 9 times out of 10 a criminal case will deal with problems without needing a lawsuit - and usually does, then the lawsuit happens anyway.

271 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

272

Yeah the Texas legislature had nothing to do with tort reform in Texas.  Perry is a miserable joke. 

 

Now tell me why I should support a man who was:

Gore's campaign manager in 1988.

Tried to have girls get an involuntary vaccine of unknown quality.

Supports open borders.

 

Pals around with jihaddies and their front groups.

And other things that anyone who lives in Texas knows that Perry is no conservative.

273 Now tell me why I should support a man who

Because there is not yet a better candidate that can win.