Guilty! The Case Against Trial Lawyers

SF Gate (Chronicle) ^ | December 9th, 2002 | Adam Sparks

[sfwarrior]

Greedy trial lawyers are manipulating juries, ruining our justice system and costing each of us thousands of $$$$ per year! Read the entire article and find out what you can do to fight back in http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sparks/

[sfwarrior]

Ping
And here's some good lawyer jokes to accompany the story above: http://xar.us/funny/lawyer.html

[2banana]

Trial lawyers donate nearly exclusively to the Democratic Party; their largesse has corrupted the Democratic Party's platform. The Democrats have traditionally opposed all meaningful tort reform

About sums up why it never changed when the democrats were in power...

[bmwcyle]

Got money?

[BikerNYC]

Oh, please. Trial lawyers are utilizing laws that are currently in place. If anyone is to blame it's politicians who won't change the laws, judges who let cases go forward, and juries who actually award the damages. Trial lawyers are capitalists...they are using the current system to their best possible lawfuul advantage, just like any person in business would. Are corporate taxpayers "greedy" when they use every possible legal loophole to avoid paying as much taxes as they can?

[RichGuy]

The point of this article is not that what the lawyers are doing is illegal. It is rather to point out that what they are doing has a cost, and that the cost is born by the individual and not the companies that are sued. The tobacco case is a classic example. Tobacco companies signed up to the huge penalties and then immediately raised prices.

If articles such as this help to change either the practice of the juries or the writing of the laws, they will have served their purpose. We need to recognize that these cases impact each of us not just the company that is sued.

[Phaedrus]

Dewey, Cheatem Bump

[reformed_democrat]

Trial lawyers are utilizing laws that are currently in place. If anyone is to blame it's politicians who won't change the laws, judges who let cases go forward, and juries who actually award the damages.

Actually, we could make a circular argument out of this --

The lawyers bring a worthless case to trial to set a precedent.

The judge, put in place by democrats, allows the trial to proceed.

The jury makes the award based on the principle that the corporation can afford it.

The lawyer makes a windfall profit, and donates to the DNC (in religious terms, a "tithe").

The DNC then works to place yet more democrat judges.

and voila! Here we are. In order to strike it rich in America, you don't need to work, you don't need to save, you don't need to win the lottery. You need to be the next victim of hot coffee or an icy sidewalk.

I agree with your argument that trial lawyers are capitalists. They are also the only unregulated industry in the country.

[D-fendr]

"Trial lawyers are utilizing laws that are currently in place. If anyone is to blame it's politicians who won't change the laws"

In Texas, and many other states I suspect, their the same. Not only won't they change them, they wrote them in the first place. Remember the Tobacco laws/lawsuit scam?

[Xenalyte]

Taxpayers don't know whether they're criminals or not.

Oh, we know. We're just too poor to care.

[D-fendr]

In Texas, a legislator was partner in one of the largest trial lawyer firms. He produced legislation helping make Texas a magnet for class action suits. He then was elected to the State Supreme Court making decisions on such suits.

He's now a U.S. representative.

So, you left out a loop in the scam.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>This scheme is clearly a potential conflict of interest if a lawyer won't settle early, even if an injured client wants to, because the lawyer has an equal stake in the outcome. That our courts and legislatures allow this malevolent scheme to continue is shameful.<<<

What's SHAMEFUL is that this article recklessly publishes such a falsehood. A lawyer can get disbarred for not abiding by the client's wishes. Champerty's prohibited in many jurisdictions, too.

As for the McDonalds hot coffee case, did either the plaintiff or the lawyer see millions? Not even collectively, right? So why the hyperbolic exaggeration? And isn't it funny how the article (which is likely sponsored by the pro-corporate-impunity Chamber of Commerce) neglects to mention that since the junk food lawsuit, California schools have QUIT pushing junk food on their students? Previously schools pushed such "food" on the students in exchange for a commission. Talk about a conflict of interest... Meanwhile, McDonalds has reduced the fattening content of their French Fries by 50% since the suit. Do kids not benefit? Of course they do.

Meanwhile, as for sympathy for the tobacco industry, if it gets taxed into oblivion is that much different from being penalized into oblivion? A close family member lost half his weight to throat & lung cancer before dying voiceless & listless. I often heard him say he wishes he could have somehow quit. The tobacco industry took steps to get folks hooked and keep them that way, while apparently deceiving consumers. Second-hand smoke is not filtered and is potentially even more harmful. If there's an industry I'd not miss, it's the tobacco one. States (financed by taxpayers) have lost billions in healthcare costs, alone.

In a free society there are always going to be those who preach frivolous ideals. And in an open democratic system, there are always going to be frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers get sanctioned all the time for engaging in such frivolities, but often we see legal trailblazing emerge that's good for society. Our legal system may be more costly than Europe's, but Thalidomyde was never sold here because we are more traditionally democratic and attuned to concepts such as consumer rights, and safety.

The article also mentions how theoretical losses are awarded... Does the author not know how damages for "speculative" harms often can't be awarded, precisely due to their being too speculative in nature? And of course, no mention is made of how jury verdicts are often overturned on appeal. Where they aren't, as in the Ford Pinto case involving corporate executives' deciding it was cheaper to let Americans die due to their poorly placed gasoline tanks than to have a recall, should such verdicts really be overturned? We're the world's leading exporter in large part because folks know that what they get from the USA is likely to be safe & reliable.

If you want to live in a place where there's practically no tort liability simply vacation in a place like Mexico for a while, and see how long it takes you to change your mind. Our legal system's not perfect, but it's better than having the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.

By the way, trial lawyers donate hefty sums to Republican politicians too, despite what this article claims. And there are plenty of Republican politicians who were once trial lawyers and don't want the GOP to become the party of corporate impunity.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Tobacco companies signed up to the huge penalties and then immediately raised prices. <<<

If we could have a choice between having the tobacco industry still around, or all those lost family members of folks who couldn't kick the habit even when they tried, which would it be?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>I agree with your argument that trial lawyers are capitalists. They are also the only unregulated industry in the country.<<<

Ever heard of bar associations? Attorneys get disbarred all the time. Laws outside of the professional guild's influence also affect lawyers.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>In Texas, and many other states I suspect, their the same. Not only won't they change them, they wrote them in the first place. <<<


Did Texas not enact tort reform fairly recently, just as Mississippi has more recently done? States are making the decisions for themselves and arguably that's how it should be.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Taxpayers don't know whether they're criminals or not.<<<


The U.S. tax code is an abomination, as are the bureaucrats and accountants and politicians who have allowed it to become what it is.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Change the system to looser pays bump!

The one time I was a jurror, about 12 years ago, a woman wanted "upper six figures" ($800,000 - $900,000) in damages for what she claimed was a bad knee due to hitting it on her dash board (she wasn't wearing her seat belt which would have prevented this) when in a fender bender (very minor accident). Her lawyer was a bafoon. The defence lawyer ran circles around him. She, with the "horribly disabling injury" didn't even limp to the witness stand. We on the jury made our decision in roughly 15 minutes. She got nothing. She and her lawyer should have been HEAVILY fined for tying up the courts for over one week. Sadly, our system is written by scum/lawyers like the Clintons who want everything transfered to themselves. The lady and her lawyer walked away ready to try something like this again. At some point they will hit the sue-'em jackpot...

[Amore]

Your analysis is spot-on. Some people make the mistake of blaming judges instead of lawyers. Or vice versa. They're both wrong. Judges ARE lawyers, and they're both in on it together. Legislatures often DO try writing laws to change things, but lawyers have an iron grip on one entire branch of our government. And that's not counting all the lawyers working in the legislative branch as well. Even if a tort-reform law manages to get passed, the judge/lawyers "interpret" the laws -- which means they have the power to strike the laws down or judicially rewrite them. Judges know which side their bread is buttered on.

[Redleg Duke]

99.9% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name.

[RichGuy]

I would certainly opt for the family members. The point I was making was that individuals pay the cost and not the company the law tries to penalize. This means not only do we still have tobacco companies and smokers, we are penalizing the smoker and not the manufacturer.

If the product is that bad and addictive to boot, we should outlaw it and not fine the manufacturer since the essence of a free market system requires that cost of production be passed on to the consummer. Only government subsidized companies such as Amtrak can stay in business while having costs higher than revenues.

In the case of tobacco I don't believe it is all that harmful or addictive either one.