[Pontiac]

This is lawschool scumbags milking the system. That is all.

Quite possible. So why do the judges allow these continuances. So why do the plaintiffs permit their lawyers to acquiesce to the defendants continuances.

[AnAmericanMother]

Actually, no.

The problem (if you want to call it that) is civil discovery. It takes a long time. You have to make the other side cough up documents, review them, interview witnesses, check their stories out, find corroboration, then take depositions. Those depositions generally "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," so you rinse, and repeat. Then there are experts to hire, interview, depose.

Five years is not a long time for a case like this, with hundreds of witnesses and many disputed facts, plus a core issue of 'intent' which is very difficult to prove.

Also part of the problem (and this is a problem) is legal malpractice claims. Lawyers turn over every doggone stone for the same reason that doctors order tons and tons of unnecessary tests -- to cover their hindquarters in the event of a malpractice suit.

We certainly don't want to go back to the pre-Civil Practice Act days, when it was 'trial by ambush' with no discovery and demurrer pleading. (I can just barely remember those days, which will inform you that I am ancient.) But discovery abuse could be ameliorated if lawyers could get some protection from abusive malpractice claims.

[AnAmericanMother]

Judges, by the way, have every interest in trying cases (or forcing them to settlement, which means getting them on a trial calendar). They want to clear their dockets and they do not grant continuances without good cause. What's more, in most states the grant or denial of a continuance is completely a matter of discretion with the trial court -- so there's no overturning it on appeal (at least not easily).