"First we kill all the lawyers"

[mac2]

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." quote: William Shakespeare's play Henry IV.

Ever heard this phrase when people get angry at lawyers? Well...it's out of it's original meaning by Shakespeare. When the character in King Henry IV, Act IV says this, he is referring to what will happen to people's rights if all the lawyers are killed.

President GW Bush has especially talked against greedy, grabbing lawyers in our society. President Bush used lawyers to protect his rights with the Supreme Court but not Gore's. He used these lawyers of the high court...to become President. The Florida votes still not all counted.

This President wants to remove the lawyers from Americans and "enemy combatants" if they don't agree with his agenda.

Yes...we will have no rights or freedoms without lawyers. If they are gone...so are all of us of the other party.

[BigBigBear]

1. My wife's a lawyer

and not a particularly wealthy one, I might add.

Her favorite exopression: "Everyone hates lawyers until they need one." I'd say that applies nicely in War Monkey's case.

[DU9598]

2. Thanks

America needs this reminder ... our civil liberties are in jeopardy and we must save the Supreme Court this November. That makes ABB so important.

[mac2]

67. ABA

American Bar Association? Their meetings about freedoms, Bill of Rights, etc. were impressive. I saw them on CSPAN.

Bush wants all lawyers banned but RW ones. Got it!!

[RT Atlanta]

3. comment

Touching on one of the topics that can flow from your comment, though a little off topic: the new mantra from * and his goon squad seem to be all the decisions being imposed by "activist judges." I take issue with that comment - all the judges are there to do is apply the laws, typically based upon a given body of law's case law, to the facts of the situation. THe judges are not there to "impose their will," but rather to answer the legal question presented to them based upon the facts of the particular case.

[walkon]

4. Tort Reform

and the placing of conservatives on the bench - promote corporate control over Americans who must work for a living. Without the courts we will have no avenue to protect our safety or our freedom.

Ex: bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", changes in wage and labor laws, even no child left behind allows government to do the bidding of corporations over the will of the people. With judges in place who wait to get their decisions from their keepers what is left for democracy?

[radwriter0555]

10. K. Lay financed bush's tort reform in TX, granting Enron/Lay the loot and

pillage of stockholders, employees and the American Public....

Bush has made bank off depriving the american people their privilege to due process under the law.

Tort reform DESTROYS due process.

[denverbill]

5. Islamic theocracies hate lawyers too.

I'll admit I myself don't care much for ambulance chasers, class-action suits of dubious merit, corporate liars, etc. However, I think those abuses can be cleaned up or at least managed without trashing the working parts of the system.

I found it interesting that Iran also hates lawyers. They were totally banned when sharia law was imposed. They were unnecessary since clerics were now judge, jury, and prosecutor.

Lawyers weren't real popular in Nazi Germany either.

The right wing has a thing about intellectuals and lawyers.

[kanrok]

15. Hey Denver

I'm an "ambulance chaser." Why do you hate me so? My practice is devoted entirely to wrongful death, catastrophic personal injury, medical negligence and traumatic brain injury. Please provide, in detail, why you hate me so. Thanks.

[McDiggy]

16. Why do I hate you?

Because once I get out of school and start practicing I will have to pay a large chunk of my earnings to some insurance company because there isn't a cap on how much a mistake is worth and ambulance chasers like yourself exploit the law for all it can be exploited.

Like the old addage says, "What do you call 30,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start." Yes, I hate you ambulance chaser. (Note I didn't say lawyer.)

Of course the situation in WVa is a little more extreme than elsewhere, so my opinion may be a little different from the country's norm.

[rumguy]

18. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about

The problem is greedy insurance companies. They have been whining for years about paying out to injured plaintiffs, all the while fighting decent Americans tooth and nail when they try to claim for injuries. They fight hard and they fight dirty - and they pay their lawyers small fortunes - and they get paid by the hour, whether the win or lose - unlike plaintiff's lawyers who only get paid if they win.

Caps do not automatically equal a lower insurance rate - the greed of the insurance companies is still the driving factor - look at Florida for proof of that.

Plaintiff's lawyers are the real lawyers - the corporate thug lawyers, which you seem to love, are the money chasers - they are the worthless, souless scum - so I suggest you learn some facts before you start going off on things you know nothing about...

Tort reform is a big smoke screen. Ever do any research into that coffee spill case? I dare you to - you will find that you were lied to about what occurred.

[DS1]

20. Count the pills right and you should be fine

You are in Pharmacy school correct?

[kanrok]

21. Hmmmm...a doctor?

I hope you're a better diagnostician than your response would indicate. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll cross paths eventually, and if you hate me now, you're really gonna hate me then. Seems like you've made a mis-diagnosis of the reasons why you have to pay money to insurance companies. I could go on and on about this, but it'll never change your mind. Be that as it may, you might want to do a little research into the reasons why malpractice rates are so high in your jurisdiction. You'll find that malpractice is on the rise, but claims made have been stable, per capita since 1948, when statistics were first gathered. You'll also find that the overwhelming percentage of malpractice is caused by a small percentage of practitioners. You might want to picket your malpractice carrier, because they are charging you for the malpractice that is caused by the minority. It's sort of like increasing your auto coverage because your neighbor got a DUI. You'll also find that only one in eight of the people who are malpracticed file claims. You'll also find that malpractice causes 98,000 deaths per year, more than AIDS, and more than auto accidents. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good irrational rant. Ph, yeah, one more thing. Don't pretend to know what my motivations are, you have absolutely no idea. I don't need to exploit the law for any reason. Ask my 2 year old client who has cerebral palsy caused by the family practice doctor who was too proud to call in the troops when the baby was born with APGARS of 3 and 4. He had absolutely NO experience in neo-natal resuscitation, yet insisted on trying to intubate the infant and delayed getting 02 to the child for 32 minutes. Once the neonatologist got there, surprise! immediate intubation and 02 sats of 100% in 2 minutes. You purport to be medically trained, do you think a 32 minute delay in getting 02 to this infant had anything to do with her CP? Oh, I guess I'm just "exploiting the system." Oh, yeah, forgot, the family practice doctor's insurance policy has an exclusion for child delivery! Yep, you may have finally put 2+2 together on that one, the child will not be compensated ONE RED CENT for this doctor's screw-up. Or, maybe we can talk about the ophthalmologist who performed cataract surgery on my 76 year-old client. He missed a post-operative development of endophlamitis and she lost her eye. Yeah, he conceded that it could have been fixed with an intra-vitreal injection of Vancomycin, but, well, he never had this kind of complication before. Also he went back and "doctored" his records to make it look like he checked for this complication, when he really didn't. He got caught red-handed and STILL argued that he didn't miss it. Need more? I could go ion all day. Despite my occupation, which I happen to love, I also have a great respect for doctors. I think they are getting squeezed by forces beyond their control. I firmly believe they should get paid what they're worth. I believe that there are countless acts of casual heroism that are performed by doctors every day, everywhere. The overwhelming majority of them are well-meaning and do their job professionally and for the right reasons. These doctors are being held accountable for those in the profession who perform the majority of the medical negligence. In that you have an ally in me. But don't presume to know my motives, and casually toss off one-liners you learned through sound-bites from corporate interests. You should not be treated any differently than any other person in this country should you cause injury to another through negligence. Why should you be treated any differently at your job if you cause the same injury there as you would have had you ran through a stop sign and caused an accident on your way to your job? Instead of talking in sound bites, I'd like some clear, cogent arguments from you. I suspect that i won't get them, but I'm willing to listen. You'd probably be surprised at my thoughts on this.

[physaf]

53. If "malpractice is caused by a small percentage"

of doctors, then I would have no beef at all with you if you worked to PUT THEM IN JAIL for criminal acts. That is not what the ambulance chasers do, though - I guess it is great for you to keep them around so they can be a source of cash for you again and again.

[rumguy]

55. Total ignorance....

Your lack of reasoning skills is stunning, and your ignorance even more so. A plaintiff's lawyer has no authority to try and put a doctor in jail for malpractice. What the hell? Fucking wierd.

Second, what good would a doctor behind bars do for someone who is paralyzed for life and unable to work? A plaintiff's lawyer insures that people who are irreparably harmed are compensated for their losses and able to continue LIVING....you got a fucking problem with that?

AND FINALLY, THEY ARE CALLED PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS, NOT AMBULANCE CHASERS! Got that?

[kanrok]

61. I'd respond to this ad hominen attack with logic

But I'm afraid that it would mkae your head spin too fast. I'm interested in discussing this subject logically and without resorting to terms like "ambulance chaser." If you have something to contribute, let's chat. Otherwise, find another person to attack.

[kanrok]

26. I'm waiting

n/t

[kanrok]

32. Just as I thought:

No guts. Can't debate an issue you don't understand. Have a wonderful life.

[Bake]

35. If you guys didn't FUCK UP so regularly ...

You wouldn't get creamed with big verdicts on RARE OCCASIONS!!

Suing doctors is tough. Juries don't like to think their OWN doctors might be screwing up. Do your homework: when med mal cases actually make it to trial, more often than not they result in DEFENSE verdicts. Don't just believe the crap your insurance company tries to feed you. Check it out for yourself.

To find for a plaintiff, 8 out of 12 jurors have to believe that the doc screwed up. 8 out 12 regular Americans. Those are pretty good odds in favor of the doc. Med mal cases are extremely tough to win.

When a jury comes back with a big verdict for a med mal plaintiff, it's a pretty safe bet the doc screwed up BIG TIME.

Bake, Esq.

[denverbill]

28. You personally, no. You generally, yes.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing Franklin Azar bragging about how he waits for people to get hurt and them 'helps' them battle the nasty old insurance companies for 'what they are due'.

Franklin Azar doesn't help anyone but himself. 99% of his cases are settled out of court, and a hefty chunk of the settlement goes to the attorney. The client generally ends up no better off than if he had dealt with the insurance company on his own, if you subtract the legal fees.

I'm sure there have been some very good and noble trial lawyers who battled for the little guy against the giant corporation and really performed a valuable community service. Fortunately for the lawyer, that valuable community service generally results in a tidy lump sum legal fee too.

Frankly, the money aspect bothers me as well. If a grossly incompetant doctor error results in a patients death or incapacitation (like the anesthesiologist in Denver who fell asleep) that doctor should lose every penny he has and be subject to criminal charges. Instead, malpractice insurance leaves him fully intact financially. OTOH, a great doctor who makes one bad slip in a surgery gets treated just like the grossly incompentant one. The whole system is screwed up, IMO.

[kanrok]

29. I understand your feelings on this

And I can respect your opinion. It's true that 95% of cases are settled or dismissed before trial. IMHO trials represent a gross miscalculation by one side or the other on the relative merits of a particular case. The system is devised to encourage settlement. Most meritorious cases should be settled. Often times they are. The non-meritorious ones should be dismissed or the jury should send the party who brings it packing. That also happens most of the time. I've been a lawyer for almost 20 years and I've tried over 100 cases to verdict, both as a prosecutor and a plaintiff's PI lawyer. I firmly believe that in the vast majority of cases, the juries get it right. As for medical negligence cases, you might be surprised to know that, of those cases that go to trial nationally, doctors win about 70% of the time. There are many reasons for this, i.e., bad case selection being one of them, but one of the major reasons for this is that juries want to believe doctors will do no wrong. As a consequence, taking these cases on requires talent, money and guts. Your point about the difference between "gross negligence" and "mistake" is disconcerting to me as a trial lawyer. Negligence in malpractice cases is no different really than negligence in automobile collision cases. In an auto case, you or I would be responsible up to the full measure of the law if we run through a stop sign, cause an accident and hurt or kill someone. In a medical negligence case, a doctor is held to the same standard, but the only difference being that the "rules of the road" for a doctor must be explained to lay people by another doctor, who is critical of the negligent doctor. We as lawyers for the injured party, are required (at least in my state) to have a doctor review the medical records and sign an affidavit swearing that the case is meritorious and that the offending doctor failed to meet minimum standards of care, and caused an injury. The "reviewing" doctor charges, typically $250-500 (and sometimes much more) per hour to review and render an opinion. So before a lawsuit gets filed, we have to have it reviewed and passed upon by a doctor in the same line of work. These cases are EXTREMELY expensive to prosecute (upwards of 50k for seemingly "simple" cases) and as you can see (taking what I say about the 70% success rate of doctors at trial at face value) very difficult to win at trial. We are behind the 8-ball when we decide to take these cases on. Also, because the deck is stacked against us, a HUGE number of meritorious cases get rejected because of the litigation expenses and the inherent risk. The same injury in an auto case is taken but rejected because the client will never be adequately compensated after expenses and costs and liens are deducted from the settlement. No one doing these cases as a plaintiff's lawyer (who knows what they are doing) is taking "flyers" on med mal cases. Too much risk. As for a hefty chunk of the settlement going to the attorney, yes, we are well compensated when we are successful. It is the risk/benefit analysis that goes along with the entrepreneurial spirit one needs to take on these cases. But, our fees in these cases only, are reduced. IN my state, the more the case is worth, the less our fee becomes. It's a reversed graduated scale. One of the tort "reform" measures passed in our state in the late 80's (in response to another dip in the stock market and subsequent increase in insurance rates to doctors). Despite that quirk, we still are paid handsomely when we are successful, and frankly, we should be. We are taking a huge risk in these cases, and that's what the contingency fee is all about. As for doctors having to lose every penny for "gross incompetence", You'll have to go to some other jurisdiction than mine to get that kind of justice. There are no claims for punitive damages allowed in my jurisdiction for medical malpractice cases. Just simply cannot be. My job is not to punish, but to compensate. I cannot change behavior, nor argue that a doctor, even one who commits "gross" malpractice, should be punished. So, to sum up, I don't think doctors should be treated any differently than you or I if they cause injury when they screw up. If they cause injury through negligence (defined as not meeting minimum standards of care in their specialty) they shod be required to pay for damages. Thanks for the response. I may disagree (vehemently) with your opinion, but at least you have the guts to articulate your position.

[denverbill]

52. I think my biggest issue is this.

In 1850, if you kid was killed by a runaway horse owned by someone else, you mourned and buried your kid. If the guy killed your kid by riding recklessly, maybe he would be jailed for manslaughter. Either way, that was about the end of the story. You and ma didn't become instant millionaires. That isn't the 'fault' of the lawyers. It has more to do with the system than anything else.

Having your spouse or child be killed through negligence has become an alternative lottery. Sure, I can understand that a wife whose husband dies now has to contend with a scary financial future with the loss of her husband's earning power. But does that mean she really deserves a lump sum payment equal to his entire potential lifetime earnings? Is it really fair that Joe Garbageman's life is worth 1/10,000th of the life of a billionaire CEO or baseball player? Is it really justice that in the 9-11 payouts, the feds gave more money to the rich victims than the poor ones?

I have yet to hear of a case where the following has happened. A mother backs her car out of the garage, running over and killing her child. The father sues the mother, wins a $10 million settlement, and both live happily ever after. Maybe it actually has already occurred, but if not, I'm sure it will eventually. After all, just because it's your beloved spouse who was negligent doesn't lessen your loss. You deserve that $10 million just as much as if it was your neighbor who ran over him.

[kanrok]

60. I see your point

You don't believe that a family should be compensated for the loss of love, affection and society for their loved one who is taken from them prematurely solely throught the fault of another. It's okay to feel that way, and I have no criticism of you having those feelings. We can agree, I think, though, that this kind of loss is immense, and has a negative impact on the survivors. Wrongful death lawsuits were actually not part of the "common law." Typically they were legislated into effect because it seemed to be unfair that if the person lived there could be compensation to him or her, but if he or she died, there was no way for the grieving family to be compensated. It was also legislated into existence because of the rather morbid fact that it was considered better to kill somoeone than injure them. The old saw was, "if you run over someone, better back up and do it again because you won't have to pay if you kill 'em." Also, I can't believe that if a person dies because another was negligent and caused teh death they should not be held responsible. Practically every negligence lawsuit that is brought for wrongful death (in med neg cases, especially) are not criminal acts. The death is caused because the person respnsible for the death did something, or failed to do something that any reasonable person in their position would have done, and thereby caused a death. Is it your position that these people should not be held accountable? If, not, why not? And if your argument is that civil lawsuits aren't the best way to accomplish this task, tell me what system is better. I know, appreciate and understand that some people don't like wrongful death lawsuits, and I've even heard potential jurors say that the families are seking "blood money." I've lived on this planet a pretty long time, but you really have to have a cold heart to hold that opinion, IMHO. In any event, i'm interested in your opinions, not mine. Cheers.

[Bake]

36. Yeah, but what if YOU are the "one bad slip"

Does that mean the negligent doc should get a free pass, just becuase you happen to be the only time the doc screwed up? You tell me ...

NO! Doctors are held to an incredibly HIGH standard. That's why, as a general rule, they make pretty damn good money. If a programmer screws up, a computer crashes. If a doctor screws up, a human being ends up maimed or dead. Do the "math" for yourself.

If you don't want to be held to that kind of standard, find another line of work. But don't expect the financial rewards of medicine without accepting the higher standard to which you will be held.

Frankly, if doctors policed themselves adequately, the crappy docts would be weeded out and there'd be far fewer "mistakes". And far fewer med mal lawsuits. And your insurance would be cheaper? Nahhhh, the insurance execs still want their big salaries and bonuses. Who do you think the REAL enemy is???

Bake, Esq.

[denverbill]

56. Hahah. And I'm a computer programmer for an insurance company.

So quit picking on the poor insurance companies and computer programmers:).

My post to Kanrok above also relates to this. I think my biggest problem isn't with the lawyers, but with the basic concept of monetary compensation for spiritual damages. I.e., my wife is dead so I deserve $10 million.

In 1850, when Elvira come down with the croup, old Doc Ellis did his damnedest to try to save her, even letting blood and using herbs and such. When she died anyway, well, I know old Doc Ellis did his best.

Nowadays, we realize that Doc Ellis was practicing little more than quackery, but old Doc never got sued.

And frankly, if lawyers policed themselves adequately, I wouldn't ever read a story in which a lawyer received a larger payment than the people he represents. (yeah, here's a $1 settlement for each of the million consumers affected by this class action lawsuit, and $100 million in legal fees).

And before you ask, I work for a small, regional insurance company, which does not do malpractice insurance. And, my programs never blow up:eyes:.:)

[Jane Roe]

40. A lot of your issue seems to be lawyer advertising

there used to be state laws against lawyer advertising, but I believe these laws were largely overturned (and/or perceived as being overturned) on First Amendment grounds.

I am a big believer in First Amendment rights, but lawyer advertising is one instance where I wish state interests had been deemed to trump the commercial speech at issue.

It is sad that most people's main contact with real life lawyers is through the ads run by certain personal injury lawyers. It harms the profession (even the non-personal injury portions) so much.

[physaf]

54. Your last paragraph here says it all.

Criminal charges, not ever-increasing insurance and jury awards, is the key to ending this problem.

I'd also like to see criminal charges against those who bring idiot suits, too...

[GreenArrow]

6. If we had only a few laws,

very simple, easily understood by anyone, we wouldn't have much need for lawyers.

The more laws, the more criminals.

[sangh0]

8. Yes, let's encourage simple solutions

to complex problems. It's worked so well for us in the past.

[GreenArrow]

17. you could look at it the other way as well

complex solutions for simple problems. That's what we do now, and it's worked real well. I don't think we've tried my suggestion; instead there is a rush to legislate everything, which is, simply, stupid.

[sangh0]

22. Really? We can?

So then I"m sure you can show us some complex legal solutions to simple problems.

[placton]

24. When everything is illegal, NOTHING is illegal. [N/T]

[sangh0]

7. I work for a Public Defender

We have hundreds of lawyers who are paid thousands of dollars less than they would make in the private sector. If it weren't for them, NY would still

1) Racially segregate public housing (we proved that NYC's Housing Authority was assigning people to housing projects based on their race)

2) Deny the accused the right to have evidence tested for DNA

3) Illegally deny food stamps to people who aren't eligible for welfare

4) Refuse to provide housing for the homeless.

5) Strip-searching and cavity-searching people who commit misdemeanors

6)......

[noonwitch]

9. "Why may that not be the skull of a lawyer"

Another Shakespeare lawyer-hating quote. The book of Matthew has some good ones, too. I don't hate lawyers, on the whole, but some are really annoying.

One of the teens I work with told me she wanted to be a lawyer when she grows up. I told her that she had to sell her soul to satan, first.

[mac2]

13. What?

You won't feel this way when you need one. Lawyers are like all professions...even the clergy...there are good and bad.

If you can't tell the difference, you are in trouble.

[noonwitch]

23. I know that, but lawyer jokes are fun

I know that there are good lawyers.

[mac2]

34. Fun?

Sorry...you sounded sincere.

[Bake]

37. That sucks almost as much as "some of my best friends are black"

"I know there are SOME good lawyers." The clear implication is that the "SOME" are in the clear minority. Yeah, I know "there are SOME good black folks ..."

AND THAT IS JUST SO WRONG!!

So I tell you what: the next time you are screwed over by an insurance company that doesn't want to pay a legitimate claim, or the next time you are maimed by a doctor who skips out of surgery (on YOU, no less) to make a bank deposit, or the next time YOUR car explodes because the manufacturer hired an actuary to determine that it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits filed by the survivors than to FIX THE DAMN CAR --

Why don't you call your accountant, and see if he/she can help you!

Or maybe, the next time you are arrested for "driving while black," or the next time you are beaten to hell by the cops just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time,

Why don't you call your plumber and see what he/she can do for you.

Or maybe, the next time you get herded into a "First Amendment Zone" because you dared to criticize the pResident, or the next time you get thrown into Gitmo just because your last name "sounds funny,"

Why don't you call your doctor (assuming they'll even let you get through to him/her) and see what happens????

Bake, Esq.

[noonwitch]

46. Lighten up, for god's sake. Lawyer jokes are part of the culture.

I deal with lawyers all the time at work-people who represent abused kids, who represent parents in juvenile court, prosecutors and assistant attorney generals (state level). Most of them are good at what they do and are as committed to helping children and their families as I am. Most of them also have a sense of humor and tell lawyer jokes themselves.

PS: I didn't say "some good lawyers", I said I know there are good lawyers. There is a big difference when you add that one word.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Shrub tried to be a lawyer.....

The University of Texas Law School wouldn't let him in. Think it had to do with his test scores--LSAT (sp?).

[physaf]

57. I wonder what the difference in these X-SAT scores came from.

His post-grad test scores were apparently high enough to get fo get into some other very elite schools - I wonder why he apparently didn't do so well on the LSATs. What's the huge difference between these tests?

[Sandpiper]

59. The LSAT isn't a test of knowledge

It's a test of thinking skills. The questions of the LSAT are designed to test your skills in logic, analysis, and thinking quickly.

Shrub doesn't exactly strike me as being a very quick thinker, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did poorly on the LSAT.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. If we're going to kill all the lawyers...

I suppose that also means prosecutors, corporate and insurance defenders, tax lawyers, estate lawyers, merger and takeover specialists...

And all those congresscritters and state legislators with law degrees.

Tain't defense attorneys, Legal Services, the ACLU, or tort lawyers causing all the problems.

[mac2]

14. Lawyers at fault?

It's the "lawlessness" of our society that is at fault. No accountability.

[PVnRT]

43. "No accountability"

I agree, there is no corporate accountability in this country - they think that they should just be able to get away with anything they want.

Oh wait, you were probably talking about "personal responsibility"

[FeebMaster]

19. As I understand it,

In Shakespeare's day, what we call lawyers, they called barristers. When Shakespeare refers to lawyers, he's talking about law makers, politicians, and such.

[Az]

25. Its always riled me up when the right yells about lawsuits

Look, its real simple. The right went crazy deregulating everything. They created the enviroment where suing is the only means of redressing an issue. If regulations were in place the corporations would be saved from the lawyers. Instead we have corporations that now invest heavily in their lawyers in order to better enable them to run over the people. Occaisionally they piss off enough people that they can get a class action suit together and ram it back home.

[BigBigBear]

27. Defending the legal profession isn't popular

It's very easy to dump on lawyers..but the fact remains that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and not paying claims. My wife is retained 2/3rds of the time because people trying to settle claims or get compensation are routinely ignored by insurance companies.

The idea that greedy, manipulative lawyers are unethically hustling insurance companies out of money is utterly laughable. If you don't know how hard it is to get an insurance company to pay a legitimate claim (especially the other guy's insurance company), consider yourself lucky.

My wife has represented people who have lost houses, cars, businesses, savings accounts - because insurance companies won't pay unless they're sued and threatened with bad faith. But while you're fighting them and losing, your crdit can go south, your mortgage can fall behind, the hospitals sue you for medical bills, etc etc.

There are plenty of safeguards in the system to prevent abuse of the courts.

[TNOE]

30. You just hit on something important

that I hadn't heretofore (how's that for legalese?) considered:

Trying to discredit the profession that truly does help the people, fighting for the detainees in Guatanamo, the Free Speech Zones, and the anti-war protestors.... just another peg in the complete and total destruction of liberty and freedom. It's got to all come down for him. Thanks for the post.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Deja Q]

33. The Supreme Court helped Bush* with their partisan politics...

Bushjob* has a point about lawyers being corrupt. For all the wrong reasons though... I gotta side with lawyers for once.

[Jane Roe]

41. Then again, there was the sodomy law ruling this summer . . .

which will stand for much longer than the * pResidency

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. For the sake of accuracy

It's Henry VI Part 2; Act IV, Scene II. And it's clear that the character, Dick the Butcher, really does think killing all the lawyers is a good idea. But he is the comic relief. It's not meant to be Shakespeare's serious idea.

[Buns_of_Fire]

39. The nicest thing about lawyers...

...is that boosh* isn't smart enough to be one. :evilgrin:

[Mari333]

42. When my husband was killed due to mismanagement

of a large, and I mean Large company that was negligent in their OSHA standards, was negligent in their hiring (Raygun era), was negligent in every way, lawyers did descend on my little house..over 12 people were injured horribly at the site and my husband was thrown 300 feet threw the air and all of his internal organs collapsed and he died at the age of 36...
had it not been for lawyers, I would not have been able to take care of my 3 small children at the time..or ever
would we like daddy back? HELL YES///no amount of monies can replace daddy..nothing can
But we couldnt bring daddy back to life..in retrospect, the only way large corporations and large inhumane businesses who dont give a shit about workers ever learn is if you hit them where it hurts..
I even asked the lawyer..can I go in front of the CEOs with my sons and actually show them who we are as human beings, maybe create a conciensce where there was none?
He said no and seemed surprised..I know lawyers make money..Im not naieve...but a young man who was in the prime of his life and who I loved very much was mowed down by a negligent company who didnt care..yes, we need lawyers. Yes, there should be no cap imo as to what people who are in similar situations have to endure.
When I think of what Union Carbide did in India to the thousands of people who were killed in that explosion ..and they had NO ONE to represent them ,..NO ONE...
There are damned good lawyers out there and crappy ones too
Bu$sh only cares about keeping his corporate friends happy...the CEOs never saw my kids, never saw the trauma my babies went thru, and werent there with me when I had to wake them up one morning and tell them their daddy was dead.
One day in my shoes for them Just one day.

[Jane Roe]

44. I am saddened by your story.

I am also quite interested as to what legal reforms you would like to see. Please feel free not to answer my questions below -- just understand that I ask them because I am truly interested in legal reform, and I don't usually get a chance to talk with victims of corporate negligence -- I think the opinions of people like you are highly relevant to wise reform efforts.

From your post, it sounds like you got money from through litigation or the threat of litigation. Do you feel that you got enough (I understand that mere money can never be "enough," but I am just asking about the money component)? Did you personally have a problem with laws capping damages in your case? Do you have any idea if the large company reformed its behavior because of the accident and its horrible costs in terms of human lives and legal damages?

On a different subject, you mentioned "negligent hiring." I am not sure what you mean by this.

By the way, I like your idea about forcing executives to spend time with victims of their company's negligence. I have often thought that a similar idea would be good for criminals and (willing) crime victims, but I never thought to apply this new-fangled remedy as a tort or regulatory remedy. My only comment is that the executives probably should not be forced to do this unless and until a court actually adjudges the company to have been negligent.

[Bridget Burke]

47. Until she returns, I don't think she was asking for "legal reform"

She was pointing out that the legal system--as it is--at least allowed the financial compensation that her family needed. She understandably wanted more--that the executives could become personally aware of the pain that they had caused. But that might be outside the scope of the system.

Since you're truly interested in "legal reform"--please, let us know what you see as the problems. What solutions do you propose? Are you an attorney? And, are you proposing reforms in the USA, Canada, or in both countries?

Here in Texas, a tort-reform amendment was recently added to the constitution. A special election was held for several amendments, which passed narrowly; if they'd been on the November ballot, they might have failed. The main excuse for this particular amendment (limiting malpractice awards) was to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance in Texas. It's gone up since the election.

[Jane Roe]

48. I am not any sort of legal reform expert

so don't be fooled into thinking that any of my thoughts in this area are informed by any sort of special knowledge. I am just a drone.

As far as tort reform, my favored reforms are sort of along two lines:

1. More rigorous bond requirements. I don't like what is slowly happening with the Exxon Valdez case. I think a great big bond -- had it been required in 1990 would have sped the case up. There may have been a bond in one or more of the Valdez litigations -- however, imo, the bonds were not nearly big enough -- they should have been big enough that the litigations were over and done by the time Clinton took his oath of office.

2. Specific performance punishments. Humiliating ones. There is some of this going on in the cigarette litigations, where cigarrette cos. have to pay for commercials lampooning cigarrette executives. I am for this. There is lots of room for creative expansion in this area. For example, if a company did bad, then suspend their right to have confidential info -- give the press a free, one year backstage pass to all company info, buildings, filing cabinets, trade secrets, finances, everything. Bring back the stocks while we are at it. I believe these non-money punishments can reform company behavior in a way that money punishments never will.


On edit: I didn't think she was asking for legal reform, but I believe that a person in her unfortunate position is a valuable input to the process. Even if her opinion is "the laws are just fine as they are" this would be good to know. If she doesn't want to participate, in a discussion about these things, that is fine and very understandable, too. It is her pain that makes her opinion so valuable here, but I definitely don't want to increase her pain by making her feel like she needs to discuss these things further.

[sangha]

63. Is "Tort Reform" another one of the progressive values

you are pursuing? IF so, when did Bush* and the Republicans become progressives?

[kanrok]

49. Negligent hiring:

If a company hires a person who is incompetent for the job (or has a "particular unfitness for a job") and causes an injury as a result of that unfitness, then a claim that the company was negligent in hiring that person could be brought. For example: I represent a girl who, at age 14, was raped by an ultrasound technician at a hospital. The technician had a prior conviction for a "peeping Tom" offense that his employer never found out about. They never asked him any questions at all about his criminal background, and hired him without doing a criminal background check. Had they just asked him about his background he claims he would not have taken the job. They relied on the fact that he was a "licensed" US tech and made no additional inquiries. Had they known about the "peeping Tom" offense at hiring they would not have hired him. At the time of the tech's hiring, it was normal to do criminal background checks in instances where a male would be behind closed doors with a minor female, doing pelvic and trans-vaginal ultrasounds without any one else typically in the room when the procedures were being done. Now, if the definition of "negligence" is :"failing to do what any reasonably well-qualified company would do in like or similar circumstances" you have all the elements of a "negligent hiring" claim.

[Jane Roe]

50. Thanks.

Makes sense.

On edit: further to post #2 "specific performance": allow negligent hiring victims to make the hiring decisions for a culpable company for a period of time. That way the court wouldn't have to bother reading all the resumes and background checks.

[kanrok]

58. I like your thinking on this, but you might want to consider this:

In my jurisdiction, as in most jurisdictions, in medical malpractice cases, there can be no punitive damage awards. The system is designed to compensate the victim of negligence for the injury. We are not allowed to make arguments that the entity should be punished or that their behavior should be modified by the jury's decision. Modification of behavior is a secondary goal of PI lawsuits, but it cannot be argued. If punitive damages were awarded (again they cannot be in these cases) then I'm in favor for placing that money into a trust to improve the conditions that caused the injury to begin with. Yes, this is heresy for a plaintiff's lawyer, but the money paid then will be directed to change behavior instead of giving the money to the injured party. Presumably, if all cylinders are running smoothly, the victim of the negligence will be fully compensated by the negligence claim. If the behavior truly is in need of modification, then punitive damages should be allowed. Contrary to your one belief, money damages do have a a way of getting the attention of wrong-doers. I've been a prosecutor and a PI lawyer. IMHO people will fight harder for their money than their personal freedom. Keep thinking about this. It's good to have fresh ideas.

[Jane Roe]

64. Thanks for the comments.

Lots of good food for thought.

Clarification: I am not necessarily against punitives or other enhanced types of economic damages. Maybe the law does need to give somewhat bigger money awards. Its is just not my focus for reform in the sense that I think the tort damages struggle is generally played out politically on the money end (except that we need to be vigilant about blocking bad pieces of new legislation on the money end). I may not like exactly where the law has ended up on money damages, but I feel relatively powerless to advocate for progress in this legally-crowded area.

I don't think we have yet scratched the surface with creative "specific (humiliating) performance" damages. Special advantages of "specific performance damages" may include: (1) fewer crocodile tears over bankrutcy concerns; and (2) not as easily passed to consumers.

[ignatius]

45. You are exactly right, the irony is, they are the first to go running

to the attorneys..remember the election, Cheney's energy reports..of course the difference is they own the judges.

[coda]

51. Seeing how lawyers "eminently domained" land for a Texas Ranger ballpark

resulting in a $10,000,000 windfall for *, I guess it all depends on who the greedy, grabbing lawyers are grabbing for.

Land theft is a God-given right in Texas....if you can get away with it, that is. :-)

[jus_the_facts]

62. just more hypocritical thinkin' on their behalf....nothin' new.....

.....only THEY should be able to use the law to their advantage...while the little people have it used against them....same ol' song and dance! :puke:

[WilliamPitt]

65. Everyone hates lawyers

until they need one.

[mac2]

66. Lawyers are human....

As I said above...Lawyers are human with all the good and bad faults. Can we compare their human traits to others such as clergy, doctors, sports heroes, etc.?

Consumers have to check out lawyers and complaints against them. Like anything else...buyer beware.