« Life is good | Main | Moron ubiquity »
July 07, 2004
The John and John show
John Kerry and John Edwards are in town tonight. Yipee.
If you have trouble finding an OB/GYN to deliver your child feel free to thank trial lawyers like the smarmy duo above. Posted by Matthew at July 7, 2004 10:04 PM And God knows we wouldn't want to hold incompetent doctors or greedy pharmaceutical companies responsible for their actions. So, what would encourage the Fords and Smith Klines of this world to make safe products if it weren't for trial lawyers? I think a 150 years of experience has more than demonstrated that capitalism is without a moral center, except for the religion of making money. Shake your finger at them, and they will laugh. Hit them in the pocket book, and they'll take notice. Posted by: Robert at July 8, 2004 05:04 PM I have no trouble with penalizing incompetent physicians, or manufacturers of substandard products but we have legislation in place for that, we don't need trial lawyers and junk science to protect us. We need Tort reform- a loser pays system. Of course trial lawyers are opposed to that because it would cut into their bottom line.
Just what the country needs a latae sententiae excommunicated lawyer and another trial lawyer who built his practice on suing doctors for causing
Comments
Remember the insurance you pay for your car or that your doctor pays for malpractice coverage does not protect the good drivers, or good doctors, it protects those who make claims. Tell me that your car insurance would be as expensive if trial lawyers were not on TV encouraging people to sue for every percieved fault.
Posted by: Matthew at July 8, 2004 06:36 PM
Well, those rates would be cheaper if you believe the insurance carriers. Tell me that my insurance rates wouldn't be as high as they are if they insurance industry hadn't taken a bath in the stock market bubble. And honestly, my insurance rates for auto are not that much higher than they were 10 years ago.
Loser pays all is great... except for the little guy who can't afford to go to court, and can't take the chance that if he/she loses, then they have not only been damaged, but they are now also bankrupt. What legislation has effectively convinced companies... especially large multi-nationals... to produce safe products. Look at what it took, and how many years it took, to bring the Tobacco industry to bay AND they knew their product was a heatlh hazard. They just wouldn't fess up until.. you guess it... they started getting sued and then congress jumped in. What happens if the governmental agency is underfunded, and can't police the corps? Where do you turn? Do you honestly believe that the majority of us are going to save any major money if we get rid of the trial lawyers?
Posted by: Robert at July 8, 2004 07:07 PM
Robert, a couple of things. First, trial attorneys include both the plaintiff's bar and the defense bar. The plaintiff's bar are the PI guys and they usually take 33% or sometimes even 40% when the "little guy" wins. I guess the maxim of "high risk, high return" is true with the plaintiff's attorneys. Methinks it is a bit excessive.
Speaking of tobacco companies, the giant settlement with the tobacco companies made some attorneys disgustingly rich, with fees up to almost a billion dollars in some states. I believe Dickie Scruggs, at trial attorney in Mississippi, will "earn" $844 million in fees from the tobacco settlement. They were getting paid something like $104K per billable hour. These were total sweetheart deals between attorney generals and the plaintiff's bar.
In addition, it is very difficult to match resources with the state or federal government. It aint a governmental agency, it is the state attorney general or the Fed. Justice Department. The government has a lot of resources.
How about all the junk science in courts?
I have no love for insurance companies but don't try and tell me that plaintiff's attorneys are as pure as a driven snow. I am looking at my American Bar Association Journal and there are ads for the BMW Z4 Roadster.
BTW, I am an attorney.
Posted by: pchuck at July 9, 2004 11:49 AM
Oh.. absolutely not, and there are bogus law suits. Human nature, being what it is, there are some who will milk the system. Making a radical change in the system, however, based upon a few well publicized cases, that probably do not reflect the merits, or potential merits, of a majority of the cases, is not a good way to fix the system. In my opinion, at the heart of it is, is a huge, elitist, distrust of the common man. An attack on the jury system, is an attack on democracy itself.
I'm willing to bet that Plaintiff's attornies are not the only ones who use "junk science". So.. are you arguing that only trial lawyers are buying the expensive and fast cars? Maybe lawywers as a whole are grossly overpaid. Maybe, we could afford more things if coporate lawyers didn't charge so much to be kept on retainer. Maybe, just maybe, we could take some of that money and pay librarians more. ;)
Posted by: Robert at July 10, 2004 12:39 PM
Robert, I'm no fan of "corporate lawyer" although I am a little unsure of what you mean by the term. Generally, lawyer drive up the cost of things.
You mention, a few well publicized cases. Trust me, in personal injury there are not just a few well publicized cases. There are thousands of case that are filed and either go to trial, settle or get dismissed. A large percentage of cases are by people who think they have hit the lottery and they are aided by greedy plaintiff's attorneys.
Don't get me wrong, attorneys are necessary and they do important things; however, there are too many of them and the plaintiff's attorneys are more often than not a pretty greedy lot. In addition, the practice of law entails quite a bit and attorneys do things like bankruptcy, real estate law, employment law, workers' comp, family law, criminal law, administrative law, contracts, etc.
Posted by: pchuck at July 12, 2004 10:12 AM