| Author | Message | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 341 Registered: 11-2002 |
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the large fees paid to lawyers in regards to lawsuits. Why? It ain't easy to take down big Tobacco for $300+ billion. Not everyone has the debate skills, the critical thinking skills, and the orating skills to take down a criminaly negligent industry and it's million-dollar attorneys. Dave, there are probably a million people who would scream that, regardless of your skill, you don't deserve the money you make that gives you the opportunity to afford a Maranello. You know, as well as I know, that your abilities, skills, and hard work makes you mroe than deserving of your wealth. The same is true for lawyers. For every billion dollar-fee lawyer, there are probably 10,000 unemployed or underpaid lawyers. It's not like every lawyer is getting paid big money or rolling in ill-earned cash. The fact is, big business' hire SUPREMELY GOOD counsel in order to protect their assets. It takes and equally supremely good, if not better, attorney to be able to beat big business and their attorneys in court....and because of their skill, they are more than deserving of their rewards. Like it or not, you must realize one thing: not any lawyer could have beaten RJR in court, and luckily, our justice system does not allow for the Gov to simply hand down a $300+ billion dollar fine onto a company whenever it sees fit. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 215 Registered: 7-2002 |
Art, BTW, the Airbus that had the problem was not fly-by-wire. Bob | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1709 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ah, well, when only 15% of those of us eligible to vote actually do, we get the government we deserve...  | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 159 Registered: 2-2003 |
The system is the way it is because lawyers are the ones making the laws. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1804 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikeB & Eric: As to what I'd do to make things better: make the loser pay attorney's fees. You might not like the result, but it'd sure make the smaller cases more profitable, and more importantly ensure that the injuried person got adequate compensation for their injuries. As to tghe comments about punitive damages, those are generally earned, a company has to work hard to get those awarded against them. Contrary to popular rumor, a jury is composed of a group of people generally more conservative than the general population, and it takes quite a bit to get them angry enough to award such damages. That's one of the reasons why you only hear about a few of these cases, when literally there are hundreds of thousands of cases filed every year. More importantly, those damages do three things: 1. Enrich the Federal Government, reducing your taxes. This is because they are taxes twice, just like dividends, the winner pays taxes on the entire amount, without deduction for attorney's fees (Alternative minimum tax doesn't allow for that deduction), 2. Pays the lawyer for his investment and work, and more importantly 3. Teachs the nasty SOB who had them awarded against them to clean up their filthy no good act. Eric: What proof do you have that the Plaintiff's lawyers withheld any information? My sources (ATLA) indicates that there was and is a data base available to anyone who joined. There was no confidentiality no attempt to conceal anything. I suspect this is another urban legend, but if you have any solid proof, please let me know. Art | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 210 Registered: 12-2002 |
Art, I am not disagreeing that the system is the best one yet developed on this earth - I think it is. However, you say it could be "tweaked" - I'm asking what you would propose that would help. Personally, I've had to sue people several times for various things, and I've always won. Not because I'm so great, but because I have an understanding of when I am right and wrong, according to the law. Most people don't. A fundamental misunderstanding of what the law does and does not say is usually the root of most people's erroneous ideas of "the screwed up legal system". However, I am also smart enough to know that the system is very, very far from perfect. So, in your experience as a lawyer, what do you consider imperfect in the system, and what would you do about it? I realize SOME lawyers get large paydays based on cases with questionable merit, and since I've seen you stick up for the downtrodden quite a few times - I'm asking what you would do to reform the system, as someone who is a beneficiary of the way it works now. Or do you think it's perfect and doesn't need tweaked? You admit yourself that smaller cases often do not see justice whereas big ones do. How about using some of the money from the big ones and instead of awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff and a BIG cut to the lawyer (encouraging the jackpot mentality), maybe that cash could be redistributed to those who can't see justice on their "meager" $50k lawsuit? Personally, while I think our legal system works decently, it costs us a LOT of money. I waste a LOT of money on legal CYA because of the fear of lawsuits. And I don't mean I make a better product to avoid lawsuits, I mean things like excessive warning labels (to the point of insanity), lots of insurance, tight leashes on employees and other things that really only detract from quality of life in the workplace. It's too bad I can't let me employees come in on the weekend and work in our machine shop on personal stuff, but I'm too concerned they will lop off a finger and blame me. And to be honest, that's sad. Don't forget that big companies often use lawyers to do the exact opposite of "getting justice" to individuals. How many times has the little guy lost in the face of a bigger legal budget of the big guy? | ||
| Erich Walz (Deleteall)
Member Username: Deleteall Post Number: 322 Registered: 12-2001 |
Dave's point, if I may, is that sometimes Plaintiff's attorneys aren't any better than the people/companies they pursue. In alot of the cases Dave has referenced the injured Plaintiffs are often just a tool to get money. Look at the number of class-actions suits where injured Planitff's get coupoins so they can purchase another product from the same offending company, but the attorneys get money. Or, look at the Ford/Firestone situation where Plaintiff's atorneys knew for years (yes, YEARS) about the problem but did nothing for fear of jeopardizing their windfall/jackpot. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 905 Registered: 3-2002 |
Lawyers make for easy, cliched targets. But I think we've seen too many examples of what companies do when they think nobody is looking! I would say that an attorney deserves his/her percentage more than an athlete does an 8-figure salary. Bottom line is that, in both cases, market drives the price. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1803 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikeB: What I am saying is that this is the best system you can get, given the rampant dishonesty in our culture. Period. Get rid of the dishonesty in business, ethics, and everyday living, I could certainly recommend a different system. However, the likelyhood of that occurring is dim, and if that's the case, this sytem that has evolved over the last 500 years (we inherited it from the Brits) is about as good as its going to get. Problems, sure, nothing is perfect, but the problems you hear about are sometimes fabricated, rarely real when you get all of the facts. My experience is that on the smaller cases (under 50k) you can sometimes get an injustice because of the lack of resources, but on the large items (over 1 mil), justice is usually done. Injustice is very, very rare, given the economics put into those cases, generally all the facts come out. Art | ||
| will h (Willh)
Junior Member Username: Willh Post Number: 61 Registered: 3-2003 |
Hate to step into this, but Art's comment about businesses being honest had on me what I think was its desired effect. Once upon a time I represented public and private companies as a corporate/securities lawyer in a large firm. In my opinion, at times the securities laws were exploited to punish honest business mistakes. Those laws have been tweaked to try to balance the interests at stake, with I'm not sure how much success. I am proud to have worked with both entrepreneurs and executives of public companies, and continue to have great admiration for their intelligence, creativity and hard work, and for the jobs and wealth they created - and great compassion for those who failed. I am now part of a family business, and all of our professionals and staff have standing instructions to do not just what is required by the law, but also what is right, whether dealing with taxes or environmental issues. I feel that businesses as a class are at least as honest as, say, lawyers. Art, I have no problem with private enforcement of many types of laws, and agree that priavte enforcement is necessary, unless we choose to greatly enlarge the government. But I join with Dave in feeling that the compensation received by plaintiff's attorneys in some cases is in my opinion grossly excessive. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 209 Registered: 12-2002 |
Art, Woulnd't you agree that there is at least SOME abuse of the system by jackpot-mentality (thanks WM) lawyers? I am sure you would agree. If so, what can and should be done to prevent that sort of thing? Would you also agree that there are a lot of jackpot-mentality plaintiffs who (often goaded by jackpot mentality lawyers) are right there filing lawsuits against large companies with big coffers. What would you propose to do about that? With all due respect Art, I see you defending the profession because of the good it does, but I haven't seen you offer up any solutions to the problem. I realize it's probably hard to criticize an industry that has been (apparently) good to you, but you often argue based on the "big picture" in other threads - but don't be blinded by your good experiences with law. By and large, Joe Public sees lawyers as bad, and lawyers are responsible for a lot of the added expense for products and services in this day and age. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1801 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: The system is the way it is, because it is the solution to litgation for those who can't afford lawyer. In some instances, it does provide for a windfall for counsel, but most of the time, it works because there are rewards to the lawyers for their work, investment, and skills. If we have socialized legal services (not a great idea, but a solution that some countries use) perhaps we wouldn't need this, but given our economics, it provides access for those who cannot afford competent counsel. Litigation, as practiced in todays world is expensive, time consuming, and very trying. It takes a certain type of individual to prosecute these types of cases, and a certain level of capitalization for that individual. If you recall the movie, "A class action" starring John Travolta, it wasn't ficiton. It was a true story of a lawyer taking on a large business. It bankrupted him, although he represented people who were indeed injuried by the defendant (later shown to be at fault by the EPA), even though he obtained a several million dollar judgement against that entity. Is there a solution: sure, but it won't happen: businesses taking responsibility for their actions, businesses being honest. The MBA mentality of being cost effective without any regard as to honesty, morality, and understanding adequate compensation to those that have been injuried. Those concepts would instantly put me out of business. The likely hood of that every occuring is on the same order as that of the sun going out tomorrow. That's why some lawyers can make very good earnings, and that's why it will continue to be that way long past our lifespan. Cheers. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1708 Registered: 1-2002 |
No, I own no tobacco stocks. And no, I did not mean to suggest it was easy. I have no idea if it is or not, and would not demean you by presuming to do so. Rather, what I meant was that there is no common sense involved in making each of these guys BILLIONAIRES atthe expense of the supposed victims!! And nothing you have posted has shown me where the common sense is! Yes, pay a lawyer her/his $ per hour fees for work done. I have no problem with that. But the contingency/lottery payout system has too many losers--shareholders, victims, average joes, consumers, etc.--and too few newly-rich lawyer winners, Art. I am sorry I seem to be attacking your profession here. I am not. I am attacking a system that keeps on rewarding these folks so obscenely! And I am still waiting for you, or anyone, to substantiate your claim that this is "privatizing...common sense" | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1799 Registered: 6-2001 |
Own a little Phillip Morrris stock do we? Joking aside, I'm sure they didn't just fall into the money. You apparently don't understand what we do, and how we do it. I don't have the space or time to explain how difficult it is, but rest assured, if it was so easy, a lot more of us would be doing this. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1707 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, in this case, the freaking WING FELL OFF THE PLANE. Not much to discover there. And I'll bet that a retained lawyer charging per hour (rather than for 33% of the settlement) would have been just as good finding the cover-up as a wanna-get-rich-quick plaintiff lawyer. Bottom line: my plan would work, but too many people have a vested interest in the status quo get rich quick lottery mentality (and contribute heavily, primarily to Democrats, to protect it) for anyone to have the guts to implement it anytime soon. As for the govt being shorthanded, etc., you are correct. But eliminate the potential for a huge lawyer payout with each spilled cup of McDonald's coffee & each crashed airplane, and I'd be willing to bet that govt would suddenly attract a whole lot more of these talented people to its ranks... And Art? I am sorry, but I see no common sense in 3 lawyers EACH being paid well over $1 BILLION just because they were involved in tobacco litigation in my state. If you can see some common sense there, please point it out. All I see are 3 greedy cocksuckers who put their own desires to become instant billionaires ahead of their clients--those idiots who willingly endangered their own health by inhaling the smoke from a burning cigarette, despite 40 years of warnings not to do so. But what do I know? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1798 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: The Plaintiff's lawyers are frequently those who discover the problems. The government doesn't have the resources or competent people to catch most of the jerks. They do deserve to get paid for the public service they create. It's privatizing the enforcement of goverment and common sense. Art | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 4907 Registered: 8-2002 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Airbus crashed on it's maden flight. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1705 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, yikes! I thought that was merely a Microsoft "bug, er, "undocumented feature"!!! As for punitive damage: not needed in cases like this, IMO. Commercial airliner makers are heavily regulated by government regulation in each country in which they sell. The way to punish them for hiding obvious flaws that have gotten people killed is simple: Have the government in the affected country (i.e. the FAA)(a) forbid them from selling ANY new products in that country for 10 years; and (b) indicting for criminal negligence any & all company officials proven to have covered it up. That way, you punish the wrongdoers & the company, WITHOUT enriching undeserving plaintiff attorneys. And the punishment--nuking them in th emarketplace & jailing officers--is much more fitting to the crime than 4 years of class action suits, a paltry government fine, and 400 rich lawyers. Sorry, Art... | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3757 Registered: 9-2001 |
I beleive the 777 is also FBW? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1796 Registered: 6-2001 |
By the way: And you were complaining about punitive damages? Isn't this exactly where they do the most good, by scarring the •••• out of those who'd do stuff like this? Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1795 Registered: 6-2001 |
DAve: You don't even know the half of it: The airbuses are all fly by wire. That means that the controls don't go directly to the plane. They go through the computer. On the early airbuses, they had a programing error: if the roll rate exceeded what the computer thought was appropriate, the computer would re-boot, leaving the plane to its own devices. Scnario: heavy turblence, computer starts to think impossible, re-boots, plane out of control. Having said that, Boeing isn't such a good deal either: 737 Rudder problems, more than 3 crashes before the NTSB found the problem, Boeing may have hidden it. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1702 Registered: 1-2002 |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=676&e=3&u=/usatoday/20030527/ts_usatoday/5189721 |