Originally Posted by BBQMan

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?

Both this post and your previous one are articulate well stated, and more importantly are substanciated by some documentation. No one is saying all lawyers are bad, but we are all well aware of the obscene and ongoing abuse and manipulation of the system, it is the very nature of what they do. To be a member of any profession and to be unable to honestly evaluate the good and bad with equinamity does nothing positive for said profession. Simply a cursory review of advertisements as noted above, or the ramifications in medicine as noted easily shows this is not an isolated problem.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

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?

As I said before, in every profession there contains that miniscule - yes, miniscule - percent which cause 90% of the grief the rest of the profession is labeled with.

Whether one case deserved a greater sentence than the other, that's one of the reasons appeals court exist. With some, people are out of money - with others, people die.

In my perfect world, each high school kid would get a full year's worth of law and civics, so they would understand what law means, how their system of government is supposed to operate, the difference between types of crimes, what are the parts of a contract (and the associated responsibilities), and what their civil rights are. If that existed, there would be fewer "dumb laws," fewer criminals and fewer lawsuits due to either (or neither) party fulfilling contractual duties. The level of ignorance regarding law and government (state and federal) is exploited routinely by many in elected and appointed positions, and the reason they get away with that <15% approval rating yet keep getting re-elected is tied to that public ignorance.

The actual protection of our freedom is the reaction of the entire citizenery, and not just the military. Where the military is dominant, coujps are routine and oppression occurs. The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years in keeping the military as subordinate to civilian authority.

The you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ remark is so far off base it's tough to give a simple response. If that were true, many of my colleagues, and me included, would never have taken on the cases they have. When you add in all the prosecutors, the civil rights advocates, the public defenders, the judges (most of whom could make a lot more in private practice), those who work at the legal aid societies everywhere, those with the various church groups, the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium, etc., whether full-time or part-time, that's a far different picture than the "ambulance chaser" image.

I must say that I don't agree with the breadth and scope of legal advertising, since most of it is aimed at a population of questionable legal understanding, but then again, I'm not much for all the drug company advertisements, the print ads hawking which type of knee surgery is best, and all the "have all the sex you want with no responsibility" either. I have joked with the PI attorneys I know, saying that I'm surprised they don't advertise on the ceilings of ambulances, so people have something to read while in the stretcher. Yeah, freedom of speech does have its not-so-stellar moments.

Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.
.

"Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.".

...doubt that one will find a lot of support.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

"Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.".

...doubt that one will find a lot of support.

Then those who remain dumb about the law will always complain about how they are victimized by "the system."

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Then those who remain dumb about the law will always complain about how they are victimized by "the system."

Certainly loading up the system with even more attorneys isn't going to change that. Wouldn't be any different than saying lets get more politicians so people know more about government. Just not a realistic solution.

IMHO The whole lawyer issue is a big scam. Small percentage of citizens write laws that only other lawyers understand and then charge large sums of money to interpret said laws.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

Certainly loading up the system with even more attorneys isn't going to change that. Wouldn't be any different than saying lets get more politicians so people know more about government. Just not a realistic solution.

No different than having more people understand the merits of eating right, exercise, regular check-ups, not doing drugs, don't smoke, etc..

There is no question that we have an exceptionally convoluted body of law affecting us all, and every day the various legislatures make it more of a challenge. The public frustration with it all is understandable, but it is the public's law, written by their representatives and signed by their chief executive (state and fed).

It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation.

It's no different with the law. All too often there would be those who thought they knew it all because they considered themselves smart about other things, refused to concede how they did things in any manner because it was inconvenient, and just flat-out were legally wrong. There were times we could fix things, and other times where we couldn't, because things had progressed too far down the bad road.

In my world, the best client was the knowledgeable one who really understood "the system," willing to learn more, and accepted the fact that s/he was just one cog in the societal wheel, and not the drive train. In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't - which govern their society makes for a nation full of people that don't make dumb legal mistakes which can indeed be fatal in some manner. They make the best clients.

We've had an interesting exchange so far. Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be. The public is free in its legal system to experiment with "it's legal today, illegal tomorrow, but the week after we may change it again." The public is fickle, so if the next legal experiment doesn't deliver the goods, the pendulum usually swings even more extreme in response than what was the original situation.

Will tort reform happen in Florida, or some form of federal intervention occur? Like anything else, our society allows "noble experiments," and to what degree professional exemptions to liability (which really "tort reform" is) shall be allowed remains to be seen. Should the medical profession obtain this legalized level of public trust - which such tort reform is - then the potential for public expectation for better service, fewer "preventable medical errors," and probably some unrealistic, yet-to-be-articulated demands is probable in its quid-pro-quo for tort reform. If this trust is perceived by the public as violated in any way by the medical profession, the repercussions could be brutal - and truly socialized medicine could be the next "pendulum swing." (which I hope never happens!)

In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't -

Even the lawyers don't know all the laws...so they slit them up and specialize.You can't expect people of one trade to know all there is about other trades. Most lawyers don't know how to be a machinist. Most machinists don't know how to be an astronaut. Lawyers say they get paid for what they know and how to use it. Well, if a lawyer brought his car to a mechanic and asked how much to overhaul his engine and the mechanic said $50,000 dollars?
I know these are extreme situations....but alot of laymen think that way.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

No different than having more people understand the merits of eating right, exercise, regular check-ups, not doing drugs, don't smoke, etc..

There is no question that we have an exceptionally convoluted body of law affecting us all, and every day the various legislatures make it more of a challenge. The public frustration with it all is understandable, but it is the public's law, written by their representatives and signed by their chief executive (state and fed).

"It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation."

It's no different with the law. All too often there would be those who thought they knew it all because they considered themselves smart about other things, refused to concede how they did things in any manner because it was inconvenient, and just flat-out were legally wrong. There were times we could fix things, and other times where we couldn't, because things had progressed too far down the bad road.

In my world, the best client was the knowledgeable one who really understood "the system," willing to learn more, and accepted the fact that s/he was just one cog in the societal wheel, and not the drive train. In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't - which govern their society makes for a nation full of people that don't make dumb legal mistakes which can indeed be fatal in some manner. They make the best clients.

We've had an interesting exchange so far. Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be. The public is free in its legal system to experiment with "it's legal today, illegal tomorrow, but the week after we may change it again." The public is fickle, so if the next legal experiment doesn't deliver the goods, the pendulum usually swings even more extreme in response than what was the original situation.

Will tort reform happen in Florida, or some form of federal intervention occur? Like anything else, our society allows "noble experiments," and to what degree professional exemptions to liability (which really "tort reform" is) shall be allowed remains to be seen. Should the medical profession obtain this legalized level of public trust - which such tort reform is - then the potential for public expectation for better service, fewer "preventable medical errors," and probably some unrealistic, yet-to-be-articulated demands is probable in its quid-pro-quo for tort reform. If this trust is perceived by the public as violated in any way by the medical profession, the repercussions could be brutal - and truly socialized medicine could be the next "pendulum swing." (which I hope never happens!)

"It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation." Not sure how this correlates with your assertion that more attorneys would mean more people in general would be better versed in law as a whole. Your comments seem to relate more to personal responsibility, of which I am all for. Doesn't seem to tie into to the "more attorneys for the greater good" line of thought. Perhaps I missed the point.
"Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be." I'm pretty certain no one in these discussions has advocated that medical professionals be exempt from legal action, nor that consumers be restricted in their expectations of quality care. Frankly, that appears to be misconstruing not only the facts, but the spirit of what has been debated here.

The fact is we do have an incredibly convoluted body of law, and we have those that honor it and those that take advantage of it. PI law has become legalized extortion for the most part. It cost little of nothing to ininitiate a complaint, and small businesses and healthcare professionals and many others spend fortunes defending nuisance and outrageous lawsuits. Thousands of examples abound. Finally scant fractions of every dollar cost in tort cases (22 cents per dollar by some estimates) ever make it into the hands of the plantiff.
Just as we have problems with healthcare, we have a malignant problem with the manipulation of our legal system by those with money and power for those with money and power, and it is obscene. Most people would agree.

Y'all can keep nitpickin' with each other if that's what rocks your boat, but face it, the other guy either cannot or will not see your point, much less concede it. As someone who doesn't really have a direct dog in the fight other than being a taxpayer and potential client/patient, I see the value of shysters as well as quacks. Somebody's going to get the wrong leg amputated or breast removed. That person is going to need someone to defend them against a medical/legal team that wants to award them 40% discounts on their next organ removal and call it even. And just because it's that MD's 10th botched amputation this year or the 14th good boob excised, the medicos would just as soon keep any "investigation" internal. They'll handle their own. Oh, give me a shark trial lawyer --- not John Edwards, but a real shark.

On the other hand -- low hanging fruit first -- you've all seen the commercials: "Had an auto accident, a fall, or any other injury. Call us immediately before you see a doctor. If we don't get you money, you don't pay!!!" Without question, the bottom-feeders of the industry, but then someone had to finish at the bottom of the class. But another equally objectionable portion of an otherwise honorable profession is the class-action lawyer. We're gonna sue Chic-lets because they changed their formula for cinnamon and I'm allergic. Somehow, through friendly court rulings and other manipulations, we end up with 100,000 members of the class. We sue Chic-let for $500,000,000, a reasonable sum. Chic-lets knows the case is being tried in Madison Co, Illinois, so they're gonna lose. So they settle for $50mil. The lawyers get their percentage (in cash), then the class members get coupons good toward the purchase of new improved Chic-lets cinnamon, if, of course, they fill out all the right paperwork So who won?




`

Originally Posted by Muncle

Y'all can keep nitpickin' with each other if that's what rocks your boat, but face it, the other guy either cannot or will not see your point, much less concede it. As someone who doesn't really have a direct dog in the fight other than being a taxpayer and potential client/patient, I see the value of shysters as well as quacks. Somebody's going to get the wrong leg amputated or breast removed. That person is going to need someone to defend them against a medical/legal team that wants to award them 40% discounts on their next organ removal and call it even. And just because it's that MD's 10th botched amputation this year or the 14th good boob excised, the medicos would just as soon keep any "investigation" internal. They'll handle their own. Oh, give me a shark trial lawyer --- not John Edwards, but a real shark.

On the other hand -- low hanging fruit first -- you've all seen the commercials: "Had an auto accident, a fall, or any other injury. Call us immediately before you see a doctor. If we don't get you money, you don't pay!!!" Without question, the bottom-feeders of the industry, but then someone had to finish at the bottom of the class. But another equally objectionable portion of an otherwise honorable profession is the class-action lawyer. We're gonna sue Chic-lets because they changed their formula for cinnamon and I'm allergic. Somehow, through friendly court rulings and other manipulations, we end up with 100,000 members of the class. We sue Chic-let for $500,000,000, a reasonable sum. Chic-lets knows the case is being tried in Madison Co, Illinois, so they're gonna lose. So they settle for $50mil. The lawyers get their percentage (in cash), then the class members get coupons good toward the purchase of new improved Chic-lets cinnamon, if, of course, they fill out all the right paperwork So who won?




`

Not about nitpikin or getting anyone to concede. It IS about giving accurate information and real world experience to people that care to read and become informed, just making sure the other side of the coin gets equal time. The amount of misconception is so great that it is easier to just duck one's head and let it ride. I prefer not to do that. I think we all have a duty to share honest, accurate and real information, and on a higher level an obligation to learn from those that share with us.
You do make good points on both ends of the spectrum, but oblique innaccuracies are still there. While there has been in the past a well known protection of physicians by physicians, give our legal bretren their due. They are actually quite well known (with a little research) for their self
protection in the "self policing" spectrum. The pendulum does indeed swing both ways, let's just be sure everyone is aware in the midst of all the rhetoric.

Here is a great reason why class action reform is necessary.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5217536.story

Not sure what veteran disability claims have to do with "tort reform", they aren't tort claims, but of course they get thrown into the conversation by the original poster. I also don't see the relevance of the fact 10% of the bar in steve z's membership hasn't been in court. It's not a relevant statistic unless you only analyze tort claims. Criminal lawyers and public defenders are in court all the time, but they don't handle tort claims. Very few tort claims are ever tried to conclusion. So what percentage of ABA members handling tort claims actually get to trial, not just "in court" whatever that means. For a little while I thought this thread dealt with only tort claims.

The originator of the thread asks, "will there be tort reform in Florida?" So why do we need reform in Florida? What specific Florida legal issues warrant reform?

Steve z, did you actually handle "tort" claims and if so, what percentage of your business was devoted to them, or where you handling first party disability claims, which are not tort claims and not a fair comparison.

Keedy, thanks again for your great insight into another issue, lawyers can't be mehcnics really cleard up a lot!

Keedy, thanks again for your great insight into another issue, lawyers can't be mehcnics really cleard up a lot!

Thanks...I'll remember that!!!!!
107 years old and still struggling with your spelling : )

Originally Posted by bimmertl

Here is a great reason why class action reform is necessary.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5217536.story...

The originator of the thread asks, "will there be tort reform in Florida?" So why do we need reform in Florida? What specific Florida legal issues warrant reform?

Steve z, did you actually handle "tort" claims and if so, what percentage of your business was devoted to them, or where you handling first party disability claims, which are not tort claims and not a fair comparison.
...

As the originator of this thread, just wanted to see what people expected (and what they thought they should recover) when they were the plaintiff in a tort case. There's been a lot of publicity regarding what various defendant groups expect, but there are two sides to a matter, and not much is ever heard from the plaintiff side.

Never took a personal injury case, but referred them (no referral fee taken) to certain folk I respected. My world was mainly immigration, homeland security and law enforcement issues, and contracts. Did Veterans Claims no-fee (where the deck is really stacked against the veteran).

Am not sure about the "fair comparison" comment. Depends on the viewpoint, I guess. I'm not a fan of any industry or government being able to dictate to the "little guy" what's 'fair' and what isn't.

Do people sue for silly stuff? All the time, and those who make the silly complaint and those who advocate the case strictly to extract money when no harm is done should have their personal corner of Purgatory with appropriate discomfort. - Do people do harm solely to make money or to cover up past harm? What do you think, and how much should they be limited/protected from answering for their actions?

Is Florida a candidate for "tort reform?" If the various state regulatory agencies and the industries themselves fail the public, then the legislature will eventually come up with something that probably won't please anybody.