Skip to comments.
How The United States Ended. Not With A Bang, Not With A Whimper, But With A Subpoena .
Submitted for Wash Times op Ed
| MB26
Posted on 11/22/2002 10:47:39 AM PST by MindBender26
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator
To: Lloyd227
I have a fairly simple solution. Allow continued large awards against corporations and other business entities (after all, the $250,000 limit usually bandied about is peanuts to a multi-billion dollar corp.). HOWEVER, only allow each victim a maximum of $250K. Any additional amount is paid as a fine, with the remainder dedicated to (as an example) drug-rehab centers, trauma hospitals, or deficit reduction. I know, this is really subject to abuse, but some mechanism could be found to reduce this. Anyway, the big thing would be that the lawyers would only get their 1/3 or whatever large cut they've negotiated on the $250K awards; the fines would come with a 1% contingency fee. That would slow them down a bit.
To: shezza
So how long will it be before welfare moms sue the TAXPAYERS for making their kids fat, I wonder?Hey, watch it!
Don't give the plaintiff's lawyers any ideas!
63
posted on
11/24/2002 10:58:26 PM PST
by
ppaul
To: Ancesthntr
"only allow each victim a maximum of $250K"Would this maximum include any amounts for lost wages, for medical expenses and for real damages to property?
How about less tangible things like damage to a reputation by slander or false charges?
If this is the maximum for the "pain and suffering", I might agree. However, if we're lumping in medical expenses, lost wages etc.., in many legitimate cases, this would not even compensate the victim for their real losses. Medical expenses alone can easily exceed this amount.
What take does the attorney usually recieve for the real expense compensation?
64
posted on
11/25/2002 3:20:10 AM PST
by
Lloyd227
To: Lloyd227
Sorry about that...I wrote at 1 am. The $250K would be for pain and suffering, over and above any actually proven losses such as lost wages (both actual and potential), medical, etc. As to losses due to libel or slander, while they are more speculative than medical expenses, they are nonetheless actual damages, so they wouldn't come under the $250K limit. What I am talking about limiting is the absurd garbage like $800K awarded from McD's for spilling hot coffee in your lap while driving.
Attorneys usually get 1/3 of any recovery if the case is handled on a contingency, though sometimes more if the case goes to court. It depends completely on the attorney and the specific case.
To: friendly
A nice RICO action against the lawyer industry is in order.
To: Ancesthntr
"Attorneys usually get 1/3 of any recovery if the case is handled on a contingency, though sometimes more if the case goes to court. It depends completely on the attorney and the specific case."Just pretending that I'm king for a day here....... :-)
How should we deal with attorney fees for the actual damage compensation? For example, if there is 100k in real damages (medical expenses, lost wages etc), if we give the attorney 1/3 of that, the plaintiff receives only 66k or so. Should the attorney's fees be added to that 100k as these are indeed real damages? ie. should the actual payment by the defendant be 133k to cover damages + attorney fees?
67
posted on
11/25/2002 7:35:10 AM PST
by
Lloyd227
To: PhilipFreneau
A nice RICO action against the lawyer industry is in order.That would be admirable, but I suspect a tough sell to all the lawyers who make up the population of judges. You cannot under any circumstances expect lawyers to really ever police themselves.
The only ethical solution is to remove any oversight from the utterly corrupt bar associations. True consumer advocate control is needed, like any other industry.
Think of a bad auto dealer seeling you a lemon... you don't have the local association of auto dealers ruling on your complaint. But that is exactly what happens with shysters!
68
posted on
11/25/2002 2:58:15 PM PST
by
friendly
To: What is the bottom line
That is startlingly false; makes me angry to read this nonsense. I'm an attorney Well 98% of your profession are scumbags. Perhaps you'd best reconsider your career if you are offended by the results from the actions of your peers.
To: Centurion2000
98% of your profession are scumbags. Perhaps you'd best reconsider your career if you are offended by the results from the actions of your peers.Bravo and megadittos!
Lots of attorneys leave the disgusting and evil lawyer industry for honest careers. There is a pretty fair drop-out rate. Unfortunately, these are often the most decent people.
70
posted on
11/25/2002 3:28:01 PM PST
by
friendly
To: SpaceBar
Two words: Tort reform. One word: Now!
71
posted on
11/25/2002 4:34:36 PM PST
by
friendly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson