Malpractice is a consumer issue

cawacko said:
Wouldn't that same argument work for those who want to cap CEO and upper management earnings in the private sector?
Click to expand...


Salary caps were proposed for companies which opted to accept billions of dollars of federal taxpayer bailout money. It was a condition set on getting their asses saved by the taxpayer.

Are there law firms that are taking federal bail out money to their save asses?

No, there aren't.
 
Cypress said:
Salary caps were proposed for companies which opted to accept billions of dollars of federal taxpayer bailout money. It was a condition set on getting their asses saved by the taxpayer.

Are there law firms that are taking federal bail out money to their save asses?

No, there aren't.
Click to expand...

There has been talk of excessive CEO pay and wanting to do something about it well before the 2008 bailouts.
 
cawacko said:
So then what is the argument for why a trial lawyer should get a third or more of a litigant's claim? What other attorney position would he take if he didn't earn that much?
Click to expand...


Limiting the amount that a plaintiff's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases while not limiting the amount a defendant's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases is not akin to imposing a uniform restriction on pay for all executives of publicly traded companies.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Limiting the amount that a plaintiff's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases while not limiting the amount a defendant's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases is not akin to imposing a uniform restriction on pay for all executives of publicly traded companies.
Click to expand...

So a trial lawyers opportunity cost is what he would earn on the other side of the table then being a defendant's attorney.
 
While we are at it, lets let President Obama decide for himself if he got reelected in 2012... and let the Fox guard the hen house... And lets just take Nancy Pelosi's word for it on if the Health Care Bill passed or not!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, you evaded the question. How would you assure that my rights and the public safety would be protected from pro business ideologues?
Click to expand...

You've got to giver her more time.

She's got to surf all those RightWing Pundits sites for the correct answer, before she can cut-n-paste their answer here.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Limiting the amount that a plaintiff's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases while not limiting the amount a defendant's attorney can charge a client in medical malpractice cases is not akin to imposing a uniform restriction on pay for all executives of publicly traded companies.
Click to expand...

Tort cases are different. The pay outs are absurd. Most of the time the cases are settled and the sharks know it! They gather up as many thousands of plaintiffs as possible and make a handful of 1 to 5 the main plaintiffs. They get them by promising a fairly substanial settlement and the other thousand will split a much smaller piece. Meanwhile the lawyer walks away with a full 1/3 of the total. The other 1/3 is spent on the costs and the remaining 1/3 divied up to the plaintiffs...it's fucking crooked and needs to be regulated! Further, huge financial sanctions should be levied against lawyers bringing BS cases looking to scare out a settlement.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Let me ask you a rhetorical question. If you or someone you cared for was seriously injured due to someone (or organizations) negligence would you be worried about a level playing field? When you go into a civil court the deck is all ready stacked in favor of the defendent. Why would you want to tie the paintiffs atty further?
Click to expand...

Do you think that the plaintiff is ever going to afford a richer attorney than the doctor?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Tort cases are different. The pay outs are absurd. Most of the time the cases are settled and the sharks know it! They gather up as many thousands of plaintiffs as possible and make a handful of 1 to 5 the main plaintiffs. They get them by promising a fairly substanial settlement and the other thousand will split a much smaller piece. Meanwhile the lawyer walks away with a full 1/3 of the total. The other 1/3 is spent on the costs and the remaining 1/3 divied up to the plaintiffs...it's fucking crooked and needs to be regulated! Further, huge financial sanctions should be levied against lawyers bringing BS cases looking to scare out a settlement.
Click to expand...

You dont know what you are talking about, you have mixed up tort cases with class action cases. And even accounting for that you dont know what you are talking about.
 
Jarod said:
You dont know what you are talking about, you have mixed up tort cases with class action cases. And even accounting for that you dont know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You really are a fucking idiot...Tort reform is specifically ABOUT personal injury class action cases!
 
Last edited:
Bittermark said:
Do you think that the plaintiff is ever going to afford a richer attorney than the doctor?
Click to expand...
That's not the point. Judges and the legal establishment are predisposed towards the interests of the State in a criminal case and the defendant in a civil case so you all ready are fighting an uphill battle against the court as the defendant in a civil suit. Why should they, the plaintiff, have their hands tied even more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top