Originally Posted by Muncle

[SIZE="4".........
So, why the hell should that $25mil go to .... .
[/SIZE]
`

When people sue for personal injury of any kind, they have two options - hire the attorney at his/her rate (hourly or fixed), or go "{no money unless you win) contingency fee. Contrary to popular thought, there's a lot of work involved in preparing and conducting a good case. The "standard" for contingency fee arrangements is attorney to receive 30% of recovery if settled, and 40% if it goes to trial. The major difference is if the VA or the Federal Tort Claims Act is involved, and then it's 20% and 25%, respectively. If the matter is a VA disability claim, it gets worse, and the potential for recovery end up involving appellate court followed by agency hearings taking up to several years. So, in all cases, the attorney has invested considerable labor over what can be several years before and if the first dime is paid for services. Not many professions are willing to provide that much "credit" up front and for so long for any reason.

I can agree that "punitive damages" being awarded to the plaintiff (if they are ever received due to downstream appeals and negotiations) seems "jackpot-like." Unfortunately, under the laws of today, the court and the juries can't tailor awards to non-parties of the lawsuit. To do that would take legislation which could - as an example - say that ___% of punitive damage awards go to the plaintiff (who went through all the aggravation of suit), and the remainder go to the general treasury of the state (or fed, if that court is involved) as recompense to society in general. Trying to target punitive damages funds to specific organizations or causes would require more government committees and obvious abuse in deciding who gets what. Does this type of approach seem "fair?" (it does to me)

I am concerned that if attorneys find it unprofitable to take personal injury cases, obtaining quality legal counsel may dry up or disappear entirely, as law firms, just like any other business, seek greener pastures. While Personal injury is the most visible of practice areas, it's only one of approximately 50. If that happens, no matter how meritorious a person's claim may be or how notorious a company's actions are, no one will take the case.

As an example. while there are thousands of attorneys handling personal injury, those willing to take veterans disability claims appeals (and subsequent agency hearings) are few and ffar between, and the reason is that the deck is so stacked against even recovering costs that veterans claims are mainly handled as charity work - at high cost - because of nonprofitability.

As a further example. the American Immigration Lawyers Association (the major attorney group representing aliens) has over 11,000 members, while the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (the major legal group supporting veterans claims) has fewer than 200 attorney members. So, illegal aliens have greater availability to legal help at a ratio of over 50:1 than veterans, and it's due to market conditions created by federal restrictions on attorneys being paid for services. Most who handle veterans claims do so knowing they will never see a dime and will pay all the costs, even when they win the case. Not many can afford to stay in business in that environment.

This isn't to seek praise for attorneys, but recognition that when the government gets into fee-setting and fee-monitoring for litigation, the better litigators will just go into different markets, just like any businessperson. While some will say, "that's a good thing," what veterans with disability claims have learned is that the result is non-attorney "volunteers" trying to do legal battle against the government (loaded with attorneys at all levels), and usually losing.

I can recall reading awhile back that there was a particular county, I want to say it was in Kentucky, where lots of the huge settlements were rendered by local juries. In that county, the private citizen plaintiff prevailed in an inordinate percentage of the suits tried. As I recall the article, plaintiffs lawyers tried very hard to justify why their case could be tried in that county. Then they hired the local trial lawyers, who probably played golf with the judge every week, as "local counsel".

I could have the state wrong, but I'm pretty certain there is such a county somewhere in the southern U.S.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

When people sue for personal injury of any kind, they have two options - hire the attorney at his/her rate (hourly or fixed), or go "{no money unless you win) contingency fee. Contrary to popular thought, there's a lot of work involved in preparing and conducting a good case. The "standard" for contingency fee arrangements is attorney to receive 30% of recovery if settled, and 40% if it goes to trial. The major difference is if the VA or the Federal Tort Claims Act is involved, and then it's 20% and 25%, respectively. If the matter is a VA disability claim, it gets worse, and the potential for recovery end up involving appellate court followed by agency hearings taking up to several years. So, in all cases, the attorney has invested considerable labor over what can be several years before and if the first dime is paid for services. Not many professions are willing to provide that much "credit" up front and for so long for any reason.

I can agree that "punitive damages" being awarded to the plaintiff (if they are ever received due to downstream appeals and negotiations) seems "jackpot-like." Unfortunately, under the laws of today, the court and the juries can't tailor awards to non-parties of the lawsuit. To do that would take legislation which could - as an example - say that ___% of punitive damage awards go to the plaintiff (who went through all the aggravation of suit), and the remainder go to the general treasury of the state (or fed, if that court is involved) as recompense to society in general. Trying to target punitive damages funds to specific organizations or causes would require more government committees and obvious abuse in deciding who gets what. Does this type of approach seem "fair?" (it does to me)

I am concerned that if attorneys find it unprofitable to take personal injury cases, obtaining quality legal counsel may dry up or disappear entirely, as law firms, just like any other business, seek greener pastures. While Personal injury is the most visible of practice areas, it's only one of approximately 50. If that happens, no matter how meritorious a person's claim may be or how notorious a company's actions are, no one will take the case.

As an example. while there are thousands of attorneys handling personal injury, those willing to take veterans disability claims appeals (and subsequent agency hearings) are few and ffar between, and the reason is that the deck is so stacked against even recovering costs that veterans claims are mainly handled as charity work - at high cost - because of nonprofitability.

As a further example. the American Immigration Lawyers Association (the major attorney group representing aliens) has over 11,000 members, while the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (the major legal group supporting veterans claims) has fewer than 200 attorney members. So, illegal aliens have greater availability to legal help at a ratio of over 50:1 than veterans, and it's due to market conditions created by federal restrictions on attorneys being paid for services. Most who handle veterans claims do so knowing they will never see a dime and will pay all the costs, even when they win the case. Not many can afford to stay in business in that environment.

This isn't to seek praise for attorneys, but recognition that when the government gets into fee-setting and fee-monitoring for litigation, the better litigators will just go into different markets, just like any businessperson. While some will say, "that's a good thing," what veterans with disability claims have learned is that the result is non-attorney "volunteers" trying to do legal battle against the government (loaded with attorneys at all levels), and usually losing.

Why should they be any different in this respect than physicians? The government has been fee-setting and price controlling physicians for years. This double standard is part of what is so bothersome to many.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

Why should they be any different in this respect than physicians? The government has been fee-setting and price controlling physicians for years. This double standard is part of what is so bothersome to many.

No government rate-setting is correct. Physicians do have one advantage - health insurance supplements which pay all or some of the delta between the billed rate and the government-set rate. In attorney situations where the government is the defendant, the court can retroactively set the hourly rate (no supplementing allowed) and disallow numbers of hours and expenses. For a case that can take 2-5 years to resolve and all of the expenses borne by the attorney during that time frame, it doesn't take more than a couple of these to discontinue servicing that clientele.

Punitive damages -I think they should only be awarded when it falls into an egregious category. Insurance companies have to the money to fight a claim to kingdom come if they want. Most lone attorneys with poor claimants do not have the money to front experts, testing, years of litigation with no money coming in. Big tobacco, oil, or pharmacuticals can stonewall something for a very long time - until the plaintiff dies or his attorney gives up. If they knew something (i.e. hazardous dumping that will affect a community of people for years to come, health carriers that fail to provide proven transplants without a good reason, blood banks that know of an exposure but fail to notify, etc) punitive damages (a spanking for not doing what you knew was the right thing) should probably be awarded. They are often not covered by insurance due to it being an intentional act or coverup. It sends a wake up call to the entire industry - you could be next so you better be putting best practices in place.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

No government rate-setting is correct. Physicians do have one advantage - health insurance supplements which pay all or some of the delta between the billed rate and the government-set rate. In attorney situations where the government is the defendant, the court can retroactively set the hourly rate (no supplementing allowed) and disallow numbers of hours and expenses. For a case that can take 2-5 years to resolve and all of the expenses borne by the attorney during that time frame, it doesn't take more than a couple of these to discontinue servicing that clientele.

To be very clear, there are MANY instances where supplements will not kick in. In almost every case supplements follow medicaire rules on what is deemed "appropriate" or allowable for charges. Supplements are there to fill the gap on the 1st 20% that Medicare part A and B do not cover..the deductable if you will. It is in fact illegal as a Medicare provider to charge or accept more than Medicare reimburses from a Medicare patient. True price controll.
Additionally, if Medicare deems a (for instance) a hospitalization stay as unneccessary or too lengthy, the supplements will also deny payment based on Medicare guidelines, whether logical and appropriate or not. The "delta" is by and large not included.
And while "no rate setting" is correct it is in fact happening, and why should attorneys be immune? Just as you stated attorneys would flee certain fields if price controlls were put in place, physicians are leaving, or potential physicians are never starting. We are less than a decade away from seeing the full affects of this. You think it's hard to get an appointment with an internist or primary care provider now?? Be prepared, we now have the perfect storm. A dearth of primary care providers (that will worsen) as the baby boomers come of age.
I frankly have little patience for the defense of PI lawyers or regulations on them at this point. It is ludicrous in the face of what medical providers face, and the PI folks are largely responsible. If they are going to bleed the system, let them have the same constraints as those they take advantage of.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

To be very clear, there are MANY instances where supplements will not kick in. In almost every case supplements follow medicaire rules on what is deemed "appropriate" or allowable for charges. Supplements are there to fill the gap on the 1st 20% that Medicare part A and B do not cover..the deductable if you will. It is in fact illegal as a Medicare provider to charge or accept more than Medicare reimburses from a Medicare patient. True price controll.
Additionally, if Medicare deems a (for instance) a hospitalization stay as unneccessary or too lengthy, the supplements will also deny payment based on Medicare guidelines, whether logical and appropriate or not. The "delta" is by and large not included.
And while "no rate setting" is correct it is in fact happening, and why should attorneys be immune? Just as you stated attorneys would flee certain fields if price controlls were put in place, physicians are leaving, or potential physicians are never starting. We are less than a decade away from seeing the full affects of this. You think it's hard to get an appointment with an internist or primary care provider now?? Be prepared, we now have the perfect storm. A dearth of primary care providers (that will worsen) as the baby boomers come of age.
I frankly have little patience for the defense of PI lawyers or regulations on them at this point. It is ludicrous in the face of what medical providers face, and the PI folks are largely responsible. If they are going to bleed the system, let them have the same constraints as those they take advantage of.

The PI practitioners won't care. If the practice becomes unprofitable due to government fee-setting despite having to wait 2-5 years for payment of services, then there won't be PI practitioners. They will just go do other things more profitable. The medical profession, various manufacturers and others will jump for joy, because they will now be totally exempt from any consumer oversight, especially since state regulators really don't regulate, and peer review is also essentially worthless. Despite preventable medical errors being the sixth leading cause of death in the US, how many medical practitioners ever have their licenses suspended or revoked? Perhaps if those groups protected the public like they are supposed to, then the public would not look so often to the courts for justice?

The only ones "taking advantage" of anyone is the insurance industry. The premium versus payout ratio keeps increasing in favor of "premium," despite claim payments remaining fairly level over the past six years (see http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/...s.xsl/8689.htm ), They see a windfall in premium revenue and top it off with bailout money - what a deal!

Originally Posted by SteveZ

The PI practitioners won't care. If the practice becomes unprofitable due to government fee-setting despite having to wait 2-5 years for payment of services, then there won't be PI practitioners. They will just go do other things more profitable. The medical profession, various manufacturers and others will jump for joy, because they will now be totally exempt from any consumer oversight, especially since state regulators really don't regulate, and peer review is also essentially worthless. Despite preventable medical errors being the sixth leading cause of death in the US, how many medical practitioners ever have their licenses suspended or revoked? Perhaps if those groups protected the public like they are supposed to, then the public would not look so often to the courts for justice?

The only ones "taking advantage" of anyone is the insurance industry. The premium versus payout ratio keeps increasing in favor of "premium," despite claim payments remaining fairly level over the past six years (see http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/...s.xsl/8689.htm ), They see a windfall in premium revenue and top it off with bailout money - what a deal!

Funny how concerned you seem to be that there may be fewer PI lawyers around but little mention of the declining physician numbers, nor recognition of the price control issues physicians face that you seem to fear so much for the PI folks.

And again you are wrong. "the only ones taking advantage of anyone is the insurance industry". Again, were this not so blatantly inaccurate it might induce a chuckle.

You are right about medical errors, and it is a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it. As I stated earlier, placing more effort and resources in prevention is likely to do more to address the problem than the PI folks you so staunchly defend. I don't expect they are all unscrupulous by any stretch, but experience tells me a very significant number are.

I would easily estimate the numbers of suspensions and revocations is in the thousands annually based on my knowledge of many state medical boards actions of which I am aware of and those I have been involved with peripherally. Is the oversight perfect? Of course not, on either end of the spectrum.Hopefully it will continue to improve.

You may defend those that abuse the system all day, and denigrate those of us struggling to not only exist in it but improve it, by condemning all as a group.. As usual, I would encourage you to do a little more in depth research into the intricacies before making innaccurate judgments, statements, or inferences regarding healthcare providers and the issues they deal with (financial, legal, ethical and otherwise). At least being open and willing to learn would be a great start.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

Funny how concerned you seem to be that there may be fewer PI lawyers around but little mention of the declining physician numbers, nor recognition of the price control issues physicians face that you seem to fear so much for the PI folks.

And again you are wrong. "the only ones taking advantage of anyone is the insurance industry". Again, were this not so blatantly inaccurate it might induce a chuckle.

You are right about medical errors, and it is a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it. As I stated earlier, placing more effort and resources in prevention is likely to do more to address the problem than the PI folks you so staunchly defend. I don't expect they are all unscrupulous by any stretch, but experience tells me a very significant number are.

I would easily estimate the numbers of suspensions and revocations is in the thousands annually based on my knowledge of many state medical boards actions of which I am aware of and those I have been involved with peripherally. Is the oversight perfect? Of course not, on either end of the spectrum.Hopefully it will continue to improve.

You may defend those that abuse the system all day, and denigrate those of us struggling to not only exist in it but improve it, by condemning all as a group.. As usual, I would encourage you to do a little more in depth research into the intricacies before making innaccurate judgments, statements, or inferences regarding healthcare providers and the issues they deal with (financial, legal, ethical and otherwise). At least being open and willing to learn would be a great start.

Always willing to learn, and am open-minded enough to realize that no profession is comprised solely of saints or sinners.

I would wonder if that "very significant number" of unscrupulous PI attorneys match the number of physicians who subject patients to the inconvenience, discomfort, pain and expense of medical tests which have no purpose other than to provided padded protection for the physician's butt in case one of those "preventable medical errors" occur; or match the number of medical practitioners who make knowing multiple "preventable medical errors" and continue in business. Each profession has its problem children.

As far as the facts are concerned, there always seem to be two types: the ones people want to see, and the ones they don't since they mitigate positions. Whether judgments are inaccurate or not depend on objectivity, and the closer one is personally tied to the matter, the greater the potential for that judgment to be clouded by subjective reasoning.

Why attorneys want to get into the PI business always fascinated me, as the PIers are hated, insulted, joked about, and villified - until someone gets hurt and everyone turns their back on them later. It's one practice area that I've found not worth the aggravation

As far as "staunchly defend," I see it more as balancing the rhetoric. So far, there has been nothing but condemnation of the legal profession while simultaneous sanctification of the poor suffering physician. And as far as preventable medical errors being,"a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it," that's the same song-and-dance given whenever a system refuses to self-correct itself and maintain status quo. Politicians have been doing it for years. Errors/mistakes are noticed, recorded, reviewed, root cause determined, fix formulated and implemented, and results evaluated, and that process works in every other science for failure analysis and correction. When "preventable medical errors" cause fewer deaths than Diabetes and drops one notch to 7th in the "leading causes of deaths in the US," it will be a day of celebration for the public.

There's a lot of education to go around. I've heard a lot about how medical malpractice insurance rates are driving medical professionals into specialties with lower overhead. Yet, the fact that insurance premiums have been rising far out of kilter to claims which have been level for the past six years is treated as insignificant in favor of blaming PI attorneys for everything. Again, the easy target versus who actually is making the money.

Is there concern about rising health care costs? Of course.
Is there effort by everyone which can reduce these costs? Of course.
Will all of the professions "cowboy up" to fix their houses as the first step? We'll see
Is the insurance industry taking a business advantage to all of the hysteria? The numbers speak for themselves.

This country has seen far too many cases of open dishonesty on the part of lawyers with little or no consequences. This particularly applies in class-action lawsuits. Perhaps the best example of this is the silicone breast implant scam. There was no correlation ever shown between these implants and connective tissue disease. Actually, the leading medical experts from Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Harvard went on record saying these implants were safe. There was a crusade by some women to have them banned. The FDA cooperated and ordered them pulled from the market. Most nations around the globe listened to the experts rather than to lawyers and the product remained on the market around the globe. Indeed, now, after the damage is done, the FDA has very quietly reversed its position. However, the lawyers have made quite literally billions of dollars, two companies were driven to bankruptcy and several others significantly damaged, jobs and pensions wiped out, communities destroyed, etc. All this so that the lawyers could make a lot of money and to hell with the damages done.

We are still seeing lawyers sue for tobacco caused illness, even after the 'settlement.' These lawyers stand up with a straight face and lie - "My client did not know that cigarettes could cut short his life." Witnesses are not allowed to perjure themselves, but lawyer’s lying is accepted as a part of ‘representing their client.’ Is there anyone on this board who did not know, many years ago, that smoking kills?

When found out and prosecuted, and that rarely happens, penalties are absurdly lenient. Melvin Weiss of the firm Milberg Weiss got 30 months in a Federal ‘country club’ prison for defrauding the courts in several shareholder administration lawsuits. This was for one case – in which the court determined that he made 9.8 million illegitimately in only one of his many cases. The firm had made billions as the dominant firm in shareholder litigation. His partner in all this, In congressional testimony William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice,’ as Mr. Lerach himself stated, this dishonest practice a clear and present threat to our economy is going unaddressed by Congress.” That is not surprising given that Congress is for the most part made up of lawyers and the bar is the largest contributor to Democrats.

I can go on and on, (lock up Dickie Scruggs on the net) but the problem is reasonably clear:

1. We have for too many lawyers in this country. For most of us the only reason to hire a lawyer is to protect yourself from another lawyer Lawyers are, in academic terms, parasites. They do not add to the net worth of the country, but only facilitate the transfer of wealth from one individual to another, or company-to-company. They produce nothing, they do not provide any essential services and they lay a heavy tax on those of us who do those things.
2. We need to reduce the number of lawyers in his economy. Having accepted the truth that lawyers are economic parasites, we need to reduce the number of them.
a. First, we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers entering our society. This will require closing of every state law school and the revocation of GI bill support for education to become a lawyer.
b. We need to reinvest the monies saved in professions that we need – such as engineering, nursing and education of physicians.
3. We need to minimize the incentives for lying.
a. Law firms may represent clients in one and only one state. Firms trying to represent the entire US from locations such as Mississippi and Wyoming must be eliminated. (See the 10th amendment)
b. Penalties for misrepresentation to the court in a civil suit must be a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life in a high security prison.
c. As others have suggested, loser pays, including the lawyer the law firm and all partners representing the loser, must be made to happen. This must include all assets: including those in the spouse or children’s names. We’ve all seen the ads for law firms saying that they will collect everything including college trust funds. Let us know apply that requirement to attorneys who represent an illegitimate claim.
Is this enough to put the US legal system back on track? I suspect not. As long as firms can advertise, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” This advertisement meets ABA standards – what more need I say. The ABA believes that misrepresenting facts in a civil trial is perfectly fine.

Just my HO

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Always willing to learn, and am open-minded enough to realize that no profession is comprised solely of saints or sinners.

I would wonder if that "very significant number" of unscrupulous PI attorneys match the number of physicians who subject patients to the inconvenience, discomfort, pain and expense of medical tests which have no purpose other than to provided padded protection for the physician's butt in case one of those "preventable medical errors" occur; or match the number of medical practitioners who make knowing multiple "preventable medical errors" and continue in business. Each profession has its problem children.

As far as the facts are concerned, there always seem to be two types: the ones people want to see, and the ones they don't since they mitigate positions. Whether judgments are inaccurate or not depend on objectivity, and the closer one is personally tied to the matter, the greater the potential for that judgment to be clouded by subjective reasoning.

Why attorneys want to get into the PI business always fascinated me, as the PIers are hated, insulted, joked about, and villified - until someone gets hurt and everyone turns their back on them later. It's one practice area that I've found not worth the aggravation

As far as "staunchly defend," I see it more as balancing the rhetoric. So far, there has been nothing but condemnation of the legal profession while simultaneous sanctification of the poor suffering physician. And as far as preventable medical errors being,"a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it," that's the same song-and-dance given whenever a system refuses to self-correct itself and maintain status quo. Politicians have been doing it for years. Errors/mistakes are noticed, recorded, reviewed, root cause determined, fix formulated and implemented, and results evaluated, and that process works in every other science for failure analysis and correction. When "preventable medical errors" cause fewer deaths than Diabetes and drops one notch to 7th in the "leading causes of deaths in the US," it will be a day of celebration for the public.

There's a lot of education to go around. I've heard a lot about how medical malpractice insurance rates are driving medical professionals into specialties with lower overhead. Yet, the fact that insurance premiums have been rising far out of kilter to claims which have been level for the past six years is treated as insignificant in favor of blaming PI attorneys for everything. Again, the easy target versus who actually is making the money.

Is there concern about rising health care costs? Of course.
Is there effort by everyone which can reduce these costs? Of course.
Will all of the professions "cowboy up" to fix their houses as the first step? We'll see
Is the insurance industry taking a business advantage to all of the hysteria? The numbers speak for themselves.

I really haven't seen you "balance the rhetoric" in this discussion, much less recognize any of the truths with regard to the physician end of the spectrum.
I am dissapointed but no longer suprised that you really have no interest in learning about both sides of the coin, and seem to have an obvious distaste for the physician perspective (from what I have been able to ascertain). I do wish that someday you would take the time to learn some of the real world goings on in the "day of the life" of healthcare providers. You are sadly out of touch and misinformed with regard to many aspects of it, though dissapointingly it doesn't seem to temper your rhetoric in the least. These are not indictments of you, simply observations.
The sad part is that are are a lot of people that operate under the same misguided perceptions and at times misinformation. There is little hope of improvement for the system as a whole as long as the most vocal pontificators are so unwilling to give both sides of the situation and honest even handed look.
In the end the situation will progress, not for the better, and the circle will continue. People such as yourself that seem to see physicians as the enemy and PI folks as the saviours will just have to wait until less and less numbers of dedicated physicians are able or willing to participate in the present and fututure environment before taking pause and realizing there was indeed truth to be learned from the other side of the coin.
Of course the insurance companies have a great deal of "blame" in the present mess of a system we have...they always have. Once again, one more entity you hold up as responsible while somehow defending your PI folks in a staunch or more oblique way.
I think I have done what I started out to do and offered honest, real world, and well informed information to those that wish to see both sides of the subject and actually learn something. It is kind of like any gift, you offer it with good intentions and honest convictions and it may or not be accepted, the offering is there either way. I also wanted to offer balance to misinformation and a counter to not only the rhetoric but to some of the flatly wrong postulations that have graced this and other posts, and I have.
To those of you interested in learning and not perpetuating the same behaviors and stereotypes I encourage you to continue your journey, for the rest of you I wish you well.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

This country has seen far too many cases of open dishonesty on the part of lawyers with little or no consequences. This particularly applies in class-action lawsuits. Perhaps the best example of this is the silicone breast implant scam. There was no correlation ever shown between these implants and connective tissue disease. Actually, the leading medical experts from Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Harvard went on record saying these implants were safe. There was a crusade by some women to have them banned. The FDA cooperated and ordered them pulled from the market. Most nations around the globe listened to the experts rather than to lawyers and the product remained on the market around the globe. Indeed, now, after the damage is done, the FDA has very quietly reversed its position. However, the lawyers have made quite literally billions of dollars, two companies were driven to bankruptcy and several others significantly damaged, jobs and pensions wiped out, communities destroyed, etc. All this so that the lawyers could make a lot of money and to hell with the damages done.

We are still seeing lawyers sue for tobacco caused illness, even after the 'settlement.' These lawyers stand up with a straight face and lie - "My client did not know that cigarettes could cut short his life." Witnesses are not allowed to perjure themselves, but lawyer’s lying is accepted as a part of ‘representing their client.’ Is there anyone on this board who did not know, many years ago, that smoking kills?

When found out and prosecuted, and that rarely happens, penalties are absurdly lenient. Melvin Weiss of the firm Milberg Weiss got 30 months in a Federal ‘country club’ prison for defrauding the courts in several shareholder administration lawsuits. This was for one case – in which the court determined that he made 9.8 million illegitimately in only one of his many cases. The firm had made billions as the dominant firm in shareholder litigation. His partner in all this, In congressional testimony William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice,’ as Mr. Lerach himself stated, this dishonest practice a clear and present threat to our economy is going unaddressed by Congress.” That is not surprising given that Congress is for the most part made up of lawyers and the bar is the largest contributor to Democrats.

I can go on and on, (lock up Dickie Scruggs on the net) but the problem is reasonably clear:

1. We have for too many lawyers in this country. For most of us the only reason to hire a lawyer is to protect yourself from another lawyer Lawyers are, in academic terms, parasites. They do not add to the net worth of the country, but only facilitate the transfer of wealth from one individual to another, or company-to-company. They produce nothing, they do not provide any essential services and they lay a heavy tax on those of us who do those things.
2. We need to reduce the number of lawyers in his economy. Having accepted the truth that lawyers are economic parasites, we need to reduce the number of them.
a. First, we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers entering our society. This will require closing of every state law school and the revocation of GI bill support for education to become a lawyer.
b. We need to reinvest the monies saved in professions that we need – such as engineering, nursing and education of physicians.
3. We need to minimize the incentives for lying.
a. Law firms may represent clients in one and only one state. Firms trying to represent the entire US from locations such as Mississippi and Wyoming must be eliminated. (See the 10th amendment)
b. Penalties for misrepresentation to the court in a civil suit must be a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life in a high security prison.
c. As others have suggested, loser pays, including the lawyer the law firm and all partners representing the loser, must be made to happen. This must include all assets: including those in the spouse or children’s names. We’ve all seen the ads for law firms saying that they will collect everything including college trust funds. Let us know apply that requirement to attorneys who represent an illegitimate claim.
Is this enough to put the US legal system back on track? I suspect not. As long as firms can advertise, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” This advertisement meets ABA standards – what more need I say. The ABA believes that misrepresenting facts in a civil trial is perfectly fine.

Just my HO

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

If that is the case...I would keep on your toes...with this administration in power.

Firing Inspector Generals....Hmmmmmmm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...1177440.column

Originally Posted by SteveZ

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

With the United States having over 50% of the world’s attorneys the chances of escaping from them is essentially zero if you have any net worth. As for being parasites, that is the economic definition. As I said, lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth; they create nothing that adds to the GDP.

Most PI attorneys solicite clients – not the other way around. The term ‘ambulance chaser’ came into being because it is an accurate description of many in the PI business. How many ads on television, the backs of phone books, etc that encourage people to sue with phrases such as “no cost to you if we do not collect” do we need to see before we accept the fact that it lawyers, not plaintiffs, who initiate most lawsuits? The last time I checked, no homes were being built in the western world filled with asbestos, Thalidomide had been pulled from the market, Agent Orange is no longer being used, etc. Countries around the world did this because they learned of the dangers and then promptly acted. The difference is that in the United States, these cases were a source of profit for the bar at the expense of the rest of the people. You missed the point where I said we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers, not eliminate the profession.

In your discussion of viewpoints, you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ As I pointed out in several major class action lawsuits, the truth was never sought it was even deliberately avoided - the only thing sought was personal gain at the expense of many.

Lawyers do not advocate the clients in many cases – they advocate their own gain. As for not just being an accomplice to fraud – a huge number of PI attorneys initiate the fraud. See everything I have cited. I applaud you for withdrawing from casers because your client insisted on presenting a lie. Would that all attorneys would do so, but far too many do not.

Freedoms are lost when our government and our courts erode the power of the people. While our revolutionary leaders included lawyers, businessmen and military leaders led the fight. The first lawyer to become President was John Adams. He was also the first President to seek to withdraw freedoms through The Alien and Sedition Acts. The actual protection of our freedom lies with the military. They can act and not just talk.

Consider the outcome of the cases of Ana Alvarez-Jacinto and compare it to Weiss. She was, quite correctly, sentenced to 30 years in prison for committing a fraud amounting to 11 million dollars. Weiss, on the other hand, was sentenced to 30 months for defrauding others of billions. His partner, William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice’. He was speaking not only about the firm, Milberg Weiss, but the entire industry of shareholder lawsuits and the attorneys engaged in them. Once again I ask, if the ABA sees nothing wrong with the ad, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” then how can you assert the honesty of PI attorneys? And what does that say about the bar in general?