Posted on 08/18/2002 6:15:47 AM PDT by Pharmboy
There is a serious problem when you have a law on the books and thanks to one cog in the system disagreeing with that law and overpricing itself accordingly, the law gets circumvented for a "cheaper" option.
It's no secret that, left to defense attorneys, the death penalty would be abolished, but what gives defense attorneys the right to make that decision, and then choke the law that is on the books out of the picture by pricing themselves above and beyond that system? Give me the free market rather than a bleeding heart's collusion to get around what the law calls for.
And for your information, I did NOT say execute the lawyers with the condemned they represented as a first resort. What I said was that if the attorney wasn't skilled enough to win at trial, his/her representation in the appeals process should not be allowed to charge that same "top dollar" figure as what their ineffective defense did at trial.
Call it an incentive for winning the case in the first place. Their client gets screwed by their less than steller representation and the poor dude SHOULDN'T have to keep paying through the nose all the way to the death chamber. Do you know why I say this? Because WE'RE ALL THE POOR DUDES PAYING FOR IT...HE Doesn't have squat to pay for legal services!!!
And before you rush back and say "Why should he have poorer representation because the lawyer has to charge less?", don't for one minute think we're falling for THAT baloney! The lawyer can give that same level of representation at lesser money as he/she does at top dollar! Phone calls and faxes to lawyers on the job are likened to $40,000 light bulbs to the government and .220 hitting shortstops overpriced at $2,000,000 a season in baseball. THEY set the price and I'm saying they should be doing it for LE$$!!!
My comment "give them the needle as well" was meant in sarcasm, but then, if they insist in not lowering second round fees on their overpriced services, WHY NOT make it a double header and strike a blow for cost effectiveness?
LOL <<<-- note the sarcastic laugh...chuckle, chuckle, y'all.
There was a case in a small Texas country about 15 years ago they estimated the cost of the case to the county would be approximately 1Million - don't know what ever happened as we moved from the area before it was tried.
Tomorrow I am going to the doctor for the third time for the same problem. Should I ask him to charge me half price because the earlier treatments didn't work?
How does your suggestion for price limits support your earlier stated desire for a free market in the legal profession? There is already a free market. If one lawyer's fee is too high, you are free to find another lawyer who's fee suits you more.
As for your doctor analogy, so long as the treatments are working step by step, they deserve what they are being paid. If, like lawyers, the doctor just screws the proverbial pooch and FAILS HIS CLIENT, there's this thing called Malpractice!
I live in South Carolina. Depending on the type of case you are talking about, that doesn't sound unreasonable. In a multiple homocide, or similar case, there is the costs of the prosecutor(s) and their staff, police, the governments investigation, the government's experts (physchiatrists, forensics, etc.), forensic tests, court costs (what it takes to pay a judge to sent on the bench through weeks of trial), not to mention the clerk, court reporter and jurors that are usually sequestered in death penalty cases. That is just the cost of the prosecution.
Then add the court appointed attorney to that, who will conduct an independent investigation, independent lab tests, hire a psychiatrists for a second opinon -- all these are paid for by the state as well, and the defendant has a right to these by the laws of your state. In SC, we are paid $50 per hour on state cases and $90 per hour on federal cases. I don't know what your rules are in Texas, but I would imagine that other states handle their indigent cases similarly. The "cost to the county" of one million dollars would be the cost of the prosecution and defense, I would guess, including all the extraneous costs I just mentioned. Not necessarily a lump sum payment to one attorney -- not to say that never happens, but it seems very extraordinary.
No the first two treatments didn't work and he is sending me to a specialist tomorrow. Should I get my money back from the first doctor or should the specialist charge me only half?
Seriously though, what you're going through looks to be EXPLORATORY diagnosis...Three visits trying to nail down what's physically wrong with you. There is a difference in that and a doctor simply screwing up the treatment twice & having you back again.
If it is that your body is resisting treatment, that may not be the fault of the physician and would necessitate a visit to a specialist.
No but you seem to be a know it all about free markets and malpractice, I figured you'd have a handy answer.
The diagnosis is clear. Two treatments that work in 80% of other patients do not work with me. The doctor should have predicted the outcome, since he is a highly paid professional, shouldn't he (?) and was therefore ineffectual. I sure hope he's not driving a Rolls Royce.
I will confess I really know for a fact of one case. A man was tried for murder and his attorney (first case) was written a check for $250,000. This was not a protracted trial. We don't have many of those in Texas. Many attorneys joked the OJ trial would have been a 2 week trial in Texas and they are probably right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.