Replies

>>>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.