Replies

We'll agree to disagree. But just a few comments.

vast majority of malpractice....

Furthermore, are you aware....

That's a bunch of theoretical falderal. NEVER happens to any SIGINFICANT degree. Lawyers protect each other. Compare malpractice RATES of lawyers to malpractice RATES of physicians (and I don't mean "rates" as in $$ rates). See whose rates are higher. Its not even close. If lawyers rates are lower (and they are), is one therefore justified in concluding that lawyers are smarter, more careful, and more thoughtful in their profession than doctors, OR is there another explanation? (rhetorical question).

Bubba and Laverne *might* be good for criminal cases, but it is easy to find examples of case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case where B & L are emotionally manipulated by the involved lawyers or otherwise fooled or scammed into coming up with the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping verdicts. See www.overlawyered.com. B & L are selected to serve on jury based their ignorance, stupidity and emotional pliability. Given my opinion of B & L, it logically follows that they should not be assessing the intangibles of pain and suffering.

I NEVER said "vast majority" in any of my postings. Neverless, the defense does win a significant majority of such cases that go to trial, in my understanding. Well-founded cases do NOT lose at trial. A losing case at trial (for the plaintiff) means that that the plaintiff's atty had poor judgement and wasted EVERYONE'S resources.

I think it is the clear implication of your earlier posts. You're complaining about so-called frivolous lawsuits and saying "cases should be well-founded." What is the implication of those statements if not that med mal cases are generally not presently well-founded? (Also consider the context of your comments re: B&L, below) What puzzles me is your seemingly contradictory statement above that well-founded cases do not lose. If that is the case, then one has to wonder where the epidemic of frivolity is. Unless defense counsel are imbeciles, they would settle every time they were presented with a valid claim and when they did go to trial they would never lose. Clearly not the case.

That's a bunch of theoretical falderal. NEVER happens to any SIGINFICANT degree. Lawyers protect each other.

That's just goofy. What possible incentive would there be for a defense lawyer to protect the plaintiff when he can wipe out the guy's case and get his fees paid while completely vindicating his client? That's conspiracy theory stuff. Sanctions are sought and granted to the degree defense counsel are able to make it happen. They aren't going to trade their licenses for the plaintiff counsel's. You want to talk professional protection? Look no farther than tort reform.

Compare malpractice RATES of lawyers to malpractice RATES of physicians (and I don't mean "rates" as in $$ rates). See whose rates are higher. Its not even close. If lawyers rates are lower (and they are), is one therefore justified in concluding that lawyers are smarter, more careful, and more thoughtful in their profession than doctors, OR is there another explanation? (rhetorical question).

Actually the answer is much simpler. First, doctors have the difficulty of misdiagnosis, which just isn't an issue for lawyers. So on that basis alone I would be inclined to believe that lawyers do in fact blow it much less frequently than physicians do, without regard to relative competence. Second, legal malpractice claims are much more difficult to prove. Doctors are almost always damned by their own records and the fact that medicine is a pretty concrete science--the body works the way it works and errors are easy to backtrack. Causation in legal malpractice, unless it's something obvious like blowing a statute of limitations, can be very difficult to prove. No conspiracy theories required.

Bubba and Laverne *might* be good for criminal cases, but it is easy to find examples of case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case where B & L are emotionally manipulated by the involved lawyers or otherwise fooled or scammed into coming up with the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping verdicts. See www.overlawyered.com. B & L are selected to serve on jury based their ignorance, stupidity and emotional pliability. Given my opinion of B & L, it logically follows that they should not be assessing the intangibles of pain and suffering.

Do defense counsel also favor dumb jurors who will be putty in plaintiff counsel's blood-dripping talons? No, of course not. And both sides have the same crack at challenging members of the randomly-selected jury pool, but I won't bother citing the rules of civil procedure again because you won't believe it anyway. Overlawyerd.com? Now there's an unbiased source of legal information--I bet there's no cherry-picking going on over there! Come on.