[Mamzelle]

We could start by enforcing a basic, standard legal ethic--do not allow a lawyer to become a party to his own suit (case). At present, lawyers bring class actions that deliver pennies to the mass plaintiffs, but through "volume" make millions for the lawyers. You could start by making this illegal--the recent CD class action comes to mind. This is just one example in the civil courts.

Flamboyant criminal lawyers are harder to regulate. Perhaps they should not be allowed to make profits on exploiting the media value of their clients...

[Iron Eagle]

At present, lawyers bring class actions that deliver pennies to the mass plaintiffs, but through "volume" make millions for the lawyers. You could start by making this illegal--the recent CD class action comes to mind. This is just one example in the civil courts.

Your oversimplification of this issue is quite common. Indeed, class action suits due make more money for the individual lawyers, than the plaintiffs. Of course, you completely discount the chilling effect on consumers that making class-action suits "illegal" would have.

Next time you have a problem with a defective part in your car, see how well you do in a lawsuit against GM when you are payinging your lawyer individually, and GM hires lawyers like me by the dozens to bury you.

As a defense lawyer, I agree that far too many seemingly frivolous class-actions are brought. Indeed, Courts need to be more vigilant in applying the rule 11 standard. Fortunately, however, the rules are drafted to permit a very liberal reading. The purpose is to insure that any suit, with even a shred of merit, can see the light of day before being arbitrarily struck.

The death of class action suits would leave large corporations completely unchecked. In such an absence, the government would have to play an increasing role in the regulatory world to protect consumers. Pick your poisen. Third-party suits that act as a natural market regulator, or true government regulation of big business?