Concerning Litigation

[H2Andy]

Since the lawyers always get paid, they are willing to file even the silliest most frivolous lawsuits in which people are willing to participate.

not so. lawyers working on contingecy fees get nothing if
they don't win.

in fact, they can WIN and still make no money if what they
make is less than what it costs to win the case.

and if they lose, they lose all the money they invested
(expert fees, discovery, paying their paralegals and investigators,
travel, etc.)

again, you guys seem to have made up your minds without
really knowing much about what you made up your mind about.

 

[H2Andy]

Far too often it is the guilty party that is willing to persue agressive litigation to seek recompense from an innocent for imagined slights and injuries. These people have no shame, and we all are paying for it, wether it be in court or on the streets. Any one who is willing to assist these sociapaths in their attempts to abuse the system and inflict damage upon this country, the people who live in it, and future generations shares in their guilt.

dude, stop letting Rush Limbaugh make up your mind for you,
and cut back on the rhetoric.

nobody's ruining the country. 96% of all civil suits settle --
that is, they are resolved by mutual consent of the parties.
at NO TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS THIS FIGURE BEEN
HIGHER.

that's a pretty darn high success rate for a dispute resolution
system, which is all civil litigation is.

you can't let the anomalies and the personal injury cases
(less than 10% of all lawyers) define what lawyers and the
legal system do for this country.

you're missing the forest for the trees.

ok, let me say that again: 96% of all civil suits are resolved
by mutual agreement between the parties. that is
an amazing number, and it shows that dispute resolution
through the courts works.

 

[Seabear70]

ok, let me say that again: 96% of all civil suits are resolved
by mutual agreement between the parties. that is
an amazing number, and it shows that dispute resolution
through the courts works.

Ok, let's look at why the numbers are that high. How much more would the average cost of winning a case be than the cost of settling?

Typically, Insurance companies seem to want to settle out of court for two reasons. 1. the award might be higher that the covered ammount, and in some stated the insurance company can be required to pay the full award even if it exceeds the covered amount. Currently Lloyds of London is suing a lawfirm over a case like this where they covered a swilmming pool for $1 million and they then lost a law suit and were required to pay $30 million. Or, 2. The cost of continuing to defend the case will cost more than an offered settlement.

It is because of those two reasons, especially number 2 that there are so many law suits. A client and his or her lawyer are well aware that they have a potential to pick up some fast money by pushing even a weak case because the insurance company will normally push for an out of court settlement rather that invest more money into even a winning case.

If you are going to spew facts all over the place, would you please put them in a recognizable context?

As for Rush Limbaugh, mostly I think he's an Idiot, and I do not listen to his show, But let's face it, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

 

[H2Andy]

A client and his or her lawyer are well aware that they have a potential to pick up some fast money by pushing even a weak case because the insurance company will normally push for an out of court settlement rather that invest more money into even a winning case.

again, you mix in fact with propaganda. businesses, insurance
companies included, are in business to make money. they
do this by minimizing loss. one way to minimize loss is to
pay some money now rather than paying a lot lately.

you know little about insurance companies if you think they
are going to settle a case they know they are going to win,
unless it's a case they can get rid for peanus (nuisance
value).

likewise, they will not fight a case they know they are going to lose.

it's the middle ground (some chances of winning, some of losing)
where they will decide that if they can settle for less than it
will cost to go to trial, it's a good deal, factoring in the potential
veredict if they do lose.

it's a business decision. so now you're gonna tell them
how to run their business?

are you a communist or something? i'm getting the feeling
you want no free market at play at all. and there are no lawyers
or civil suits in a communist country, so... maybe that's the ideal you are shooting for.

 

[Afraid_of_Fish]

Well, there seems to be a lot of ignorant blubbering going on, so I'll add to it. Scubafool I meant nothing towards you, I'm sure you have lawyer friends, but this thread is going to turn into a lawyer-bashing one, if for other reason, than the fact that the other one just got locked.

Seabear, you seriously believe that you are not being stereotypical by saying some of the things you say about lawyers? Not all of them are bottom-dwelling scum-sucking mutants. (Surprise) Some of them have morals.

Mikswi, it is hard enough for the law-abiding people of Ameica to obtain a gun, then all the stupid rules that are put into place about them.. Don't even get me started, I'll go off on a rant. It's too bad that happened to your friend and his wife. My heart goes out to him, and I agree, the laws do need to be enforced, but what can be done about over-crowding in jails. If we build another one people complain because it costs too much, if we don't, people complain because no one ever gets sent to jail. Can't have it both ways, I guess.

If you are going to spew facts all over the place, would you please put them in a recognizable context?

I understood everything he said. What was unrecognizable about it?

so... maybe that's the ideal you are shooting for.

It does seem that way.

<33 Jess

 

[Seabear70]

I understood everything he said. What was unrecognizable about it?

<33 Jess

Yes, the facts he chose to use were recognizable. He has however managed to present them in a light that has no meaning.

He is right in saying it is a business decision. But then again, so is paying an extortionist.

Legalizing the protection racket does not make it correct.

As for stereotypes, just because something is a stereotype does not automatically make it wrong. I am sure there are exceptions, but so far nothing I have seen or heard has lead me to believe I have met one in this case.

And while I do not want communism, I also do not want an elitist oligarchy run by sociapathic lawyers.

 

[Seabear70]

what can be done about over-crowding in jails. If we build another one people complain because it costs too much, if we don't, people complain because no one ever gets sent to jail. Can't have it both ways, I guess.
<33 Jess

What can be done is that whe npeople are sent to jail it is a bad enough place that people do not want to go back. And at the same time We start to change the perception of ex-cons in society to people who have paid for their crimes so they have a possibility of getting a good job when they get out.

The first part is easy enough to obtain when we first realize that the constitution allows for the denial of liberty, persuit of happiness, and even life as long as the due process of law is followed, and that means a fair trial for the accused.

The second part is far harder to achieve, but it is something that really needs to be looked at.

 

[Afraid_of_Fish]

What can be done is that whe npeople are sent to jail it is a bad enough place that people do not want to go back. And at the same time We start to change the perception of ex-cons in society to people who have paid for their crimes so they have a possibility of getting a good job when they get out.

The first part is easy enough to obtain when we first realize that the constitution allows for the denial of liberty, persuit of happiness, and even life as long as the due process of law is followed, and that means a fair trial for the accused.

The second part is far harder to achieve, but it is something that really needs to be looked at.

What we need to do is get rid of the projects. It's like this: kids today like rap. People who can not personally relate to the (harcore) emotions in the music are not affected by it, the ones who can relate to what it's like to see "Your momma popping prescription pill in the kitchen", are the ones who take it seriously because they are the ones to whom the music is directed, and they are the ones who think jail is cool because fitty cent said it was. Once you get rid of the projects, the crime goes with it.

Anyway, lawyers go to school for years and years to master their profession. Don't the ethical ones deserve some respect? And I am of the firm belief that H2Andy is capable of much more than manipulating facts/arguements, and throwing 'subterfuge' at people. lolz.

<33 Jess

 

[Seabear70]

Anyway, lawyers go to school for years and years to master their profession. Don't the ethical ones deserve some respect? And I am of the firm belief that H2Andy is capable of much more than manipulating facts/arguements, and throwing 'subterfuge' at people. lolz.

<33 Jess

First, show me a lawyer worthy of my respect. Please, I bego of you. Show me one!

Second, it is possible that he is capable of more than that, but that is all he has managed to do so far.

 

[mikswi]

are you a communist or something? i'm getting the feeling
you want no free market at play at all. and there are no lawyers
or civil suits in a communist country, so... maybe that's the ideal you are shooting for.

OOPFH!! Pay attention now folks, this is where it really gets heated up! LOL

I agree with you for the most part H2Andy, I just have not had any positive experiences with lawyers is all. But in all fairness to your profession, your ability to defend/litigate/prosecute/arbitrate is hindered by the existing system. As I said in another post, we ALREADY have enough laws - let them be enforced.

Society has lost allot of the fear for breaking the law. We have lost the respect for "cause & effect". Rob a store=go to jail. Kill someone while doing it = stay there for life or take a seat on this chair while I plug it in.

Now we have, Rob a store = its not my fault, I have a crack problem. Kill someone while there = I have a crack problem and my mother weaned me off the breast at too young of an age.

I dont think I could do your job H2Andy,too many people wanna reinvent the system instead of using what works.