<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 29 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 29 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 28 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.</div> Fine they win in court, but bad pub will still occur. I wasn't really talking about the legalities of the case, just the consequences of not acting charitable. </div> And now, let's think out the consequences of being charitable. If you get a rep for being stingy in the first place, people call you names and think you're an asshole, but they stop asking. If you give in to everyone that asks... more people ask. It's pretty similar to the guy from the ghetto who "makes it". Now everyone he knows is popping out of the woodwork and asking for charity. Eventually he gets to the point of saying that if he's going to help out more people, it's going to have to come at the expense of someone else. If the kid that lived down the hall wants to be his driver, what's his cousin, who's already got that job supposed to do? Same thing with Wal-Mart. And of course, Wal-Mart in the big picture, Wal-Mart is already the nation's biggest corporate donor. It seems to me what this boils down to is blackmail. "Give me money or else I'll complain about how mean you are for not giving me money". </div> Not everyone will be in this poor woman's situation. </div> Exactly!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 29 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 29 2008, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Mar 29 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 28 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are also federal laws at issue here, including ERISA. To put it another way, let's say that the court granted her damages that included medical fees - while her medical bills had already been paid. That would mean that a crucial part of the court's computation of damages was missing.</div> Fine they win in court, but bad pub will still occur. I wasn't really talking about the legalities of the case, just the consequences of not acting charitable. </div> And now, let's think out the consequences of being charitable. If you get a rep for being stingy in the first place, people call you names and think you're an asshole, but they stop asking. If you give in to everyone that asks... more people ask. It's pretty similar to the guy from the ghetto who "makes it". Now everyone he knows is popping out of the woodwork and asking for charity. Eventually he gets to the point of saying that if he's going to help out more people, it's going to have to come at the expense of someone else. If the kid that lived down the hall wants to be his driver, what's his cousin, who's already got that job supposed to do? Same thing with Wal-Mart. And of course, Wal-Mart in the big picture, Wal-Mart is already the nation's biggest corporate donor. It seems to me what this boils down to is blackmail. "Give me money or else I'll complain about how mean you are for not giving me money". </div> Not everyone will be in this poor woman's situation. </div> Exactly! </div> Exactly my point. :[
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The professional ethics rules demand that lawyers obtain informed consent... which can lead to massive paydays like this.</div> Three things stick out about this: 1) These lawyers are personal injury lawyers. Ambulance Chasers, by definition. 2) something like 55% contingency fee is usurious. The Ambulance Chasers here in Vegas charge 20% to 30%. 3) A settlement of $1M is puny. When I was juror for an automobile accident case, the kinds of numbers we were considering, had the verdict gone to the plaintiff (injured) was at least $5M and more likely $10M. Ambulance Chasers:
^ Regarding point 1: they are also, by definition, lower than scum. Just elaborating on your point. Regarding point 2, it's governed by the ABA Model Rule 1.5(a), which reads in pertinent part as follows: The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.</div> It's compounded by the fact that the factors need not all be considered in making a determination - and a 'reasonableness' standard is applied, along with the all-important need for prior written consent by the client. They're up a creek as far as malpractice is concerned... As far as point 3 goes, I really want to look at the court filings, not least for the reason you give. Something's strange there...
I don't suggest malpractice, just that anger towards Wal-Mart is misplaced. Seems to me the lawyers deserve the heat, if you know what I mean.
^ I'm focusing the anger further where it belongs. Damn lawyers... The kicker - and this has been bothering me ever since I took Professional Responsibility - is that it has little to do with actual ethics. It drives me nuts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ I'm focusing the anger further where it belongs. Damn lawyers... The kicker - and this has been bothering me ever since I took Professional Responsibility - is that it has little to do with actual ethics. It drives me nuts.</div> My property law professor once said "you're going to find that being a lawyer gives you the ability to steal".
Ross Perot's take on lawyers was even better. It went something like this: "Most people would have to rob banks one at a time, these guys rob all the banks at once"
