If Nick thinks I wrote my comments to justify the lawsuit, then he’s misunderstood my position. I responded to the attack on the legal profession as a whole. An old saw: You don’t judge a person by his friends, but the lawyer he/she keeps, for the sharp will hire the sharp.
The attorneys who prosecuted the lawsuit against McD were hired by a client, the plaintiff.
Naturally, they could have declined the offer of employment. But they didn’t.
Instead they were successful. Sour grapes @ McD’s?
Settlements are favored by the courts.
Indeed, it is the public policy of New York at least to do so. McD did not have to settle, however, and neither did the plaintiff. And among the beneficiaries were charitable groups.
In all the comments I’ve read attacking lawyers, not one has even given lip service to the defense bar which I am a member that has answered and, in many cases, won.
You’re flogging a dead horse if you think that a wrong won’t be redressed because of the frustration or petulance of some people in the insurance industry. To steal a leaf from Carlos Peniche, the raison d’etre of the entire insurance industry flows from claimants who employ lawyers. Without the potential for p&c claims, the livelihoods as well of the people the industry employs, from agents to underwriters to claims adjusters to defense and coverage counsel like myself and my employees, would evanesce into nothingness. We all are a reaction to these claimants who employ attorneys to right some wrong whose cleverness and financial success perhaps brings out the envy in us all….but regardless of that,in spite of all that, the symbiosis will go on.
Poor Tom. He’s trying so hard to justify his existence. What used to be a noble profession has, I am afraid, fallen from grace because of the senseless proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that have lined the pockets of lawyers at the expense of U.S. commerce. My father was a lawyer who eventually withdrew from the practice of law because he felt ashamed to be painted with such a negative brush. He subsequently championed tort reform which, by the way, took a giant step forward yesterday when the President signed a new piece of legislation aimed at redressing the runaway filings of class action suits. It looks like the Congress sided with those whose viewpoints are in complete opposition to Poor Tom.
I’m not even worried about the so called fall from grace for the legal profession. History repeats itself. For example, even Shakespeare’s Prince Hal said “The first thing we do (on ascending the throne of England) is kill all the lawyers.” Looks like, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” The profession has always worn a black eye and people scorn lawyers. I guess that explains the “Poor Tom” epithet.
But I fail to see the need for sarcasm nor do I consider being the butt of a joke important except to express one’s feelings, not ideas. No one but Rev D and attorney Peniche touched upon the ideas I raised in my comments, not even Reformist.
I still invite someone, anyone, who can comment on the broader issues I have raised rather than singing a dirge.
And, as I have been saying all along, I do defense primarily. But notwithstanding that, I’m grateful that I am not poor in spirit or otherwise.
Not only that, I’m associated with fine people and fine attorneys who have just reduced the liability in NY for any defendant who is being sued by an undocumented alien. Reformist’s Dad might have been equally pleased to be so associated.
One last thing, Reformist, how did your Dad pay for your education? Didn’t the $$ come from the practice of law? That’s where the $$ came from to support and educate my kids.
So, instead of a diatribe, I’d like to challenge Reformist instead: How much would Reformist care to donate of the $$cost of his support and education to the American Heart ***’n or some other charity that was paid for out of Reformist’s Dad’s law practice?
Let us all know….
My father became an independent insurance adjuster making far less money than he did as a lawyer. But he was happy, had a great reputation and was a stand up guy. Since I was one of three kids who all wanted to go to college, I earned a small scholarship and worked my way to a degree. It took me five years. So, my Dad put his character and values before $$$ and we all managed to make the best of it. Nice try, Tom!
Tom,I have not misunderstood your position as you stated. I previously responded because the McD settlement is a case study that demonstrates how far the legal system has degenerated. When there is a cash rich opportunity like McD there will always be an attorney willing to file suit even for serving a hot cup of coffee. You mentioned “settlements are favored by the courts.” You should have added they are needed because the courts are mired down in a back log of new and ongoing suits that they can no longer handle in a timely and responsive manner. You mentioned McD settled but they “did not have to settle.” If they did not settle the bleeding associated with the ongoing defense costs in a protracted case are enormous. It is more cost effective to settle quickly and early regardless of culpability. You mentioned that among the beneficiaries of the settlement were charities. How about the plaintiff attorney? I wonder if he or she donated his or her contingent check to a charity. You stated you are member of the defense bar and in many cases you have won. I would suggest you read today’s WSJ article on President Bush’s impending signing of the landmark bill on class action suits. Read how the plaintiff’lawyers are rushing to file as many class action suits in various state counties in order to beat the deadline. One county in Arkansas had five class action suits filed in one week compared to one for all of last year. Read about the $173.9 BILLION YES BILLION in legal defense and settlement costs paid by the insurance industry in 2003 which is up 36% from 2000. For the basic commercial liablity policy these costs are 46.7% of the total claim cost. With this amount of revenue and percentage increases, I can see why the legal industry tries to defend itself. The good news is the insurance companies may now be able to expand and offer addtional coverage at a lower price to their customers. The bad news is the the plaintiff’lawyers are already looking for ways to circumvent the bill. As I said before, the burden our country incurs in carring the costs of supporting a run away legal environment is robbing us of new job creation, increasing wages and innovation.
This discussion is bigger than all of us.
But now that I’ve read the WSJournal, I applaud the legislation. I don’t see it as anything but a band aid, but it will save some $$ as P.I. cases are not federal judges’ and plaintiffs’ attorneys usually avoid federal court like the plague for obvious reasons.
Everyone have a nice weekend. It’s been real……
Check out the movie Supersize Me…you surely won’t eat McDonald’s again. I suggest also having children in your life watch it to help counteract the brainwashing effect of McDonald’s marketing.
While the tort system does provide a certain “protection” for the consuming public, I must admit I wonder how much money I am paying for things like a sign on a bicycle when you buy it that says “CAUTION: Wheels Turn and riding this may cause injury” or and the list goes on ad nauseum. My favorite is the one where someone was using a lawnmower to trim hedges by lifting it, got injured and sued because they were not warned – now what kind of attorney would take that case and be able to look themselves in the mirror? Apparently a lot. Class Actions? How great it is to get a notice I have just WON a 50% off my next purchase of a product because my class action lawsuit was settled!! Reading the fine print I always find the plaintiffs attorney fees to be at least $5million and up and up and up.
The comment about the Buick case missed the big picture: it’s all about money and a big payday (not just lawyers – look at Enron). Once that products liability door was opened, many flooded through looking for the big payday – not some type of altruistic notion of protecting the public.
OK – anyone read DUNE? If so , you know what I am referring to relative to lawyers.
Where are the added taxes to the food products that cause health problems and costs…..what is fair for the tobacco industry SHOULD also be fair and appropriate for the food industry…don’t be intimidated and/or influenced by the big monies…..I dare say there are just as many if not more bad food related illness and addictions than smoking….and how about the liquor industry???? are we afraid of that powerful industry too?????
Barney is right. Food’ll killya! Problem is no one is dragging the feasters to Mickey D’s. I loved their beef suet laced french fries. The thought police killed them by requiring them to now tast like styrofoam sticks. Everyone knows that a Big Mac isn’t high on the healthy foods list, but it sure as hell is a great tasting sandwich. If I want to die in Big Mac heaven, I sure as hell don’t need some bottom feeding tort-fleecer interfering with my life and liberty by prohibiting my pursuit of happiness – even if it might contribute to my inevitable death.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If Nick thinks I wrote my comments to justify the lawsuit, then he’s misunderstood my position. I responded to the attack on the legal profession as a whole. An old saw: You don’t judge a person by his friends, but the lawyer he/she keeps, for the sharp will hire the sharp.
The attorneys who prosecuted the lawsuit against McD were hired by a client, the plaintiff.
Naturally, they could have declined the offer of employment. But they didn’t.
Instead they were successful. Sour grapes @ McD’s?
Settlements are favored by the courts.
Indeed, it is the public policy of New York at least to do so. McD did not have to settle, however, and neither did the plaintiff. And among the beneficiaries were charitable groups.
In all the comments I’ve read attacking lawyers, not one has even given lip service to the defense bar which I am a member that has answered and, in many cases, won.
You’re flogging a dead horse if you think that a wrong won’t be redressed because of the frustration or petulance of some people in the insurance industry. To steal a leaf from Carlos Peniche, the raison d’etre of the entire insurance industry flows from claimants who employ lawyers. Without the potential for p&c claims, the livelihoods as well of the people the industry employs, from agents to underwriters to claims adjusters to defense and coverage counsel like myself and my employees, would evanesce into nothingness. We all are a reaction to these claimants who employ attorneys to right some wrong whose cleverness and financial success perhaps brings out the envy in us all….but regardless of that,in spite of all that, the symbiosis will go on.
Poor Tom. He’s trying so hard to justify his existence. What used to be a noble profession has, I am afraid, fallen from grace because of the senseless proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that have lined the pockets of lawyers at the expense of U.S. commerce. My father was a lawyer who eventually withdrew from the practice of law because he felt ashamed to be painted with such a negative brush. He subsequently championed tort reform which, by the way, took a giant step forward yesterday when the President signed a new piece of legislation aimed at redressing the runaway filings of class action suits. It looks like the Congress sided with those whose viewpoints are in complete opposition to Poor Tom.
I’m not even worried about the so called fall from grace for the legal profession. History repeats itself. For example, even Shakespeare’s Prince Hal said “The first thing we do (on ascending the throne of England) is kill all the lawyers.” Looks like, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” The profession has always worn a black eye and people scorn lawyers. I guess that explains the “Poor Tom” epithet.
But I fail to see the need for sarcasm nor do I consider being the butt of a joke important except to express one’s feelings, not ideas. No one but Rev D and attorney Peniche touched upon the ideas I raised in my comments, not even Reformist.
I still invite someone, anyone, who can comment on the broader issues I have raised rather than singing a dirge.
And, as I have been saying all along, I do defense primarily. But notwithstanding that, I’m grateful that I am not poor in spirit or otherwise.
Not only that, I’m associated with fine people and fine attorneys who have just reduced the liability in NY for any defendant who is being sued by an undocumented alien. Reformist’s Dad might have been equally pleased to be so associated.
One last thing, Reformist, how did your Dad pay for your education? Didn’t the $$ come from the practice of law? That’s where the $$ came from to support and educate my kids.
So, instead of a diatribe, I’d like to challenge Reformist instead: How much would Reformist care to donate of the $$cost of his support and education to the American Heart ***’n or some other charity that was paid for out of Reformist’s Dad’s law practice?
Let us all know….
My father became an independent insurance adjuster making far less money than he did as a lawyer. But he was happy, had a great reputation and was a stand up guy. Since I was one of three kids who all wanted to go to college, I earned a small scholarship and worked my way to a degree. It took me five years. So, my Dad put his character and values before $$$ and we all managed to make the best of it. Nice try, Tom!
Tom,I have not misunderstood your position as you stated. I previously responded because the McD settlement is a case study that demonstrates how far the legal system has degenerated. When there is a cash rich opportunity like McD there will always be an attorney willing to file suit even for serving a hot cup of coffee. You mentioned “settlements are favored by the courts.” You should have added they are needed because the courts are mired down in a back log of new and ongoing suits that they can no longer handle in a timely and responsive manner. You mentioned McD settled but they “did not have to settle.” If they did not settle the bleeding associated with the ongoing defense costs in a protracted case are enormous. It is more cost effective to settle quickly and early regardless of culpability. You mentioned that among the beneficiaries of the settlement were charities. How about the plaintiff attorney? I wonder if he or she donated his or her contingent check to a charity. You stated you are member of the defense bar and in many cases you have won. I would suggest you read today’s WSJ article on President Bush’s impending signing of the landmark bill on class action suits. Read how the plaintiff’lawyers are rushing to file as many class action suits in various state counties in order to beat the deadline. One county in Arkansas had five class action suits filed in one week compared to one for all of last year. Read about the $173.9 BILLION YES BILLION in legal defense and settlement costs paid by the insurance industry in 2003 which is up 36% from 2000. For the basic commercial liablity policy these costs are 46.7% of the total claim cost. With this amount of revenue and percentage increases, I can see why the legal industry tries to defend itself. The good news is the insurance companies may now be able to expand and offer addtional coverage at a lower price to their customers. The bad news is the the plaintiff’lawyers are already looking for ways to circumvent the bill. As I said before, the burden our country incurs in carring the costs of supporting a run away legal environment is robbing us of new job creation, increasing wages and innovation.
This discussion is bigger than all of us.
But now that I’ve read the WSJournal, I applaud the legislation. I don’t see it as anything but a band aid, but it will save some $$ as P.I. cases are not federal judges’ and plaintiffs’ attorneys usually avoid federal court like the plague for obvious reasons.
Everyone have a nice weekend. It’s been real……
Check out the movie Supersize Me…you surely won’t eat McDonald’s again. I suggest also having children in your life watch it to help counteract the brainwashing effect of McDonald’s marketing.
While the tort system does provide a certain “protection” for the consuming public, I must admit I wonder how much money I am paying for things like a sign on a bicycle when you buy it that says “CAUTION: Wheels Turn and riding this may cause injury” or and the list goes on ad nauseum. My favorite is the one where someone was using a lawnmower to trim hedges by lifting it, got injured and sued because they were not warned – now what kind of attorney would take that case and be able to look themselves in the mirror? Apparently a lot. Class Actions? How great it is to get a notice I have just WON a 50% off my next purchase of a product because my class action lawsuit was settled!! Reading the fine print I always find the plaintiffs attorney fees to be at least $5million and up and up and up.
The comment about the Buick case missed the big picture: it’s all about money and a big payday (not just lawyers – look at Enron). Once that products liability door was opened, many flooded through looking for the big payday – not some type of altruistic notion of protecting the public.
OK – anyone read DUNE? If so , you know what I am referring to relative to lawyers.
Where are the added taxes to the food products that cause health problems and costs…..what is fair for the tobacco industry SHOULD also be fair and appropriate for the food industry…don’t be intimidated and/or influenced by the big monies…..I dare say there are just as many if not more bad food related illness and addictions than smoking….and how about the liquor industry???? are we afraid of that powerful industry too?????
Barney is right. Food’ll killya! Problem is no one is dragging the feasters to Mickey D’s. I loved their beef suet laced french fries. The thought police killed them by requiring them to now tast like styrofoam sticks. Everyone knows that a Big Mac isn’t high on the healthy foods list, but it sure as hell is a great tasting sandwich. If I want to die in Big Mac heaven, I sure as hell don’t need some bottom feeding tort-fleecer interfering with my life and liberty by prohibiting my pursuit of happiness – even if it might contribute to my inevitable death.