This is why we need tort reform...

[cannon_fodder]

Guido:

In this case, no.  I am hard pressed to defend this lawsuit.  To me it seems insane and I thought it would be thrown out of court.

But as I pointed out, I am not familiar with the law they are suing under.  It is possible that the law is poorly written and retarded damages are available for misleading the public.  I assume that to be the case in that a legal expect (presumably anyway, being a judge) is bringing the suit.  I am not an expert nor even a novice in the area of law this suit is being undertaken, so I can not say for sure that it is frivolous under the law (even if it seems stupid).

My faith in juries is not absolute.  I'm afraid I think Joe Blow American cares more about whatever reality show is in season than justice or even his own personal freedoms. However, I have yet to hear of a better system.  Certainly a jury of peers is better than a government official deciding.

And finally, some of the propositions in the tort reform were well thought out and would help.  Others would not.  I have no illusions that our system is perfect but I fear sacrificing my right to full recovery to avoid a couple ridiculous lawsuits.  I wish judges would enforce the rules as written and toss such crap out of court - I understand they do not want to be blamed for denying someone a day in court... but in some instances, that is their job.

Lister
I have worked for a federal judge, a plaintiffs firm, a bankruptcy trustee, and 2 defense firms. Of those, only one has a stake int he status quo (Riggs, Abney, Neal Turpin, Orbison and Lewis), 2 would be in favor of change, and 2 ambivalent.  Currently I work in a business environment and have no stake in litigation reform.  My apparent bias comes from an understanding of the system - I know why it functions as it does and can foresee the inevitable problems in most attempts to alter it.

Again, it is not perfect.  But be wary of giving up your rights to get rid of a small minority of frivolous cases.

[Conan71]

What do you expect?  This is in DC where people still think Marion Berry is a saint. [B)]

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Guido:

In this case, no.  I am hard pressed to defend this lawsuit.  To me it seems insane and I thought it would be thrown out of court.

But as I pointed out, I am not familiar with the law they are suing under.  It is possible that the law is poorly written and retarded damages are available for misleading the public.  I assume that to be the case in that a legal expect (presumably anyway, being a judge) is bringing the suit.  I am not an expert nor even a novice in the area of law this suit is being undertaken, so I can not say for sure that it is frivolous under the law (even if it seems stupid).

My faith in juries is not absolute.  I'm afraid I think Joe Blow American cares more about whatever reality show is in season than justice or even his own personal freedoms. However, I have yet to hear of a better system.  Certainly a jury of peers is better than a government official deciding.

And finally, some of the propositions in the tort reform were well thought out and would help.  Others would not.  I have no illusions that our system is perfect but I fear sacrificing my right to full recovery to avoid a couple ridiculous lawsuits.  I wish judges would enforce the rules as written and toss such crap out of court - I understand they do not want to be blamed for denying someone a day in court... but in some instances, that is their job.

Lister
I have worked for a federal judge, a plaintiffs firm, a bankruptcy trustee, and 2 defense firms. Of those, only one has a stake int he status quo (Riggs, Abney, Neal Turpin, Orbison and Lewis), 2 would be in favor of change, and 2 ambivalent.  Currently I work in a business environment and have no stake in litigation reform.  My apparent bias comes from an understanding of the system - I know why it functions as it does and can foresee the inevitable problems in most attempts to alter it.

Again, it is not perfect.  But be wary of giving up your rights to get rid of a small minority of frivolous cases.

CF, I guess my bias against the system stems from what I've seen on a first hand basis. I've seen such injustice in the justice system that I would rather such frivolous cases not even be allowed to appear before a judge. Many years ago, I witnessed the court system basically make a mockery of a civil case that I was involved in and realized that my case was not an exception. It had to do with child custody, and neither the judge or the lawyers (for either side) were really concerned with what was best for the child. It was as obvious as the nose on your face that they were more concerned with dragging everything out as long as possible to extract more and more money from two parties that could no longer afford such a thing.

So, I am biased, and perhaps in this issue not the best judge (no pun intended), but I see the whole judge/lawyer relationship as people who create a problem, then the same people that create the problem are the very people that make sure you can only come to them for a resolution. In short, a racket.

[Conan71]

I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.

[Lister]

Conan, that is true in some cases. In my case, it was bold-faced good ol' boy politic'in between the judge and the attorneys. BTW, It wasn't a divorce.

[RecycleMichael]

Love is grand.

Divorce is around 50 grand.

[bokworker]

Why is divorce so expensive?















Because it is worth it!

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.

That is the exact reason why I do not practice that sort of "family" law.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've heard far too many horror stories of attornies being the only winners in divorces and both the plaintiff and respondent winding up bankrupt. But, (not saying this is your case) people often bring it upon themselves by being greedy or just plain spiteful.

That is the exact reason why I do not practice that sort of "family" law.

I respect you even more...[]

[cannon_fodder]

Divorce is expensive and parties go bankrupt when they don't listen to their attorney's and insist on fighting over every detail.  The respectable family law attorney's I know complain that their clients are making them do drag the fight on instead of giving up some trivial aspect of the divorce.  Clients CONTROL attorneys, they are the employer and the boss.  I'm sure their are attorney's who milk cases, but in my experience they are the exception.  A happy client will bring in enough business to compensate you many times over for the time you could have milked.

Lister:  Yes, there are some cases that are a mockery.  There are some attorney's who milk the system not realizing that doing so hurts them in the long run. And with our elected judiciary with minimal standards, there are some judges who are incompetent or not assertive enough to deal with the problems.

But the alternative is to have a government employee tell you what your rights are and you shut up and deal with it.  Given the alternative, the current system is the preferred option.


In your situation, one of the attorney's should have pointed out the other's stall tactics.  It is very common place to complain that another party is dragging their feet.  Most judges do not have time for that crap and will try to speed things along.  The judge has the power to raise this concern and in my Federal Experience  they do not hesitate to tell the parties to get their sh!t together.  Finally, the parties themselves have the right and the duty to control their attorney's.  The attorney is their employee and if he is doing something they do not like they can tell him to stop and/or fire him.

again, system not perfect... far from it.  But it is better than the alternative government dictate system of rights.  The more the government decides what your rights are, the less rights you really have.  After all, they can simply decide you no longer have that right and it becomes reality.

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Divorce is expensive and parties go bankrupt when they don't listen to their attorney's and insist on fighting over every detail.  The respectable family law attorney's I know complain that their clients are making them do drag the fight on instead of giving up some trivial aspect of the divorce.  Clients CONTROL attorneys, they are the employer and the boss.  I'm sure their are attorney's who milk cases, but in my experience they are the exception.  A happy client will bring in enough business to compensate you many times over for the time you could have milked.

Lister:  Yes, there are some cases that are a mockery.  There are some attorney's who milk the system not realizing that doing so hurts them in the long run. And with our elected judiciary with minimal standards, there are some judges who are incompetent or not assertive enough to deal with the problems.

But the alternative is to have a government employee tell you what your rights are and you shut up and deal with it.  Given the alternative, the current system is the preferred option.


In your situation, one of the attorney's should have pointed out the other's stall tactics.  It is very common place to complain that another party is dragging their feet.  Most judges do not have time for that crap and will try to speed things along.  The judge has the power to raise this concern and in my Federal Experience  they do not hesitate to tell the parties to get their sh!t together.  Finally, the parties themselves have the right and the duty to control their attorney's.  The attorney is their employee and if he is doing something they do not like they can tell him to stop and/or fire him.

again, system not perfect... far from it.  But it is better than the alternative government dictate system of rights.  The more the government decides what your rights are, the less rights you really have.  After all, they can simply decide you no longer have that right and it becomes reality.

I hear you CF, but in my case both lawyers almost acted like buddies an would go off together to confer with the judge for long periods of time. They would come out of the judges chambers joking with each other. I fired one lawyer and the judge berated me for that and said I had to have legal representation. It's almost as if the system wasn't there for me, but I was there for the system. I actually got more done at one point by negotiating with the opposing attorney myself over the phone. Our attorney wasn't representing us as she was supposed to - she was deliberately trying to make things complex and actually sided with the other side in one very important aspect that could only be looked upon as collusion with the other side. It had nothing to do with legality, she was trying to impose her moral opinion on us.

I understand what you're saying about the other options. I'm just saying there is a lot of corruption in the legal system and the very people that run this corrupt system are not policed by anyone other than themselves. I know of no other profession that has so much power. Judges can almost get away with anything in their courtrooms; they act as if they are god. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they have almost absolute power; them and their lawyer buddies.

[MichaelC]

From MSNBC

quote:WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.
Story continues below #8595;advertisement

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to give him a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, argued that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to mean an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The Chungs said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd and overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

[cannon_fodder]

You beat me to the punch:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/pearson_v_custom_cleaners_the.html

He gets NOTHING and has to pay for the defendants court costs.  Not to mention, being thrown out on the merits, the owner of the shop can take action against HIM if they so chose.  Though, generally, such things are unsuccessful.

Nonetheless, verdict for the defendant plus costs.  The outcome you all wanted.