Replies

No, I didn't say that. I said that in these cases there was not a likely recovery.

I cannot in good conscious advise a client to go forward with a suit when the prospects for recovery are so low. That is what is called a frivolous lawsuit, which I don't believe in filing. Apparently you do.

In the final analysis, the client decides if he wishes to file suit. Once you explain to a client that there is no realistic prospect for recovery once expenses are paid, no one in his right mind will chose to go forward. Even if you say we have a 50% chance of winning $250,000 which after paying $150,000 in expenses you will get 55% or even 60% of, who in their right mind would do that? Rational people don't file lawsuits for the hell of it.

Try to focus. Your arguments are all over the place.

Your whole post was about money, money, money. That is how lawyers think, not doctors (thank god). If money were the sole object, doctors would not do much of the work we do. Read your last post again. $, $, $. Did I miss something? While you may find my arguments all over the place, you are admirably consistent. $, $, $. Thats it.

BTW, for a lawyer you are a little sloppy. Read your post 212 again. You never used the words "not a likely recovery". You said "limited recovery" - again - not enough $$ to interest you. You judge your cases not on the likelihood of winning, but on the likelihood of winning enough $ to make it worthwhile. That is your thought process - you are a lawyer- defend it, don't deny it.