You said that "loser pays" would be useless because the plaintiff's lawyer who loses makes no money if he loses, anyway. So why bother? That was very, very cute.
The point is, (as if you didn't know, and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth) a defendant abused by this lawyer can take his expenses (and maybe something more punative!) out of the plaintiff's hide. Or try to take it out of the Gamblin' Man atty. The plaintiff's lawyer would then know that maybe he risks more than his time when he engages in his courtroom extortion.
Lawyers want everyone to cry over plaintiffs only when the defendants are able to pay, and pretend to have the great big hearts full of compassion. Find some poor injured person with no deep pockets to pick, and the lawyers could care less.
I know of a little girl who wanted to explain her situation to a judge (you know, one of those lawyers in evening black). The law clearly stated she had a say in her custody, and she waited months for her chance. Judge forbid her to speak, threatened her with foster care if she persisted. Now her grades are tanked, she's run away once, and has to face Mommy's Boyfriends. Interested in her case? Afraid there's no one to sue. The judge is protected by LAW from civil action, thanks to the legislative foresight of many lawyers seeing to his protection.
So type that on your keyboard and engage it.
Another version of "loser pays" are frivolous pleading sanctions.
Lawyers are just the canaries in the coal mine, verdict wise. Remember, juries award verdicts.
Actually, those are your words, not mine. You said that in this post, not I.
But ... this isn't true? Why not? Do you understand what taking a case on contingency means to the attorney?
The point is, (as if you didn't know, and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth) a defendant abused by this lawyer can take his expenses (and maybe something more punative!) out of the plaintiff's hide.
I'm assuming that you mean legally, not physically (which would put you in jail and give that losing plaintiff a real shot at punitive damages in a suit under any system).
To begin with, the defendant isn't being "abused" by the lawyer. He is being "abused" by the plaintiff. The attorney is simply presenting the plaintiffs case. The attorney representing this plaintiff is required to provide competant representation and what you are calling 'abuse' may be that representation. An attorney who does not do this and causes the client substantial legal damage by failing to do so, may end up being sanctioined by the BAR or Courts and involved in a malpractice suit as well.
Go back to the post you originated from (#30) and read where I said "A plaintiff that loses makes nothing in damage awards. An indigent plaintif that loses under the current system will get nothing. An indigent plaintiff that loses under a loser pays system will still get nothong and, being indigent, will pay nothing. You, of course, will probably be required to post twenty or thirty thousand up front to bring a justified suit. Are you, or the indigent, more likely to sufer consequences of loser pays?" (paragraph three). Do you not understand this? Let me try to explain it: You are financially well off and get sued for a million dollars. In the end after a hundred grand in legal costs you win. The plaintif against whom you win has a net worth of about 30,000 and it is all in vehicles or property that falls below the value that can be liqidated for bankruptcy (check the laws in your state to find out what the various actual values are. Sometimes they are quite high, sometimes not). You try to sieze his salary (assuming he has one) and he just delcares bankruptcy. So ... How gonna collect? And how is this 'loser pays' system any different for you than the current system?
the only ones that will suffer the loss of right to seek remedy in court are the working class people who are financially and personally responsible. Not the indigent or welfare type that claim they are too fat because you sold them fattening food. Not the greedy going out looking for someone to rob. Not the vengeful out to hurt someone they hate or disagree with (these types usually aren't personally or financially responsible people). Just you, the person who has been wronged and has a great and just case but no 20 or 30 thousand to lay down up front. You are going to have to learn to just bend over and take it because you won't be able to afford to do anything about it.
Or try to take it out of the Gamblin' Man atty. The plaintiff's lawyer would then know that maybe he risks more than his time when he engages in his courtroom extortion.
You could possibly do this in rare instances where you could prove both maliciousness and ethical violation on the part of the attorney (not the plaintiff). But you can do that now. The outcome is so unlikely to be in your favor that you would have to be indigent (free legal help) or have enough money that you didn't mind losing it to make a point. This is like going after a state prosecutor for mailcious prosecution ... possible but not likely to succed. And, of course, when you lost you would also be responsible for the legal fees of your opponent under loser pays. How is this an improvementover the current system?
Interested in her case?
Yes, I am! Could you please cite the case? Possibly post the pertinent transcripts? I would be interested in reading it. Why no Guardian ad litem in this case? and why no appeal? And, BTW, there are often no protections for a judge against maliciousness, like prosecutors. And, if what you say is accurate, there are usually other sanctions that can be sought that are worse for the judge than a suit.