Fighting Back Against the Lawyers?

[Vanquish]

Every single state in the union has detailed, sophisticated laws dealing with frivolous claims. Bar associations have taken the lawyer hatred so seriously we have INSANE professional ethics rules that are a knee-jerk reaction to the unfettered hatred of lawyers that some people (apparently in this thread) have.

Caps on awards dont take into account REALITY.

Let's think about this... (Im probably typing this for nothing since my opponents in this thread seem to like to step over my arguments...but here goes)

Say you have a young man...let's make him a doctor...who through no fault of his own contracts a terminal disease. He goes to the doctor and gets misdiagnosed. The young guy has always gone for check ups...has a family with 3 kids and a wife...as well as an elderly father he takes care of.

He keeps going back to the same doctor year after year for his check up and keeps trusting this doctor. Finally after the disease he has has progressed to a terminal stage, his doctor finally diagnoses what he should have 4 or 5 years before. It's too late. There's nothing that can be done but make the young man comfortable. It could have easily been caught, but due to doctor error it never was.

The guy was making 500,000 per year at age 26. He could have easily increased his income to a million per year within the next 10 years. His life expectancy was 76.

So that's 10 years at 500k and another 40 years at 1 million. Plus interest.

Then tack on the pain and suffering.

Then compensate the wife and children for the loss of their father.

You're honestly telling me that they should have their compensation capped?

I tell ya...tort reformers slay me. You love the "free market" until it bites you on the ass.

BTW....that's not a hypo...that's a real case I was a part of.

 

[Rambunctious]

Have you ever wondered what could be done to stem the litigious insanity that has become the norm in America?

We could limit the amount Lawyers are allowed to collect. Cap their earnings and they may decide against taking spurious cases.

Of course with medical malpractice we should keep national statistics and when a Physician shows they belong to the 5% who create 90% of the Malpractice cases that physician should be banned from EVER practicing in the US again.

Two steps which might help the situation immensely.
Now if we could only get the hypochondriacs out of the system.....

The Obama government is trying to limit the amount of money a lot of people can earn....except lawyers, what's up with that?

 

[eagleseven]

The Obama government is trying to limit the amount of money a lot of people can earn....except lawyers, what's up with that?

Well, Obama is a lawyer.

 

[Vanquish]

Have you ever wondered what could be done to stem the litigious insanity that has become the norm in America?

We could limit the amount Lawyers are allowed to collect. Cap their earnings and they may decide against taking spurious cases.

Of course with medical malpractice we should keep national statistics and when a Physician shows they belong to the 5% who create 90% of the Malpractice cases that physician should be banned from EVER practicing in the US again.

Two steps which might help the situation immensely.
Now if we could only get the hypochondriacs out of the system.....

The Obama government is trying to limit the amount of money a lot of people can earn....except lawyers, what's up with that?

No he's not. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[Charles Stucker]

BTW....that's not a hypo...that's a real case I was a part of.

And how much did the victim take home?
How much did the Lawyers get out of it?
the compensation for lawyers is excessive - they do not contribute to society at the rate they consume. If you dispute this ask yourself how the USA would fare if every single engineer were to disappear today. How long would it take to replace the lost talent and what would happen in the interim? (in case you cannot guess; everything would fall apart - tens of millions would starve and those who remained would eke out a living as best they could)
Now ask what would happen if all the lawyers disappeared.

 

[MaggieMae]

Have you ever wondered what could be done to stem the litigious insanity that has become the norm in America?

We could limit the amount Lawyers are allowed to collect. Cap their earnings and they may decide against taking spurious cases.

Of course with medical malpractice we should keep national statistics and when a Physician shows they belong to the 5% who create 90% of the Malpractice cases that physician should be banned from EVER practicing in the US again.

Two steps which might help the situation immensely.
Now if we could only get the hypochondriacs out of the system.....

The Obama government is trying to limit the amount of money a lot of people can earn....except lawyers, what's up with that?

Only on the big investment bankers, who will try to give nothing in return except an option for personal bankruptcy. Who else would you be talking about?

 

[MaggieMae]

BTW....that's not a hypo...that's a real case I was a part of.

And how much did the victim take home?
How much did the Lawyers get out of it?
the compensation for lawyers is excessive - they do not contribute to society at the rate they consume. If you dispute this ask yourself how the USA would fare if every single engineer were to disappear today. How long would it take to replace the lost talent and what would happen in the interim? (in case you cannot guess; everything would fall apart - tens of millions would starve and those who remained would eke out a living as best they could)
Now ask what would happen if all the lawyers disappeared.

A lot more people on unemployment? You forget that this country's economy has been redirected toward the service industry and away from industrial and manufacturing. Using your logic, we should dispose of accountants, secretaries, salespeople, chefs and restaurant staff, housekeepers, mechanics, etc., and just let professional engineers run everything? How could THEY survive without all of the above? My own brother has three engineering degrees in his discipline, yet he allowed the death of his wife to go into probate because he couldn't be bothered having a lawyer draw up Wills because he didn't "like" lawyers. She had a lot of money in trust in her name only; that was 3 years ago and disposal of her assets is still ongoing. But yeah, she should have just put her daddy's bequest under a mattress and no Will or probate would have been necessary.

 

[Charles Stucker]

BTW....that's not a hypo...that's a real case I was a part of.

And how much did the victim take home?
How much did the Lawyers get out of it?
the compensation for lawyers is excessive - they do not contribute to society at the rate they consume. If you dispute this ask yourself how the USA would fare if every single engineer were to disappear today. How long would it take to replace the lost talent and what would happen in the interim? (in case you cannot guess; everything would fall apart - tens of millions would starve and those who remained would eke out a living as best they could)
Now ask what would happen if all the lawyers disappeared.

A lot more people on unemployment? You forget that this country's economy has been redirected toward the service industry and away from industrial and manufacturing. Using your logic, we should dispose of accountants, secretaries, salespeople, chefs and restaurant staff, housekeepers, mechanics, etc., and just let professional engineers run everything? How could THEY survive without all of the above? My own brother has three engineering degrees in his discipline, yet he allowed the death of his wife to go into probate because he couldn't be bothered having a lawyer draw up Wills because he didn't "like" lawyers. She had a lot of money in trust in her name only; that was 3 years ago and disposal of her assets is still ongoing. But yeah, she should have just put her daddy's bequest under a mattress and no Will or probate would have been necessary.

You missed the point entirely.
Lawyers are paid a lot more than engineers.
Lawyers are LESS necessary for our modern standard of living than engineers.
Engineers are AT LEAST as hard to replace as lawyers.
So why do lawyers earn so much?

As for the probate problems - it would NOT be a problem if there were no horde lawyers looking to fatter their own purses at the expense of others.

 

[Vanquish]

You make a blind assertion that engineers are more necessary than engineers, but fail to prove it.

Here you go with more shameless lawyer hatred.

First of all, the market will bear what the market will bear. That's free enterprise, right? Most of you people for tort reform are conservatives...and conservatives are all for the mythical free market (there's no such thing). So who are you to say anyone's making more money than they should.

Second of all, perhaps you don't know this since you're not a lawyer, but there are rules, laws, and guidelines against excessive fees.

Third of all, this country needs lawyers to protect what happens to people every day. An engineer can design a product or assess a bridge, but when you look at all the types of problems that lawyers save people from, every person in this country will need a lawyer at some point in their lives. Not everyone will need an engineer.

Do you realize how much of a risk most lawyers take when they take a case? They float credit to customers, pay personal bills, and spend their own money to serve their clients. Engineers sure as hell dont do that. If you kill the lawyer, you're killing small business in America.

There's a lot of insulting stuff that should be directed your way, but I'm not going to say it because that's now how anything should be debated. I just hope that people see your blind hatred for lawyers and dont think any of what you're saying REALLY has to do with saving costs. I've already posted a report that proves that myth wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

And how much did the victim take home?
How much did the Lawyers get out of it?
the compensation for lawyers is excessive - they do not contribute to society at the rate they consume. If you dispute this ask yourself how the USA would fare if every single engineer were to disappear today. How long would it take to replace the lost talent and what would happen in the interim? (in case you cannot guess; everything would fall apart - tens of millions would starve and those who remained would eke out a living as best they could)
Now ask what would happen if all the lawyers disappeared.

A lot more people on unemployment? You forget that this country's economy has been redirected toward the service industry and away from industrial and manufacturing. Using your logic, we should dispose of accountants, secretaries, salespeople, chefs and restaurant staff, housekeepers, mechanics, etc., and just let professional engineers run everything? How could THEY survive without all of the above? My own brother has three engineering degrees in his discipline, yet he allowed the death of his wife to go into probate because he couldn't be bothered having a lawyer draw up Wills because he didn't "like" lawyers. She had a lot of money in trust in her name only; that was 3 years ago and disposal of her assets is still ongoing. But yeah, she should have just put her daddy's bequest under a mattress and no Will or probate would have been necessary.

You missed the point entirely.
Lawyers are paid a lot more than engineers.
Lawyers are LESS necessary for our modern standard of living than engineers.
Engineers are AT LEAST as hard to replace as lawyers.
So why do lawyers earn so much?

As for the probate problems - it would NOT be a problem if there were no horde lawyers looking to fatter their own purses at the expense of others.

There are highly paid lawyers and there are lawyers who aren't too bright and who will never make as much as an engineer. Your assumption is ridiculous.

 

[MaggieMae]

You make a blind assertion that engineers are more necessary than engineers, but ton

Here you go with more shameless lawyer hatred.

First of all, the market will bear what the market will bear. That's free enterprise, right? Most of you people for tort reform are conservatives...and conservatives are all for the mythical free market (there's no such thing). So who are you to say anyone's making more money than they should.

Second of all, perhaps you don't know this since you're not a lawyer, but there are rules, laws, and guidelines against excessive fees.

Third of all, this country needs lawyers to protect what happens to people every day. An engineer can design a product or assess a bridge, but when you look at all the types of problems that lawyers save people from, every person in this country will need a lawyer at some point in their lives. Not everyone will need an engineer.

Do you realize how much of a risk most lawyers take when they take a case? They float credit to customers, pay personal bills, and spend their own money to serve their clients. Engineers sure as hell dont do that. If you kill the lawyer, you're killing small business in America.

There's a lot of insulting stuff that should be directed your way, but I'm not going to say it because that's now how anything should be debated. I just hope that people see your blind hatred for lawyers and dont think any of what you're saying REALLY has to do with saving costs. I've already posted a report that proves that myth wrong.

I remember when I worked at NASA at the Mississippi Test Facility in the late 60's where they tested the Saturn V rocket booster. The running joke was that all of the engineering projects for Apollo were awarded to the lowest bidder and how scary was that?

 

[GHook93]

First, lawyers in MOST cases protect the client/patient and the public. (Unless they are backed by the ACLU, then there primary objective is to destroy America!)

Second, the vast majority of suits are for small compensatory damages, none which make the headlines.

Third, punitive damages are EXTREMELY rare and are only rewarded in extreme cases of malice (intentional) or gross negligence. They are only even considered in a fraction of a fraction of a percent of cases. In most cases intentional torts are not covered and are criminal!

Fourth, medical malpractice is a sticky situation. Doctor negligence can ruin a person's life, kill a person, eliminate (reduce) a person's earning capicity or injuring a person beyond repair. Here is where the real issue comes forth and there are 2 schools of thought.
(1st) Set a cap: Setting a cap on becomes sticky, since each injury is different and each case has unique implications. The cap level becomes the measuring stick for not only the insurance companies, but the juries. If the cap is set to high, then measuring stick for premiums are high and juries are more apt to give claims to closer to the cap when not warranted. If they are set too low, then injustice to patients who have been severly handicapped or killed inevitable! Look at FL. They set absurdly low caps on injures to old people injured by negligence in private business. Many older people get screwed by the policy.
(2nd) Allow the Courts to determine Damages: Yep this creates uncertainity that the insurances companies MUST compensate for. They MUST account for worst case scenarios regardless. However, I don't think malapractice policies are capless, so I don't think, this is the problem that people (conservatives) make it out to be. Meaning say the damage rewards are $2 mil, yet the coverage cap is only $200K. Then the insurance co only pays $200K and the premiums will reflect that cap.

Fourth:
Frivilous cases are not the issue. Believe it or not, lawyers don't take cases in which they are pretty sure they will lose. They get paid on damage rewards nothing more. Before that point, lawyers shell out a LARGE sum of money to run the case. Watch Trivolta in Civil Action to understand. If they lose they are SOL. I love how people scream that the blood thirty law just brings frivilous cases all the time, because they hope one will stick. A large case against an insurance co could cost the lawyer $10s of thousands of dollars before he even sees one penny back!


Tort reform SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED in Obamacare; however, its more of a talking point for Republicans to shoot down polices. Because if they really believed tort reform was the answer, then where the fuck where they when they had Senate, House and White House for 6 long years!

Lawyers are easy targets! Buds of jokes! Many make god awful lot of money. And strokes like the ACLU give them a bad name. But they are small issue in the healthcare debate and no lawyer lobby stopped tort reform from getting into Obamacare!

 

[GHook93]

Unfortunately, those multi million dollar settlements that allow a cushy early retirement have some strings attached

Like eating your meals through a straw
Wearing adult diapers
Being blind
Being severely disfigured
Having non-stop pain

What percentage of malpractice claims are for genuinely severe cases?

most... it costs about $50,000 to pursue a med mal case, on average. if the case has no merit, it can't get past the merit panels. i'm not going to say there are no people who would take a meritless case, but it wouldn't go very far.

People need to watch Civil Action! Funny there are many cases which lawyers turn down, because the cost will be enormous and the outcome is only a 70% chance of winning.

If people really looked into the healthcare debate, they would see that Republicans use the tort reform and lawyer arugment to stir up the middle class. They try to show Democrats are supporting elitist lawyers and bowing down to the trial lawyer lobby!

They ignore the fact of policy limits, rarity of large damages and that negligence in some cases absolutely ruins lives!

 

[beowolfe]

It's not the lawyers that create the settlements. It's your fellow citizens on the juries. Take the lady in McDonald's that drove off with the hot coffee between her legs. It was a jury that awarded her millions; not the lawyers. You all have the wrong target in your cross hairs.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You make a blind assertion that engineers are more necessary than engineers, but fail to prove it.

No, I said that ENGINEERS are more NECESSARY than lawyers.
Here are things that WILL go away without any engineers
Automated manufacture
Computers
Just about anything which is manufactured that cannot be made by hand.
Every single part in an automobile has to fit properly - without ANY engineers the process would be impossible.
Every Time CADCAM is used (either in manufacture or design), everything was set up by an Engineer.
Take out the engineers and anytime one of the things relied upon by others to do their job fails, and there will be no replacement.
Take out all the engineers and who will teach the next group to replace them?
In short industrialized society would stop for want of engineers.

Now turn around and take away all the lawyers.
Criminals can still be brought to trial - you just need someone chosen from the civilian populace to act as the prosecutor (and presumably Judge since most judges are also Lawyers) while the defendant may have to ask one of his well spoken friends to offer his defense. With an estimated 1/3 of all trials currently obtaining the "wrong" result it is difficult to envision it getting much worse.
Civil cases could still be heard - small claims court is full of normal folks who represent themselves.
Wills and contracts could still be written.
And truthfully, since a lot of Lawyers in the 19th century were men who "read the Law" it would not be all that difficult to replace the Lawyers if it was decided they did serve some useful purpose.
In short society would not stop for want of lawyers.

The US is an industrialized society, so clearly we need engineers more than lawyers.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not the lawyers that create the settlements. It's your fellow citizens on the juries. Take the lady in McDonald's that drove off with the hot coffee between her legs. It was a jury that awarded her millions; not the lawyers. You all have the wrong target in your cross hairs.

Great pun!!

 

[Vanquish]

You make a blind assertion that engineers are more necessary than engineers, but fail to prove it.

No, I said that ENGINEERS are more NECESSARY than lawyers.
Here are things that WILL go away without any engineers
Automated manufacture
Computers
Just about anything which is manufactured that cannot be made by hand.
Every single part in an automobile has to fit properly - without ANY engineers the process would be impossible.
Every Time CADCAM is used (either in manufacture or design), everything was set up by an Engineer.
Take out the engineers and anytime one of the things relied upon by others to do their job fails, and there will be no replacement.
Take out all the engineers and who will teach the next group to replace them?
In short industrialized society would stop for want of engineers.

Now turn around and take away all the lawyers.
Criminals can still be brought to trial - you just need someone chosen from the civilian populace to act as the prosecutor (and presumably Judge since most judges are also Lawyers) while the defendant may have to ask one of his well spoken friends to offer his defense. With an estimated 1/3 of all trials currently obtaining the "wrong" result it is difficult to envision it getting much worse.
Civil cases could still be heard - small claims court is full of normal folks who represent themselves.
Wills and contracts could still be written.
And truthfully, since a lot of Lawyers in the 19th century were men who "read the Law" it would not be all that difficult to replace the Lawyers if it was decided they did serve some useful purpose.
In short society would not stop for want of lawyers.

The US is an industrialized society, so clearly we need engineers more than lawyers.

Sorry. Your post got me so pissed I didn't see the error in my sentence.
It wasn't until this post that you at least attempted to prove that engineers were more necessary than lawyers (I used the word engineers twice - mea culpa). Before that, you just tried to float that crap out there. Even what you've posted really isn't much proof, but feel free to pat yourself on the back.

Yes, the world would stop. Your little hypo is riddled with your spin and that's about it. You keep saying people could do this..and people could do that... uhm all that applies to engineers as well. How do you think the ancients did their engineering? You could take away computer engineers...hell my brother never had that there school lurnin' 'bout it...and he takes care of 15-year old legacy systems for banks.

You dont think that amateurs can make parts that fit properly to a sophisticated degree? Hell I make fiberglass molds of pretty detailed parts myself after only a few weeks. I know there are hobbyist car guys out there who could mass produce that crap easily.

There is an art to law that you will never understand. There is lots of specialized knowledge...both of the substance of the law AND of the process.

Furthermore if what you said was true, then why arent there lots of people going pro se and defending themselves? OOOOOHHH that's right. Because there IS something to having both the technical training in the process and the ability to reason the way courts expect it to be done.

You think doing math makes you special? Or chemistry? Or computer science? It doesnt. It's something learned just like how to make a legal argument or appeal. You don't know shit about what's required in a brief or the appeals process or the civil liability of the police.

And that's not learned overnight by amateurs. You're really pissing me off which probably gets your jollies off. I'm still not going to insult you though I've typed it and erased it about 5 times now.

 

[jillian]

People need to watch Civil Action! Funny there are many cases which lawyers turn down, because the cost will be enormous and the outcome is only a 70% case of winning.

If people really looked into the healthcare debate, they would see that Republicans use the tort reform and lawyer arugment to stir up the middle class. Try to some Democrats are supporting elitist lawyers and bowing down to the trial lawyer lobby!

They ignore the fact of policy limits, rarity of large damages, that negligence in some cases absolutely ruins lives!

it's that whole compassionate conservative thing. it's the constant repetition of the lies by some even AFTER they're corrected that is offensive.

 

[GHook93]

It's not the lawyers that create the settlements. It's your fellow citizens on the juries. Take the lady in McDonald's that drove off with the hot coffee between her legs. It was a jury that awarded her millions; not the lawyers. You all have the wrong target in your cross hairs.

ALWAYS the McDonald's propaganda one. The one everyone refers to. Here is the background on this case.

Prior to this case, McDonald produced coffee machines for their restaurants there were defective. Not just making coffee hot, but making it dangerously hot. They were 100+ similar injures. McDonalds was instructed/warned by the courts to fix the machines. The cost of fixing the machine and protecting the public far outweighed the cost of small litigation. None of the previous case came up, since the were small settlment.

Then the case in hand came about. McDonalds was ignoring warning after warning and putting people at risk, guess what they got hit with punitive damages. Mess with the bull too long you get the horn.

Most people stop there. That wasn't the end. The damages were appealed and substantially reduced to normal level, once McDonalds agreed to fix the machines!

 

[GHook93]

People need to watch Civil Action! Funny there are many cases which lawyers turn down, because the cost will be enormous and the outcome is only a 70% case of winning.

If people really looked into the healthcare debate, they would see that Republicans use the tort reform and lawyer arugment to stir up the middle class. Try to some Democrats are supporting elitist lawyers and bowing down to the trial lawyer lobby!

They ignore the fact of policy limits, rarity of large damages, that negligence in some cases absolutely ruins lives!

it's that whole compassionate conservative thing. it's the constant repetition of the lies by some even AFTER they're corrected that is offensive.

True, but its the same thing with the compassionate liberal on illegal immigrations. They sell out America in order to get millions of votes!