I got a letter in the mail last year saying that I\’m included in a class action suit against an insurance company I used to work with. I get peanuts; the lawyers get millions.
How about Lowlife Attorneys Under the Guise of Helping? They could be known as \”LAUGH\”! At least defense attorneys probably have a little more to be proud of.
How about \”Continental Association of Claimants Attorneys\”, or \”CACA\” for short?? Would also work very well for California, Colorado, Connecticutt, Kansas and Kentucky.
Do you folks have anything constructive to contribute to the debate, or are you all simply interested in searching for vapid, pithy acronyms?
Real people with real injuries caused by real negligence are the ones hurt by your efforts to reduce access to our courts. Vapid comments attempting to be pithy responses merely demonstrate the prejudice with which you prosecute your agenda to eliminate our civil justice system, which itself is the result of hundreds of years of studied judgment and precedent.
We trust juries to determine the question of life and death. Why do you have a problem with juries determining what is fair and reasonable compensation for a victim of negligence?
Mr. Diesel: Bitter much? I wrote an article on the merits of Loser Pays 5-6 years ago. It appeared in TRIAL magazine. The problem with \”loser pays\” is that it disenfranchises the poor (economically) plaintiff. This plaintiff will be intimidated by this rule, and will fail to come forward to seek justice.
This is not because the case must be frivolous, rather it is because juries are unpredictable (regardless of what jury consultants want you to believe). There is already a hefty financial responsibility on plaintiffs: they are legally responsible for ALL of the expenses of their case. This includes everything from filing fees all the way up to the fees for experts (like DOCTORS, who charge $10,000 for a day in court–more in some circumstances). Complex product liability cases can cost as much as $100,000 or more to run. The cost is largely defense driven.
There IS a Federal Rule mandating loser pays. It works quite well, having at is base the notion of settlement.
As for contingency fees, well, we work for 3-5 years footing the bill for all the expenses out of our own pocket (that we theoretically get back from a losing client at the end of a case–this never happens, by the way, which is a disincentive to taking non-meritorious cases.
I have plenty more to write, just no time. There goes another ambulance I missed. Damn.
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.
Where\’s justice for these folks?
I got a letter in the mail last year saying that I\’m included in a class action suit against an insurance company I used to work with. I get peanuts; the lawyers get millions.
That\’s justice?
Oh please.
How about \”Scumbags For Their Own Self Interest\”.
Well, they say you can put a pig in a dress and call it a lady, but it is still a pig!
How about Lowlife Attorneys Under the Guise of Helping? They could be known as \”LAUGH\”! At least defense attorneys probably have a little more to be proud of.
Given the recent popularity of the comic book hero movies why not,”The Justice League”?
These people wouldn\’t know justice if it came up and bit them in the ***.
Gene\’s right. Whenever I see that name I will also see matching leotards with their underwear on the outside.
How about \”Continental Association of Claimants Attorneys\”, or \”CACA\” for short?? Would also work very well for California, Colorado, Connecticutt, Kansas and Kentucky.
Do you folks have anything constructive to contribute to the debate, or are you all simply interested in searching for vapid, pithy acronyms?
Real people with real injuries caused by real negligence are the ones hurt by your efforts to reduce access to our courts. Vapid comments attempting to be pithy responses merely demonstrate the prejudice with which you prosecute your agenda to eliminate our civil justice system, which itself is the result of hundreds of years of studied judgment and precedent.
We trust juries to determine the question of life and death. Why do you have a problem with juries determining what is fair and reasonable compensation for a victim of negligence?
And I prefer real names to fake ones.
Mr. Diesel: Bitter much? I wrote an article on the merits of Loser Pays 5-6 years ago. It appeared in TRIAL magazine. The problem with \”loser pays\” is that it disenfranchises the poor (economically) plaintiff. This plaintiff will be intimidated by this rule, and will fail to come forward to seek justice.
This is not because the case must be frivolous, rather it is because juries are unpredictable (regardless of what jury consultants want you to believe). There is already a hefty financial responsibility on plaintiffs: they are legally responsible for ALL of the expenses of their case. This includes everything from filing fees all the way up to the fees for experts (like DOCTORS, who charge $10,000 for a day in court–more in some circumstances). Complex product liability cases can cost as much as $100,000 or more to run. The cost is largely defense driven.
There IS a Federal Rule mandating loser pays. It works quite well, having at is base the notion of settlement.
As for contingency fees, well, we work for 3-5 years footing the bill for all the expenses out of our own pocket (that we theoretically get back from a losing client at the end of a case–this never happens, by the way, which is a disincentive to taking non-meritorious cases.
I have plenty more to write, just no time. There goes another ambulance I missed. Damn.