Wha t kind of shit is this

[Gary_Yngve]

Sphinx said:

How about suing the HIJACKERS? Is it just me, or is the legal system in this country fucked?

 

How about suing former US Presidents for their lame foreign policy?

[allthumbs]

sphinx=gaper timmy

[RobBob]

Hey, I never said that there weren't other contributing factors, matt. But I would say that one big change had to occur during the past forty years in order to expand the personal injury 'market' (plaintiff-client base), and that has been the acceptance of pursuit of $ because one has been a victim. It's a cultural change. For instance, my parents are 80, and if I were killed tomorrow by a millionaire drunk behind the wheel of an Explorer that ran over me in the Paradise parking lot as rolled over, my parents still would not sue. Why, because they both grew up in a time when that wasn't acceptable...and they still have the same standards.

 

Younger people, having grown up in a time where everyone's a 'victim' if injured or killed (particularly if they have little and the potential defendent is perceived to have a lot to lose or good liability insurance), would sue the shit out of the driver and the automaker. Different moral standards, and there's an awful lot of Robin Hood levened into it, I'm afraid.

[Sphinx]

trask said:

sphinx=gaper timmy

Shit, you figured me right out, Sherlock.

[mattp]

RobBob said:

my parents are 80, and if I were killed tomorrow by a millionaire drunk behind the wheel of an Explorer that ran over me in the Paradise parking lot as rolled over, my parents still would not sue. Why, because they both grew up in a time when that wasn't acceptable

 

If that is the case, I do not believe that your parents reflect the "norm" for their generation as you would have us believe. They may have some weird and extreme distrust for the legal system, but their failure to want to hold the drunk millionaire responsible for his act would not, in my opinion, be either intelligent, productive, or commendable -- and it would be particularly sad if what you say is true and they are in any way dependent upon you financially but you have no life insurance policy that would benefit them.

 

I don't suggest that there aren't plenty of greedy lawyers, or that frivolous lawsuits are not a problem. I do think the "problem" is often mischaracterized by insurance companies who are acting in their own monetary interest, and by cynical politicians who reduce the issue to a simple and populist cartoon in order to further their own position.

[JayB]

mattp said:

RobBob said:

I think JayB nailed it (symbiosis between culture change to 'victim mentality' and trial lawyers' unrestrained expansion of their 'markets')

But I'm not sure it's partisan at all...aren't most politicians degreed in law, and not in a mood to restrict awards for 'victims?'

 

Good. Now that we have established that factors like insurance company practices, regulatory climate, and irresponsible business practices have nothing to do with litigation we can move on to talk about how to fix the system. Let me guess: tort reform?

 

I'd be interested in learning how insurance companies and businesses have fostered the development of the hyper-litigious society that we currently live in if you have the time to explain that a bit, but do you really think that tort reform should be entirely out of the question?

 

I'd also be interested in looking at some stats comparing the percent of GDP expended on legal expenses in the US versus the rest of the industrialized world, percent of all health care expenditures spent on insurance, number of attorneys per capita in the US versus other first world nations, etc. etc. Who knows, maybe these figures will not support the commonly held belief that the US is especially litigious relative to the rest of the world.

[RobBob]

They may have some weird and extreme distrust for the legal system

 

Extreme but not weird...Dad's a doc!

[Dan_Petersen]

I am torn between outrage, awe, and envy when exposed to yet another perversion to the American legal system committed by greedy (but admittedly clever) attorneys.

 

Here we have another fine example. In great American tradition we rise in response to an unspeakable tragedy with the intention of compensating the victims. We establish a fund and a bureaucracy to administer it and bumble our way toward placing a monetary value on a very personal loss. This has the effect of impersonalising the response in the eyes of the victims.

 

Enter our fine array of ambulance chasing attorneys to offer an alternative to the grief stricken. I’m sure it goes something like this.

 

Ambulance Chaser: “I want to express my sincere condolences for your loss. I understand that you have been offered a mere $500,000 by the government as compensation. That’s an outrage. You can get ten times that in a court of law, and I would be happy to make that happen for you.”

 

Victim: “Gosh. How can that be?”

 

AC: “Well, really there are a number of very self-satisfied corporations and agencies who allowed this to happen. I believe that the case can be made that they should bear the financial burden, not the government. Would you like me to pursue this for you?”

 

Victim: “Five million? Well, I guess so. What’s in it for you?”

 

AC: “Mostly, I do this for the satisfaction it gives me by taking the moral high ground. Of course, there will be expenses, so I expect that a 50/50 split should cover everything. You will still get more than five times what the government has offered as well as having the satisfaction of knowing that the bastards who allowed this to happen paid for their mistakes.”

 

Victim: “Alllrighttt!! You got a deal.”

 

AC knows full well this will never come to trial. He/r expectation is that a few briefs will be filed, and after some months, the harried corporations and agencies being sued will do the math and come to a settlement offer. Settling will go something like this.

 

AC: “I am almost embarrassed to report that we have only been offered $2 million as a settlement by these scumbags. What do you say? I say let’s fight on.”

 

Victim: “Man, it’s been two years with nothing. I’ve got kids to educate and a mortgage to pay. How much longer do you think this will take?”

 

AC: “Oh, not long. I think within two more years we should be in court to fight this out. Your case will be upheld by any jury in the land.”

 

Victim: “Two years. No way. I want to settle.”

 

AC: “You’re the client. You have to do what’s best for you. I’ll make it happen.”

 

AC walks away with a million bucks in fees, victim doubles his money. You gotta love the system. It’s like a money machine. If I could just get past the whole ethics problem, I’d probably jump right in. Obviously, a lot of people don’t share the same qualms.

 

[mattp]

JayB said:

I'd be interested in learning how insurance companies and businesses have fostered the development of the hyper-litigious society that we currently live in if you have the time to explain that a bit

 

I do not practice personal injury law, but I can tell you that it is well known that certain insurance companies make it a practice to play hardball in EVERY case and will deny a claim or try to settle a claim for next to nothing, no matter what. If this happens to you and you don't hire an attorney you are some kind of idiot.

 

And, in my own experience, I have never faked or inflated a single insurance claim, but I have been screwed by my insurance company more than once. I have not been involved in very many car accidents in my life, but I DID have my insurance company (Farmers) tell me that coverage for my whiplash injury "expired" after one year, even though I was still suffering pain and undergoing medical expenses and missing work. They also terminated my policy and cause me to have to obtain high risk insurance because after I paid my premiums for fifteen years without filing a single claim, they paid two claims a single year - the first resulting from an accident in a "no fault" insurance state where my company had to pay my losses even though the other driver was ticketed, and the second resulting from my truck being stolen while I was parked in downtown Seattle during the work day. These kinds of practices DO foster a general mistrust of insurance companies and generate litigation.

 

Do these and similar insurance company practices belie the fact that we are a society of irresponsible whiners? Probably not, but I do not bgelieve that the "problem" is entirely the fault of greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients.

 

I am not an expert in business practices, either, but let's take the example of the tobacco industry. All the right wing commentators and industry lobbiests say that it is a sign of personal irresponsibility that someone would smoke all their life and then hold RJ Reynolds responsible, but the known fact is that they lied and concealed what they knew about the dangers of their products -- for many many years -- and that they continue to heavily market to kids when they know they are literally killing people. Meanwhile, they made gazillions of dollars. Should these liars and crooks go to jail and all of thier assets be seized by the government, or should the companies face liability for what they oversaw? Or should they be allowed to have made such profits without facing any consequences?

 

Do you really think that tort reform should be entirely out of the question?

No, I do not. I don't know enough about the issue to say whether or what kind of tort reform would be appropriate, however, and I don't trust those who are in favor of tort reform to have my interests in mind. I DO think the attack on trial lawyers is driven by a very malicioius and cynically motivated campaign to promote general hysteria and distrust of our legal system.

[Attitude]

OJ

[rbw1966]

Although I agree with some of wht Mattp is saying, I think its interesting that he appears to be shifting the blame away from attorneys and onto the insurance industry. Of course, the insurance industry would lead you to believe its greedy attorneys. Serendipity.

 

I think the biggest challenge to our tort system is a lack of personal responsibility. When I was a kid and did something stupid like jump off the roof of the house using a garbage bag as a parachute and hurt myself I was taught to take my licks and quit whining. Now its like winning the lottery: those damn garbage bag manufacturers didn't warn me against using it as a parachute.

 

When did we stop taking responsibility for our actions and abdicate that role to the courts?

[erik]

rbw1966 said:

I think the biggest challenge to our tort system is a lack of personal responsibility.

 

When did we stop taking responsibility for our actions and abdicate that role to the courts?

 

best thing i did a site investigation at a mall parking lot where this lady trips on the hadicapped curb. tried to sue.

 

i wrote me caption and report with glee, shutting her down. she got nothing!

 

[babnik]

erik said:

rbw1966 said:

I think the biggest challenge to our tort system is a lack of personal responsibility.

 

When did we stop taking responsibility for our actions and abdicate that role to the courts?

 

best thing i did a site investigation at a mall parking lot where this lady trips on the hadicapped curb. tried to sue.

 

i wrote me caption and report with glee, shutting her down. she got nothing!

 

 

[mattp]

rbw1966 said:

Although I agree with some of wht Mattp is saying, I think its interesting that he appears to be shifting the blame away from attorneys and onto the insurance industry. Of course, the insurance industry would lead you to believe its greedy attorneys. Serendipity.

 

Take another look at my posts, RBW. I specifically stated that I am NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them. I AM arguing that one should not be fooled by spokesmen from some industry groups (primarily insurance companies) and a bunch of cynical politicians who are trying to say that the entire blame lies with the greedy trial lawyers and some sudden lack of personal responsibility.

 

Are there a lot of greedy trial attorneys out there? Of course there are. The profession attracts lots of jerks and to be a successful trial attorney you almost HAVE to be aggressive and good at manipulating people. I used to think that Plaintiff's attorneys represented the worst among my profession, but for the last four or five years I have shared an office with one and, yes, he fits some of the stereotypes. But once I've had the opportunity to hear things from his point of view I have come to the conclusion that, on average, insurance defense attorneys may be the lowest of the lot (and I have personally known some of them over the years, as well). Still, it takes both sides to make our system work -- even if you aren't completley happy with how it stumbles along.

[rbw1966]

I read and re-read your post Matt. I didn't read where you SPECIFICALLY stated "that [you are] NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them." Rather, I read that you believe insurance companies bear a larger portion of the blame than attorneys.

 

Although I didn't read that in your previous post, I do agree with you when you now write "I AM arguing that one should not be fooled by spokesmen from some industry groups (primarily insurance companies) and a bunch of cynical politicians who are trying to say that the entire blame lies with the greedy trial lawyers and some sudden lack of personal responsibility. " I would remove the paranthetical clause though and add that one shouldn't be fooled by arguments coming from either side.

 

As someone else put it earlier, I think its the symbiotic relationship between these two sides that tend to feed upon each other and foster our inherent distrust with the legal system.

 

As Hunter S. Thompson once put it "reasonable doubt for a reasonable price."

 

[mattp]

Sorry rbw, you are right. I "impliedly" but not "specifically" said I was "NOT arguing that the blame for any increase in litigiousness lies entirely on the insurance companies, or even primarily upon them." Rather than to state it specifically, I wrote that "Do these and similar insurance company practices belie the fact that we are a society of irresponsible whiners? Probably not, but I do not believe that the "problem" is entirely the fault of greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients."

 

I'm a lawyer. I lie. But I don't think I'd be wrong to suggest that the far greater amount of distortion and just plain lying that we read or hear in the media with respect to this issue comes from those that try to argue that plaintiff's attorneys are to blame for everything from high insurance costs to court congestion to the inability of our government to provide basic services.

[rbw1966]

I completely agree with you counselor.

[Scott_J]

 

 

Are there a lot of greedy trial attorneys out there? Of course there are. The profession attracts lots of jerks and to be a successful trial attorney you almost HAVE to be aggressive and good at manipulating people. I used to think that Plaintiff's attorneys represented the worst among my profession, but for the last four or five years I have shared an office with one and, yes, he fits some of the stereotypes. But once I've had the opportunity to hear things from his point of view I have come to the conclusion that, on average, insurance defense attorneys may be the lowest of the lot (and I have personally known some of them over the years, as well). Still, it takes both sides to make our system work -- even if you aren't completley happy with how it stumbles along.

 

I hate to agree with Matt, but I do here. When I pick a lawyer I ask around, usually a lawyer that does not practice in the particular field I am asking to be represented in. I ask that lawyer for the person they would trust with their life. I usually end up with a fucking wolverine on crack. I love these lawyers when I go to court or into the office of the people I am having trouble with. you can see their ass hole shrink.

 

I have never sued anyone but have threaten to sue my employer of 20 years when they fucked with me. They backed off and left me alone. I could see fear i n their eyes when I walked in with Mr. T-----. A lawyer in downtown Anchorage. He is THE WOLVERINE!

[lummox]

sisu_suomi said:

I hate to agree with Matt, but I do here. When I pick a lawyer I ask around, usually a lawyer that does not practice in the particular field I am asking to be represented in. I ask that lawyer for the person they would trust with their life. I usually end up with a fucking wolverine on crack. I love these lawyers when I go to court or into the office of the people I am having trouble with. you can see their ass hole shrink.

 

I have never sued anyone but have threaten to sue my employer of 20 years when they fucked with me. They backed off and left me alone. I could see fear i n their eyes when I walked in with Mr. T-----. A lawyer in downtown Anchorage. He is THE WOLVERINE!

bad to the bone. bad to the bone.

[mattp]

Sisu, it sounds as if you had good representation in your dispute with your employer but I would not always recommend that somebody look for the wolverine. If you are paying your attorney by the hour, many aggressive attorney's can take a four-hour matter and turn it into forty without substantially improving their client's position. This may happen because the attorney's are greedy, but it also sometimes happens because it reflects their sense of professionalism (they may feel it is unprofessional to do less than everything they can for their client, or to "give in" even on issues that don't matter), and it sometimes happens because their clients ask for this kind of service.

[freeclimb9]

mattp said:

many aggressive attorney's can take a four-hour matter and turn it into forty without substantially improving their client's position.

It's been my experience that reasonably acting attorneys achieve fair results. An aggressive attorney can get the big score, or can just cost a lot. BTW, try some energy candy: www.zappage.com

[lummox]

poo

[RobBob]

I have a strategy that has paid off in business. I want a reputation for being absolutely fair, but firm and tenacious when somebody's messing with our company. For real estate, boilerplate legal stuff, etc. I'll use a local attorney. For big contracts or negotiations or disputes, I always use a large, well-known regional or national law firm. You get straight-down-the-middle advice from people known to be thorough.

 

In this manner I have tangled successfully with a couple of different Goliaths in the past. Your attorneys in this type of situation are your samurai. You may pay more for the services of the national firm, but it will pay off for you in the long run if the stakes are high in the issues you're dealing with.

[AARON1]

This kind of crap pisses me off. Don't you think if, and that is a big if, the airlines, Boeing, Port Authority, and WTC have any responcibility the people going into the building have some responcibility. If the defendents in the lawsuit should have known that this would happen shouldn't the people going to work in the WTC have known.

[minx]

Yes! especially since there'd previously been a terrorist attack on the WTC. So by that same logic victims should sue each other for going to work that day.