The Damage They Do: Can it be fixed?

WBAL ^ | July 26, 2002 | RON SMITH

[COURAGE]

Ron Smith's Something to Say Weekday Mornings 6:50AM rsmith@wbal.com

The Damage They Do: Can it be fixed? July 26, 2002 Ron Smith's Something to Say

(July 26, 2002)

It’s hardly news that American society is paralyzed by fear of rampaging lawyers and their ruinous penchant for suing the crap out of anybody and everybody. We know that the legal system has become an instrument for legalized extortion. We know that ordinary people understand that the potential exists for turning all sorts of annoyances into a personal financial windfall through the sleight of hand of tort law. We know that judges and lawyers form an unholy alliance that shapes our society. What we don’t know is what to do about it.

So, we talked with Phillip K. Howard yesterday about his latest book, “The Collapse of the Common Good: How America’s Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom.” He claims that this ‘lawsuit culture” has virtually destroyed the concept of authority in the name of enforcing individual rights. The cost is incalculable, “ordinary choices are often paralyzed. Fear and suspicion now infect daily dealings in the workplace.” And so on…

Mr. Howard touchingly believes that the American people can cure this societal malady through learning how to do what earlier generations did easily: joining together to work toward the common good. Even while acknowledging the atomized nature of our current society, he say we the people can take back the authority needed to fix things by banding together and insisting on the restoration of a system of values.

I admire his optimism, especially since my own belief is that the clock can never be turned back to an earlier, presumably happier, time. The legal profession now costs us more than $700 billion a year, according to informed estimates. That’s a lot of moolah. Furthermore, I read the other day that the current soft job market for college grads is leading ever more of them to apply to law schools. So, we’ll have ever more of these hungry barracudas milling about in the years ahead, looking to be fed.

If you think these words too harsh, just remember what Jesus Christ himself said:

“Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers…ye have taken away the key of knowledge….” St. Luke 11: 46, 52.

[COURAGE]

Kill all the lawyers.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Kill all the lawyers

I know some honorable ones that agree.

[thucydides]

Let us not forget that the trial lawyers are a principal source of funding for the democrat party, who protect their racketeering profits. Trial lawyers own the US Senate. They currently block legislation on terrorism insurance because it doesn't offer them the possibility of windfall profits, portions of which would flow directly into the pockets of the democrats. They are preventing the development of important new drugs and vaccines that cannot be produced with the specter of trial lawyer attacks hanging over them. They are the reason no public swimming pool in America has a diving board. They are an important part of the picture of total corruption that is the democrat party.

[Freedom4US]

Is the US the only country that doesn't have a "Loser Pays" system?

I was talking to my father about this subject the other night. When did the insanity start? We didn't have these sorts of bogus lawsuits in the first 175 years of the Republic, after all.

I'm guessing that like so much else, the downhill slide started in the 1960's. But why? What happened?

[Bahbah]

I certainly do.

[Freedom4US]

"First thing, kill all the Lawyers."

I really ought not to do this, because I personally cannot help but hate an awful lot of lawyers, I freely admit that.

But this quote, attributed to Shakespeare, is out of context. It's my understanding the full quote is something along the lines of "If you want anarchy, first thing, kill all the lawyers." which is certainly different than what is implied today.

Mr. Shakespeare might change his mind, though, if he were to observe modern 21st Century America.

[Grut]

As a lawyer, I have two words that will clean up this mess in a hurry: "Loser pays."

May I suggest one refinement? "Losing lawyer pays."

This would virtually guarantee no frivolous lawsuits even where an unscrupulous lawyer fishing for work might otherwise try to get a client to file a unwinnable suit.

[Doug Loss]

How about this for tort reform: Any punitive damage awards go to the general treasury of the municipality, state or federal government in whose jurisdiction the suit was brought rather than to the plaintiff, and all compensatory damages must be based on demonstrable costs to the plaintiff. That might reduce the potential for big bucks enough to make "trolling for plaintiffs" not worth the effort.

[Doug Loss]

How about this for tort reform: Any punitive damage awards go to the general treasury of the municipality, state or federal government in whose jurisdiction the suit was brought rather than to the plaintiff, and all compensatory damages must be based on demonstrable costs to the plaintiff. That might reduce the potential for big bucks enough to make "trolling for plaintiffs" not worth the effort.

[kaysea]

You know what they call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the Ocean??

A GOOD START!!

[Ole Okie]

Yeah, and why don't sharks eat lawyers?

Professional courtesy.

[CyberSpartacus]

"First thing, kill all the Lawyers."

Shakespeare was quoting Watt Tyler the leader of the Kentish revolt during the reign of King Henry VI. They were rebelling against laws passed against commerece to prevent the middle class from competing with Nobles. Tyler's intention was indeed to destroy the legal professionals who were providing legitimacy to the Nobles war on the middle class. He really did believe that killing the lawyers would destroy tyranny.

[Grut]

...a unwinnable suit

I can't believe I wrote that. "An", obviously.

[Billy_bob_bob]

The problem with lawyer jokes is that lawyers don't find them funny and the rest of us don't think they're jokes.

[Billy_bob_bob]

"...destroy the legal professionals who were providing legitimacy to the Nobles war on the middle class."

..ever was...same as it ever was....same as it ever was....sam

[Dogrobber]

Allow a lawyer to pipe in a little information. In the late fifties and sixties there developed what has been come to be known as Law and Economics Theory out of the University of the Chicago School of Law. This theory says that for every economic activity there are direct and indirect costs and the preferred method of settling all of those direct and indirect costs upon that activity is to use the litigation system. Persons harmed by an activity sue others who benefit by the activity and the insurance companies spread the risk over the entire pool of people who benefit.

One basic premise essential to this system is the principal that you any activity can and will be insured. This we known is not true. So among the unintended consequences of this theory is a tightening of what activities the general public can engage in. Of course if this were just about bungee jumping, there would be no losses (really). However, it is not just about bungee jumping. It is also about making vaccines, research and development of new drugs and advancements in civil aircraft manufacture (it is no coincidence that there have been almost no new civil aircraft designed and manufacture in the last twenty years- too much litigation risk).

Like all liberal ideas, the law and economics theory sounds good but sucks in practice. It disregards the costs of legal process and is a whole hearted retreat from the concept that the civil legal system is to provide redress from negligent conduct in favor of the creation of a general right of action by consumers against business. We have lost economic freedom and there were no votes nor were we consulted in any fashion.

The concept of loser pays will only partially repair the damage. As to whether we can go back, I am not sure that the judges of these United States would allow it without a significant constitutional amendment. Surely the liberal judges would not.

[Issaquahking]

I love that! We have some fine lawyers here in FR who would be rolling in the money on this aspect. Failing that, then we go for a "culling of the herd" to get rid of the bad ones. Culling starts with the Clinton's.....

[boris]

"Like all liberal ideas, the law and economics theory sounds good but sucks in practice."

"The history of liberalism is the history of substituting what sounds good for what works."

I forget who said it. Might have been Bill Buckley.

--Boris