"Hot Coffee" & Tort Reform

[R/T Hemi]

IB, I realize you're still in the stage where you believe ALL attorneys are ethical and honest. Once you're worked through that fallacy you'll see thing differently.

[IBCoupe]

IB, I realize you're still in the stage where you believe ALL attorneys are ethical and honest. Once you're worked through that fallacy you'll see thing differently.

So you've got nothing, then?

I don't need to think that all lawyers are honest to recognize that there are safeguards, systemic structures, and incentives in place to keep them honest.

[AppleBonker]

Hemi, I realize you're still in the stage where you believe ALL attorneys are unethical and dishonest. Once you're worked through that fallacy you'll see thing differently.

[R/T Hemi]

There are none so blind as those who won't see.

IB, I realize you're still in the first year "I've got the answer to everything" mode of a law student. By the third year, you'll realize you really have the answer to nothing. There are more lawyers in my family than cars. One with a medical malpractice firm, one is a prosecutor, one does immigration. Probably 45 to 50 years experience all told. Not counting a deceased ancestor. Otherwise, I'd have never recognized your first year exuberance.

[Encryptshun]

R/T now you've lost even me, and I started out on your side of this issue.

You say you want to stop fivolous suits from being filed and then you suggest a preliminary hearing. In order to get a preliminary hearing, you'd have to file a suit. Making it more difficult for people to file frivolous suits would, as Isaac says, also make it more difficult with people who have been legitimately wronged to pursue justice.

If you want to solve the problem of people abusing the civil justice system for personal gain, then you either (1) change the culture so your average citizen no longer views a lawsuit as a get-rich-quick scheme and/or (2) you add penalties to the instigator for any suit determined to be unfounded or otherwise frivolous.

[IBCoupe]

There are none so blind as those who won't see.

If I had to choose between you making cryptic, irrelevant statements or linking to over-hyped examples of "frivolous lawsuits," I'd go for the latter.

[R/T Hemi]

R/T now you've lost even me, and I started out on your side of this issue.

You say you want to stop fivolous suits from being filed and then you suggest a preliminary hearing. In order to get a preliminary hearing, you'd have to file a suit. Making it more difficult for people to file frivolous suits would, as Isaac says, also make it more difficult with people who have been legitimately wronged to pursue justice.

If you want to solve the problem of people abusing the civil justice system for personal gain, then you either (1) change the culture so your average citizen no longer views a lawsuit as a get-rich-quick scheme and/or (2) you add penalties to the instigator for any suit determined to be unfounded or otherwise frivolous.

NO, I never said preliminary hearing. I pointed out that that was a tool in criminal cases to prevent what tort law does not provide, that is, protection from frivolous filings. Criminal defendants have constitutional rights, defendants in civil cases have far fewer.

[IBCoupe]

IB, I realize you're still in the first year "I've got the answer to everything" mode of a law student. By the third year, you'll realize you really have the answer to nothing. There are more lawyers in my family than cars. One with a medical malpractice firm, one is a prosecutor, one does immigration. Probably 45 to 50 years experience all told. Not counting a deceased ancestor. Otherwise, I'd have never recognized your first year exuberance.

Then maybe you should get them to come in and debate for you, you condescending prick.

Note: I'm not appealing to my own authority. I'm arguing what I know. Not once have I relied on my position as a "law student." I use information gleaned from law school, but two years ago, I'd still have argued against this tomfoolery because it's weak sauce.

Double Note: Hoping that my insult was adequately explained as necessary by the modifier placed before it.

Given both of those, ban away, Z; I'm tired of this crap.

[IBCoupe]

NO, I never said preliminary hearing. I pointed out that that was a tool in criminal cases to prevent what tort law does not provide, that is, protection from frivolous filings. Criminal defendants have constitutional rights, defendants in civil cases have far fewer.

How do you think it works?

Plaintiff: Files pleadings.
Defendant: Files for dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Judge: [If it's really as clear-cut as you make it out to be,] dismisses the case.

What exactly do you think the civil court system doesn't provide?

[R/T Hemi]

'Claim Victory Despite Defeat' is the fourteenth of Schopenhauer's stratagems. I recognize it and I don't buy it.

All you're doing is underlining the principle that you do not have to make sense -- you just have to sound like you are making sense. You've yet to respond with anything addressing the multitude of frivolous cases that are tossed other than "look, the system worked, they were tossed." How much did the innocent pay in those matters?

@ Z, don't ban him, I'm not taking it personal. I appreciate he's frustrated. It's not the first time I've been called a condescending prick on the internet. LOL

[IBCoupe]

I've addressed them. Don't like it? Tough. If you'd like to rehash the debate, fine, but we'd just be repeating the last page.

I say, "There's safeguards to minimize frivolous lawsuits."
You say, "Look at these frivolous lawsuits."
I say, "Look at those safeguards working."
You say, "Yeah, but crazy people shouldn't be allowed to file suit on their own."
I say, "That's a small price to pay for access to the courts when you need it, given how few frivolous claims there actually are."
You say,"Nuh uh!"

Want to see how bad the idea of increasing the pleading requirements is? Say you're being discriminated against by your employer. Say you want to sue. Good luck.

[R/T Hemi]

Show me ONE safeguard designed to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits.

I've not see it.

[IBCoupe]

Show me ONE safeguard designed to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits.

I've not see it.

Filing fees.

Contingency Fee Structure.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the corresponding rules for sanctions under State Law.

Rules 3.1 and 3.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the corresponding rules in State Bar Associations.

There's four off the top of my head; take your pick. The only reason you wouldn't have seen two of them is because you didn't look when I posted a link on the first page of the thread.

[R/T Hemi]

Filing fees.

Not buying that one. They are sometimes waived, advanced by the attorney.

Contingency Fee Structure.

LOL, seriously. That's part of the problem, not the solution.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Go read Section (b) and tell me there's any teeth in that. "Yes your honor, I honestly believed".....right....

Rules 3.1 and 3.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Sure, and in the long run, we'll take their word that it wasn't frivolous, which of course, isn't defined in the section.

There's four; take your pick.

Let me reiterate... Show me one thing that prevents the filing of frivolous civil cases

[IBCoupe]

Filing fees.

Not buying that one. They are sometimes waived, advanced by the attorney.

And the lawyer somehow has an incentive to throw money away more than the client?

Contingency Fee Structure.

LOL, seriously. That's part of the problem, not the solution.

How does "I only get paid if you win, otherwise I've just paid thousands to the Court and my landlord for nothing" encourage frivolous lawsuits? I'd love to hear this.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Go read Section (b) and tell me there's any teeth in that. "Yes your honor, I honestly believed".....right....

There's teeth. Also note: fighting a Rule 11 sanction is not free.

Rules 3.1 and 3.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Sure, and in the long run, we'll take their word that it wasn't frivolous, which of course, isn't defined in the section.

1. Do you have any idea how the grievance process works?
2. Why would you want to limit the word "frivolous" with a definition? If States want, they can add one in, but the Bar Association is given greater discretion in either direction when it's left to interpretation.

Let me reiterate... Show me one thing that prevents the filing of frivolous civil cases

That actually physically prevents a person from sending a fax to the Court? Failure to pay your phone bill. What the hell, dude. Leave the goalposts alone.

[IBCoupe]

R/T, the fact that you're opposed to the contingency fee arrangement tells me two things:

1. You really don't understand either this issue or how incentives work.
2. You're either a corporate shill or are being heavily influenced by one.

The only reason you'd want to do away with the contingency fee arrangement is because your ultimate goal is to reduce all lawsuits, regardless of merit. This is what large corporations want. Their hope us that nobody sues them, and one way to ensure that they don't is to arrange so that individuals can't afford to when they're hurt.

The contingency fee has three effects. First, it makes it so that poor plaintiffs can actually get a remedy. Second, it gives lawyers a reason to choose cases based on merit, as opposed to picking cases based on ability to pay. Third, it makes sure that lawyers give a crap about their client, rather than just sucking away at the account.

The contingency fee is a GREAT thing, and getting rid of it is actually antithetical to your stated goal.

[R/T Hemi]

You're stretching for something IB. I asked for one thing that prevents the filing of frivolous lawsuits. I really don't care if they are faxes or delivered by smoke signal.

Contingency fees. LOL. Attorney files frivolous civil case. Defendant realizes it's going to cost 20+ grand to defend. Defend offers to settle for 10 grand even though he's innocent. He sees it as a savings of 10 grand. I believe it's called a "Nuisance value settlement?" Deny that happens. (and of course, the contingency fee splits that 10 grand)

I've already addressed the rest of your points.

I remain ready to debate your claim of safeguards when you present one.

BTW, thanks for cooling down. Being a corporate shill is a step up from the condescending prick I was a short time before. Right?

[IBCoupe]

You're stretching for something IB. I asked for one thing that prevents the filing of frivolous lawsuits. I really don't care if they are faxes or delivered by smoke signal.

Because you're setting a ridiculous standard. There's nothing stopping you from going to the Courthouse and saying, "I'd like the form to start a lawsuit, please." As it should be. Unlike the government, which can use the law to its advantage in its pre-filing investigation, there is no way for any one party to go out and get all the information they need. Most of it is private, and they would be in violation of the law to take it without permission.

Here's what you're not recognizing or acknowledging: it is the exception, not the rule, that a case looks "strong" when filed. That's why we have discovery.

Contingency fees. LOL. Attorney files frivolous civil case. Defendant realizes it's going to cost 20+ grand to defend. Defend offers to settle for 10 grand even though he's innocent. He sees it as a savings of 10 grand. I believe it's called a "Nuisance value settlement?" Deny that happens. (and of course, the contingency fee splits that 10 grand)

It happens, but the CF changes nothing. Without it, the only people that file nuisance suits are already rich. And if it's plainly a nuisance suit, sanctions and grievances are available. If it's not plainly a nuisance suit, it's probably not a nuisance suit at all.

Think the kind of lawyer that brings a nuisance suit can get $3300 in hours in that period of time?

I've already addressed the rest of your points.

you really haven't even tried, but if this is your way of conceding, then I accept.

I remain ready to debate your claim of safeguards when you present one.

You must have missed a post.

BTW, thanks for cooling down.

Screw yourself.

[IBCoupe]

BTW, thanks for cooling down. Being a corporate shill is a step up from the condescending prick I was a short time before. Right?

You have shown that you're perfectly capable of being both.

[R/T Hemi]

...
Screw yourself.

I take that as a surrender?

Once again I ask for one safeguard that prevents the filing of frivolous cases. Your points so far, require us to rely on the ethics of those who have abused the system to prevent the abuse. Can you see why I have a problem with that?
I realize that my question is a loaded one as there is nothing in place to prevent such filings. I'd be happy if you admitted it and agreed that it's something that needs to be fixed instead of insisting the system runs like a Rolex.

[AZhitman]

Right and wrong aside, to quote a dear friend who's recently viewed this thread with the level of bemusement typically reserved for a halfhearted scan of the Sunday comics:

"The thing that's so entertaining (and troublesome) with IB is that he's so easily goaded into losing his cool and, in the process, all credibility. If he can't that under control he'll never see court time as a lead attorney."

...and if you don't think trolls exist in the courtroom, you should see some of the Union reps that show up in our personnel board hearings.

[IBCoupe]

Right and wrong aside, to quote a dear friend who's recently viewed this thread with the level of bemusement typically reserved for a halfhearted scan of the Sunday comics:

"The thing that's so entertaining (and troublesome) with IB is that he's so easily goaded into losing his cool and, in the process, all credibility. If he can't that under control he'll never see court time as a lead attorney."

...and if you don't think trolls exist in the courtroom, you should see some of the Union reps that show up in our personnel board hearings.

I appreciate the concern, but I'm much more constrained in person. You've met me, Greg. I'm venting. It feels good to tell people how stupid they are on the Internet.

[AZhitman]

It's nice to see it directed at someone other than me for once.

[IBCoupe]

...
Screw yourself.

I take that as a surrender?

Once again I ask for one safeguard that prevents the filing of frivolous cases. Your points so far, require us to rely on the ethics of those who have abused the system to prevent the abuse. Can you see why I have a problem with that?
I realize that my question is a loaded one as there is nothing in place to prevent such filings. I'd be happy if you admitted it and agreed that it's something that needs to be fixed instead of insisting the system runs like a Rolex.

Because you're setting a ridiculous standard. There's nothing stopping you from going to the Courthouse and saying, "I'd like the form to start a lawsuit, please." As it should be. Unlike the government, which can use the law to its advantage in its pre-filing investigation, there is no way for any one party to go out and get all the information they need. Most of it is private, and they would be in violation of the law to take it without permission.

Here's what you're not recognizing or acknowledging: it is the exception, not the rule, that a case looks "strong" when filed. That's why we have discovery.

But I repeat myself.

[IBCoupe]

It's nice to see it directed at someone other than me for once.

<3

Also, I challenge the notion that credibility ought to be lost when insults are thrown. There's no connection, unless the insult is the argument. Then it's an ad hominem.

It's certainly disrespectful, but aside from adherence to the forum rules, I don't see the merit in behaving respectfully towards people I don't respect. In this debate, it buys me nothing. If I felt like I'd need to foster some kind of relationship with R/T, I'd surely treat him decently, despite his cognitive failings.

[R/T Hemi]

Because you're setting a ridiculous standard. There's nothing stopping you from going to the Courthouse and saying, "I'd like the form to start a lawsuit, please." As it should be. Unlike the government, which can use the law to its advantage in its pre-filing investigation, there is no way for any one party to go out and get all the information they need. Most of it is private, and they would be in violation of the law to take it without permission.

Here's what you're not recognizing or acknowledging: it is the exception, not the rule, that a case looks "strong" when filed. That's why we have discovery.

But I repeat myself.

I get it. The system is so broken it's impossible to fix. Is that what you're saying? We'll just continue along with people suing because it works...

Here's some more examples of why an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..

Women Sue For Being Called 'Hot', Pictured With 'Douchebags
Beer Commercial Promises Women, Doesn't Deliver
Sick Of Being A Celebrity Doppelganger? Sue!
Lindsay Lohan Sues For Depiction Of "Milkaholic" Baby
Broke? In Prison? Sue Yourself!
Haunted House Too Scary? Here's $15,000!
$100,000 For A Leg Cramp?
Kidney "Donation" Ends In $1.5 M Lawsuit
Women Using Urinals Causes "Emotional Distress
Man Sues For Damages To Car After RUNNING OVER Boy
Not Dressed For The Weather? There's A Lawsuit For That
Man Accuses Magicians Of Using His Powers
A $930 Plate Of Cookies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... en_Sue_For

Yep, Attorneys never file frivolous suits because it's against the rules right?

@ IB. It's well settled that Ad hominem attacks are the illegitimate child of defeat. Always has been, always will be.

[IBCoupe]

Holy crap, we're back to straw men.

First: the system isn't broken. That we protect your privacy from anybody that might "want to sue" you isn't a bug; it's a feature.

Second: if you can find me saying that lawyers never file frivolous lawsuits, I'll concede the debate. Go ahead, right now. I'll put it in my signature and march around the forums for a month like that.

[IBCoupe]

@ IB. It's well settled that Ad hominem attacks are the illegitimate child of defeat. Always has been, always will be.

Which is fine, because I haven't made any. You're wrong because you're wrong. That you're woefully incompetent at this doesn't speak to your being wrong, it's just noteworthy. If you can find me committing an ad hominem fallacy, I'll put that in my signature, too.

Here's an example of what an ad hominem might look like:
"R/T, you're a f*** idiot, and that's why you're wrong."

[R/T Hemi]

Here's some more straw men supporting your claim that the system ain't broke.....

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station's "whimsical tiger logo" with Kellogg's mascot, "Tony the Tiger." It didn't matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg's "Tony."

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

This is all fine in your book right? It ain't broke because the cases got tossed, fails to address the real issue.

Admit there are problems with the system then we'll move on to how to fix it.

[R/T Hemi]

n/m double post.