A Common Sense Judge - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Kuan · #31 01-30-2003, 01:34 PM

Nathaniel Brazill is in jail serving 28 to life. I don't think you can make that kind of money making license plates.

Here's the problem though: There are undoubtly tons of frivolous lawsuits which are brought before the courts each year. How do you decide what's frivolous and what's not without due process? Do you really think it's the plaintiffs who decide that they want to sue, or is it lawyers? In this case it doesn't seem that the plaintiffs had anything to lose, so why not go ahead? I don't think it would have made a difference even if they had to pay attorney and court fees up front. If they repaid you the portion of your tax dollars would that put a stop to frivolous lawsuits? I don't think so.

MTI · #32 01-30-2003, 04:10 PM

Tort reform should require the losing party of any lawsuit to pay the full reasonable legal expenses, including reasonable attorney fees of the other side, which is not the American system in civil litigation. Generally, only contract actions have attorney fee recovery built into them by statute or the contract itself.

The impediment to this common sense approach is that it would strike at the very heart of a lawyer's source of income, contingency fees, which can range from one-third to one-half of what his client gets. The argument is that the attorney fronts all the money for the suit, so without contingency fee arrangements, people who can't afford lawyers won't have access to the judicial system. If the "system" provided reasonable compensation for the lawyers, got rid of contingency fees, wouldn't access be improved, the wrongdoer pay the price and justice more evenly metted out for the injured party?

mikemover · #33 01-31-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Anderson
The looser pays 100% of the defendant expences, AND 100% of my (taxpayer) expences.

EXCELLENT idea!

Mike

mikemover · #34 01-31-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kuan
Do you really think it's the plaintiffs who decide that they want to sue, or is it lawyers? In this case it doesn't seem that the plaintiffs had anything to lose, so why not go ahead? I don't think it would have made a difference even if they had to pay attorney and court fees up front. If they repaid you the portion of your tax dollars would that put a stop to frivolous lawsuits? I don't think so.

OF COURSE the plaintiffs decided to sue! An attorney cannot proceed on a case on your behalf if you tell him not to! Of course the trial lawyers encourage it, because it is a huge cash cow for them!

You say they had nothing to lose, and that's exactly the problem! There IS no price to be paid for bringing frivolous lawsuits against others, and there needs to be! If they had to pay the defendants' legal costs, and the costs to the taxpayers, upon losing such a case, they WOULD have had something to lose, and they might have reconsidered. As it stands, even though the defendants "won", they are still the losers, because they have spent thousands in legal fees and would have to spend thousands more in any counter-suit attempt at recovering their costs...all for being guilty of NOTHING! ...Also, YOU AND I are losers in the case, because we had to pay the judge, the jury, the bailiff, the court reporter, etc. to sit and listen to their BS!

Mike

Kuan · #35 01-31-2003, 03:02 PM

But what of legitimate lawsuits which end up getting nowhere? Not all of these are clear cut winners.

leathermang · #36 01-31-2003, 03:26 PM

There are a lot of things unfair about our legal system. I hope they get corrected some day.... I think it is interesting that the English have abandoned the use of Juries.... If our education system does not get any better that may be needed here also.....

There is a saying by judges... about lawyers... that " talent beats facts" ... meaning that acting and presenting ability affects juries more than the facts in many cases....

Kuan · #37 01-31-2003, 03:34 PM

Funny you mention that. Lawyers don't seem to want educated people on juries. I say that from experience. In Minnesota, jury duty is 2 weeks

They "allowed" my wife and a doctor to leave after three days. For some reason they weren't what they were looking for. I guess they didn't want a paradox!