Pleas of frustration: Lawyers questioning, abandoning their profession

Boston Globe ^ | 8/18/2003 | Ralph Ranalli

[rface]

Jean Terranova wasn't the only lawyer in Massachusetts this year feeling deep dissatisfaction with her choice of profession. In fact, she wasn't even the only soon-to-be-ex-lawyer in her class at chef school.

A death penalty appeals specialist from Framingham, Terranova, 38, said she was fed up with increasingly strict laws to limit appeals, inflexible sentencing guidelines, and funding shortages that prevented her from hiring the necessary experts.

[bigeasy_70118]

I find your comments disheartening as the our justice system is the greatest the world as ever known. You should consider yourself privileged for the opportunuty.

As you are aware loser pays is completely unfair and would deny access to the courts for all but the wealthiest plaintiffs.

[ContemptofCourt]

There are many disenchanted lawyers...heck, I can count ten bitter lawyers that spoke openly of their bitterness towards the law while in law school....imagine their bitterness once they join a firm and have to practice to pay their loans off.

I love the profession of law; I hate the business of law. Unfortunately, the two mesh into one.....

And I agree with Kevin...people need lawyers only when something bad is happening, thus, the reinforcement that lawyers = bad. And as much as people, especially Freepers, bitch about the legal system and frivilous lawsuits, the vast, vast majority of civil lawsuits are business disputes, not tort cases. To large corporations, lawsuits are just a way of life. Countries have their armies of tanks; corporations have their armies of lawyers.

[Bluntpoint]

Loser pays gives the little guy the ammo to go up against the big guy.

Without loser pays, the little guy loses even if he wins his case.

Loser pays goes for friviolous lawsuits as well as frivilous defenses.

How many times did you have to tell a would-be client that his case is not worth the battle because the attorney fees and expenses would eat up the award and more?

Lawyers don't like loser pays because they see it as blunting excessive litigation; their life blood.

[Bluntpoint]

The [loser-pays] rule makes weak cases less attractive to bring but strong cases less attractive to defend against.

A plaintiff who has a strong case will get paid all the sooner and at lower cost. The bottom line is that the loser pays rule would make plaintiff's lawyers even better "professional evaluators of claims" before seeking to use the coercive power of the state. Surely no one would object to that. (From Posner)

[Bluntpoint]

The present civil court system encourages and rewards flagrancy and dishonesty. With the loser paying, those who misuse the legal system would be forced to take responsibility for their actions. The honest would always be rewarded; the mendacious would be punished.

[bigeasy_70118]

Loser pays assumes equal bargaining power between the two parties. $25,000 for an insurance company is a drop in the bucket. $25,000 to someone who has been injured in an accident and loses due to a technicality or a bad lawyer is devastating.

[A Navy Vet]

Surprised they haven't gotten together and filed some kind of class action suit.

[Bluntpoint]

Statistically, the loser pays dimension will favor plaintiffs far more than it will not, which is why you’ve seen it drop off the tort reform radar screen.

For the average person, this is a better system. It makes it hard for corporations to try and bully individuals when their legal case is pretty shaky.

[Bluntpoint]

The most likely outcome of a loser-pays rule is a system that allows insurance provided by the plaintiffs' law firms, which are in the best position to judge their client's chances of ultimately being responsible for fees and costs.

In cases where a firm is confident of some measure of success, it might offer to loan the client the money for fee insurance, with the plaintiff only required to pay back the loan if the plaintiff recovers damages.

Under either scenario, an additional benefit is that the plaintiff's law firm would have a strong incentive not to run up the defendant's legal bills unnecessarily.

[Bluntpoint]

The loser pays system encourages both parties to make an accurate assessment of the value of the case and to make a reasonable settlement.

[Bluntpoint]

Loser pays assumes equal bargaining power between the two parties. $25,000 for an insurance company is a drop in the bucket. $25,000 to someone who has been injured in an accident and loses due to a technicality or a bad lawyer is devastating.

In fact, overall the loser-pays rule is likely to discourage improper conduct by defendants. Currently, defendants who are aware of their liability sometimes purposely delay matters to coerce a reduced settlement from injured plaintiffs who desperately need compensation.

Under a loser-pays system, if the defendant ultimately lost the case, it would bear not only all of its own costs, but also a hefty chunk of whatever extra burdens it placed on the plaintiff.

The loser-pays rule also helps plaintiffs with legitimate claims by making small claims economically viable. Loser-pays ensures that defendants, not plaintiffs, will be financially responsible for any legal action taken to deny a legitimate claim.

Moreover, a loser-pays system is ethically superior to the current system. A defendant who has been dragged into litigation and had his property put in jeopardy deserves compensation for any expenditures made in defeating an invalid claim. Conversely, a plaintiff who has a valid claim should recover full damages, including the legal fees paid in defeating the recalcitrant defendant.

[Bluntpoint]

bttt