Slutty Teen accuses MYSPACE of 'not doing enough' to protect her from herself - :(

[musicman]

I agree and disagree.

Lawyers shouldn’t be bringing these cases, BUT they do because….

Like any business their out to make $$$$.

Ah, but - unlike other businesses - we're talking about what we hope is something sacred in our society: stewardship of the rule of law. We hope these people subscribe to some sort of canon of ethics.

In an imperfect world, "this matter is frivolous", or "your actions in bringing this question into the court system show a depraved indifference to the general good of society" are going to be somewahat subjective judgements. But, they are - nonetheless - judgements SOMEBODY is going to have to start making.

 

[Mr. P]

Ah, but - unlike other businesses - we're talking about what we hope is something sacred in our society: stewardship of the rule of law. We hope these people subscribe to some sort of canon of ethics.

In an imperfect world, "this matter is frivolous", or "your actions in bringing this question into the court system show a depraved indifference to the general good of society" are going to be somewahat subjective judgements. But, they are - nonetheless - judgements SOMEBODY is going to have to start making.

Well, call it loop-holes then. Anyone that can use it will, regardless of their ethics. Close it/them and we win.

 

[musicman]

Well, call it loop-holes then. Anyone that can use it will, regardless of their ethics. Close it/them and we win.

I wonder if we could help to close them by expanding the definition of malfeasance/malpractice to include at least the truly ridiculous filings.

 

[Mr. P]

I wonder if we could help to close them by expanding the definition of malfeasance/malpractice to include at least the truly ridiculous filings.

Works for me...but $$$ talks.

 

[musicman]

Works for me...but $$$ talks.

Ain't THAT the truth! That's why such an approach would have to have some real teeth. I wonder if it could happen on a grass-roots level - jurisdiction by jurisdiction. I can't think why not.

 

[Hobbit]

Works for me...but $$$ talks.

Last time somebody made a serious lawsuit threat against my dad, he called six of his friends who were lawyers. One of them had his own firm. He called the other guy and his ambulance chaser into this guy's law firm to confront my dad's 'legal team' in one of the upper floors of an office building. See, they thought my dd, being a smart businessman, would just fold and pay a small settlement to avoid the hassle of court, so he called their bluff. These guys gave him and his lawyer and little talk about frivilous lawsuits and said they were going to countersue for the full cost of his defense plus any income he lost from having to skip work to make court appearances. My dad is a highly trained consultant with a major firm and makes about as much an hour as a pretty darn good lawyer, so that plus the six lawyers would be quite a bill. The guy immediately dropped the suit an even offered a $500 settlement on the countersuit (which my dad didn't accept). My dad commented to me that he might just have been trying to pay the cleaning bill for the then urine-stained carpet, hehe.

So yes, money talks. Once this guy knew he could lose his whole life savings if he lost the suit, he was gone.

 

[Mr. P]

Last time somebody made a serious lawsuit threat against my dad, he called six of his friends who were lawyers. One of them had his own firm. He called the other guy and his ambulance chaser into this guy's law firm to confront my dad's 'legal team' in one of the upper floors of an office building. See, they thought my dd, being a smart businessman, would just fold and pay a small settlement to avoid the hassle of court, so he called their bluff. These guys gave him and his lawyer and little talk about frivilous lawsuits and said they were going to countersue for the full cost of his defense plus any income he lost from having to skip work to make court appearances. My dad is a highly trained consultant with a major firm and makes about as much an hour as a pretty darn good lawyer, so that plus the six lawyers would be quite a bill. The guy immediately dropped the suit an even offered a $500 settlement on the countersuit (which my dad didn't accept). My dad commented to me that he might just have been trying to pay the cleaning bill for the then urine-stained carpet, hehe.

So yes, money talks. Once this guy knew he could lose his whole life savings if he lost the suit, he was gone.

There ya go..and it shows that lazy lawyers settle, thus promoting these suits.

 

[jillian]

Ah, but - unlike other businesses - we're talking about what we hope is something sacred in our society: stewardship of the rule of law. We hope these people subscribe to some sort of canon of ethics.

In an imperfect world, "this matter is frivolous", or "your actions in bringing this question into the court system show a depraved indifference to the general good of society" are going to be somewahat subjective judgements. But, they are - nonetheless - judgements SOMEBODY is going to have to start making.

No question our society has become more litigious than what is found in other countries. There are controls against frivolous suits, but like anything else, the system is imperfect and is sometimes used to harass rather than settle legitimate disputes. The worst, particularly on the Federal level, are subject to pretty stringent penalties for bringing a frivolous suit. But judges are hesitant, on the state/local level, to impose those penalties too often. By the very nature of the process, someone wins, someone loses and sometimes losing has nothing to do with you not having a good claim. Sometimes you just lose your case. It's difficult to ascertain sometimes whether someone has been frivolous or their case wasn't presented well...particularly given the rules of evidence which keep out hearsay and certain other types of evidence (and rightly so, but still....)

 

[jillian]

First step, I think there should be a loser pays system. No need for reform then, if yer bank account is on the line you’ll be careful with yer filings. And the incompetent Lawyers will disappear. Now how’s that?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Mr. P. If people are fearful of a loser pays system, they aren't ever going to challenge the "big guys"....whether it's their landlord, their employer, their government.... for fear that they'll be bankrupted. No attorney can guarantee a win, even if a claim is a good one.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Mr. P. If people are fearful of a loser pays system, they aren't ever going to challenge the "big guys"....whether it's their landlord, their employer, their government.... for fear that they'll be bankrupted. No attorney can guarantee a win, even if a claim is a good one.

You have a point and it's valid. I should be more specific, I don’t mean this to apply to ALL cases. I’ll try to be more specific in the morning..

Night folks

 

[jillian]

You have a point and it's valid. I should be more specific, I don’t mean this to apply to ALL cases. I’ll try to be more specific in the morning..

Night folks

Thanks. Fair enough. Sleep well!

 

[musicman]

No question our society has become more litigious than what is found in other countries. There are controls against frivolous suits, but like anything else, the system is imperfect and is sometimes used to harass rather than settle legitimate disputes. The worst, particularly on the Federal level, are subject to pretty stringent penalties for bringing a frivolous suit. But judges are hesitant, on the state/local level, to impose those penalties too often. By the very nature of the process, someone wins, someone loses and sometimes losing has nothing to do with you not having a good claim. Sometimes you just lose your case. It's difficult to ascertain sometimes whether someone has been frivolous or their case wasn't presented well...particularly given the rules of evidence which keep out hearsay and certain other types of evidence (and rightly so, but still....)

I'm hip. That's why I'm saying the real change has to come from within the profession itself. My nephew is an ADA in a major southern city, and probably one of the least popular attorneys on earth - among other attorneys, at least. It is his specific task to prosecute attorneys who run afoul of the law in the furtherance of their duties within his jurisdiction (wish I ran into him a little more often; I'll bet he's got some interesting views on THIS topic!). He's endured everything from the generalized snub to actual death threats.

Again - I can't help but wonder, then, whether the sort of reform we're discussing could take place at a more "grass roots" level - local jurisdiction by local jurisdiction. Let the lawyer who brings idiotic, avaricious, opportunistic, and resource-draining cases into the system understand that he could very well be brought up on charges. Subjective? Problematic? Maybe. But something along these lines is becoming more necessary every day...as we see.

 

[jillian]

I'm hip. That's why I'm saying the real change has to come from within the profession itself. My nephew is an ADA in a major southern city, and probably one of the least popular attorneys on earth - among other attorneys, at least. It is his specific task to prosecute attorneys who run afoul of the law in the furtherance of their duties within his jurisdiction (wish I ran into him a little more often; I'll bet he's got some interesting views on THIS topic!). He's endured everything from the generalized snub to actual death threats.

Again - I can't help but wonder, then, whether the sort of reform we're discussing could take place at a more "grass roots" level - local jurisdiction by local jurisdiction. Let the lawyer who brings idiotic, avaricious, opportunistic, and resource-draining cases into the system understand that he could very well be brought up on charges. Subjective? Problematic? Maybe. But something along these lines is becoming more necessary every day...as we see.

I'm sorry that your nephew has been treated so badly. I haven't heard that same thing up north, but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'd love to hear what he has to say on this subject.

I've seen lawyers do some pretty stupid stuff, including taking garbage cases to make an extra buck. The vast majority don't do that, though, because it is simply too expensive to pursue a case that isn't likely to have a good return on investment. I've also seen attorneys put in papers that were clearly false or frivolous. I don't know if the false stuff comes from the clients or from the attorneys and without investigation, I wouldn't have any way of finding that out. My own rule of thumb is that no one case or one client is worth either one's reputation or worth losing the ability to practice over.

I'm not sure what the answer is. The profession is regulated fairly heavily once things get to the stage of being sent to the ethics committee(s) which can actually be pretty heavy-handed. Like anything else, there are most definitely abuses, though... and people should govern their own behavior...something which doesn't always happen.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Mr. P. If people are fearful of a loser pays system, they aren't ever going to challenge the "big guys"....whether it's their landlord, their employer, their government.... for fear that they'll be bankrupted. No attorney can guarantee a win, even if a claim is a good one.

Ok, I see the potential negative effect this might have if it were a blanket process.

How about a frivolous test conducted by the filing attorney. If the case passes the test they proceed with filing with the test included. If they lose the case the opposing side has a right to request a review of the case based on the frivolous guidelines used in the test. If the review proves the case was frivolous then costs could be awarded, and paid by the losing attorney.

I think that would bring the change from the profession and not the Government through tort reform. I think it would reduce frivolous filings to a trickle or total end.

I don’t think I’ve been very clear but hopefully you get the idea..

 

[jillian]

Ok, I see the potential negative effect this might have if it were a blanket process.

How about a frivolous test conducted by the filing attorney. If the case passes the test they proceed with filing with the test included. If they lose the case the opposing side has a right to request a review of the case based on the frivolous guidelines used in the test. If the review proves the case was frivolous then costs could be awarded, and paid by the losing attorney.

I think that would bring the change from the profession and not the Government through tort reform. I think it would reduce frivolous filings to a trickle or total end.

I don’t think I’ve been very clear but hopefully you get the idea..

I'm not sure what is done in any state but mine. But here, attorneys have to sign a certification that they believe the contents of their papers to be true and also have a belief that the matter isn't frivolous. Federal Court is pretty hard on attorneys who bring frivolous cases and there are similar rules in many states. I'm not sure if those rules are honored more in the breach or not.

In medical malpractice cases, there are panels which screen the merit of claims prior to filing. Maybe something similar for other types of cases?

 

[Mr. P]

I'm not sure what is done in any state but mine. But here, attorneys have to sign a certification that they believe the contents of their papers to be true and also have a belief that the matter isn't frivolous. Federal Court is pretty hard on attorneys who bring frivolous cases and there are similar rules in many states. I'm not sure if those rules are honored more in the breach or not.

In medical malpractice cases, there are panels which screen the merit of claims prior to filing. Maybe something similar for other types of cases?

That’s good, but what are the consequences?
Good for the federal court, what about lower courts. Isn’t that where so many of the ridiculous cases are filed? My guess is more State or local than Fed.

 

[jillian]

That’s good, but what are the consequences?
Good for the federal court, what about lower courts. Isn’t that where so many of the ridiculous cases are filed? My guess is more State or local than Fed.

As I said, state and locally, might be honored more in the breach. I don't know. And I agree with you, such actions are more likely at those levels. That's why I wondered if panels like those in place in some jurisdictions with regard to malpractice actions might not be appropriate for some other types of cases.

Thing is, no question there are some blatantly frivolous cases, like the one spoken of at the beginning of this thread. But sometimes, from the attorney's perspective, you really don't know where a case is going til discovery is completed and you hear what the testimony/evidence of the other side is going to be. You can't just withdraw a case if your client doesn't consent and you have an obligation to represent your client diligently. So, what usually happens with garbage cases, in my experience, is that the other side makes motions to dismiss and the case gets disposed of that way. While it hurts wrongfully sued Defendants, our system tilts in favor of letting juries (or the judge if it's a bench trial) sort it all out unless there is clearly no issue of material fact for trial. :scratch:

 

[catatonic]

14. Right. Not able to consent. Yet she agrees to MEET some creep and surprise-surprise she gets molested.

Guy should go to jail. Sure thing.

Now...the GIRL..and her mom want THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS because the little tramp wasn't 'protected enough' from joining MySpace...chatting with a STRANGER...agreeing to MEET the stranger...and getting herself molested.

She's saying she and her mom are too stupid to protect themselves, so MySpace.com should pay them THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS for their stupidity.


I HATE this country sometimes.

May I just comment that there is inherent stupidity in every single one of us. Every human being would rather risk a 50-50 chance of having nothing or $200,000 than have $99,999.99, but every human being would rather lose $100,000.01 than have a 50-50 chance of losing nothing or paying $200,000. The problem can be emphasized in a scenario where there was a bird-flu epidemic and we had a 100% chance of curing 1/4 the sick or a 50% chance of curing everybody. Most people would take the 100% chance. People will go for incredible improbability to avoid losing a little. I learned this from the book, "Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk" which is a history of risk.

I saw this out the hard way when I knew exactly what I was supposed to do in the stock market, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I still didn't know why it had happened until I had read that book. It is very hard to follow a set of rules in the stock market. In some cases humans aren't built for rational thinking. It's no wonder we have things like Social Security.

 

[dilloduck]

May I just comment that there is inherent stupidity in every single one of us. Every human being would rather risk a 50-50 chance of having nothing or $200,000 than have $99,999.99, but every human being would rather lose $100,000.01 than have a 50-50 chance of losing nothing or paying $200,000. The problem can be emphasized in a scenario where there was a bird-flu epidemic and we had a 100% chance of curing 1/4 the sick or a 50% chance of curing everybody. Most people would take the 100% chance. People will go for incredible improbability to avoid losing a little. I learned this from the book, "Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk" which is a history of risk.

I saw this out the hard way when I knew exactly what I was supposed to do in the stock market, but couldn't bring myself to do it. I still didn't know why it had happened until I had read that book. It is very hard to follow a set of rules in the stock market. In some cases humans aren't built for rational thinking. It's no wonder we have things like Social Security.

and liberals:teeth:

 

[insein]

Here's how you solve the problem. IF you wrongly accuse someone and its proven in a court of law that you wrongly accused them, you pay their court costs. This would hold true for prosecutors as well.

To up the ante on prosecutors if they wrongly accuse someone of a capital crime (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc) then the prosecutor must serve 3 months in jail. Im tired of these prosecutors acting like they are Lords over the serfs and act they are playing with dolls instead of human lives. If they have sufficient evidence to convict someone, then there will be no problem. They will be found guilty in the court of law. If however they bring a case to trial on someone with a rather flimsy case full of circumstancial evidence, then they run the risk of spending 3 months in jail if they cant convict them. The Duke Rape case comes to mind. The evidence is so overwhelming in the favor of the defendents now and yet the prosecutor presses onward attemtping to ruin the lives of these 3, 22 year old guys. If the prosecutor faced jailtime for a non-conviction then this case would have been throw out the moment the girl changed her story.

Of course its all a pipe dream as the politicians major cash cow are prosecutors and they would never pass such legislation that would harm their bank accounts.