John Edwards and OBGYNs
- Thread starter carrera79
- Start date
- Status
The same could be said of our current administration.
I don't know whether or not Edwards is a hideous human being or not, but I've looked at the "Junk Science" article, and it's BS. It makes two bogus claims, first the junk science thing, and then it moves on to assert that Edwards won big verdicts by making improper emotional arguments. The problem is that there are well designed, very well established mechanisms already in place that prevent both things from happening. In virtually all U.S. jurisdictions, one of two rules (either Frye or Daubert, as they are known) is in place and upon the request of the opposing side, allow the judge to screen out evidence that is not proven reliable. Second, overt appeals to emotion, not based upon evidence, are not allowed. A quick objection by a competent opposing lawyer will put a stop to that. If either "junk science" or "emotional appeals" really did contribute to an Edwards verdict, it was because the insurance defense lawyer opposing him was asleep at the switch. My general experience has been that insurance companies don't usually hire lawyers who do their sleeping in the courtroom.
I liked that link Tweeker43. If those on this discussion who think lawyers are creating a problem and want lawyers cut out of the equation then how do you propose to compensate people for mistakes/negligence? I think the CATO discussion addresses some good issues, especially for small claims not econimic enough to litigate but for which there has been injury. Ekpolk's example of Florida is real and shows how the goal of insurers and hospitals is to trandfer the cost to innocent individuals not perpetrators. The CATO study also found that doc's don't see a relationship with their personal errors and their personal costs as they are pooled into a large group (everyones insurance goes up) so their errors get hidden and paid for by someone else. It's now too easy to raise insurance rates and /or hospital rates to cover errors/mistakes/negligence.
As I said in another thread, our current system is badly broke. It does a very poor job sorting out mistakes, negleience, and the simple fact that not all medical conditions will have a good outcome. If the lawyers and all these massive judgments were doing any good, everybody would always go home alive and well. Greedy lawyers and always find greedy clients to make an emotional appeal to a jury. The result are huge judgments that mostly enrich lawyers that care not for the harm they are doing to our country.
But liberals like you only care about your special interest, whatever it may be.
But liberals like you only care about your special interest, whatever it may be.
With all due respect, you're so consumed with irrational hatred that the internal inconsistency and factual incorrectness of what you're posting is becoming almost overwhelming.
First, attacking "trial lawyers" is silly. This broad category includes not just the plaintiff's lawyers you so obviously hate, but also insurance company lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, etc. But "trial lawyer" has a nice twang to it when used to irrationally bash, and so the drums beat on. Maybe we should start bashing all you "classroom teachers" because of the sizeable number of you who verge on illiteracy and can't pass the tests your students must pass to graduate. Would that be fair to those of you who actually pull your weight and do a good job to start bashing all "classroom teachers"??? And what example do you set for your students when you harangue lawyers and democrats for looking out for their own "special interests" while you yourself vote for the democrats because they look after your own "special interest"???
Second, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that people do get hurt as a result of medical errors (you said "As far as harm from medical mistakes goes, do we want to punish the guilty, or fix the problem?"). Apparently we can at least agree that such injuries are going to happen. But you still haven't suggested a better way of paying for the harm done. Do you personally want to allow the docs who cause the harm off the hook so YOU can foot the bill yourself through your taxes and health insurance premiums?
Third, actually, the system does a remarkably efficient job of weeding out all but the most severe malpractice cases. Instead of the vague generalities you've been using, how about some hard information? And I'm not talking about the "stuff" put out by the insurance industry. Here's some food for thought: in Florida, before you can file a medmal case, you have to obtain written, sworn opinions from licensed doctors of the same specialty as your potential defendant stating that the care in question substantially deviated from accepted standards. Years ago, I belonged to a firm that had a couple of MM lawyers. Our turn-down rate for cases was a whopping 95%. Roughly half of the turn-downs happen because the lawyers recognize, as you do too, that not all bad medical outcomes are a result of negligence. As to the rest, because of the tort "reform" hurdles already in place, the vast majority of medical malpractice claims can not practically be pursued.
And when you do get to court, things are no better for the injured patient. You suggest, quite incorrectly, that injured persons routinely have their way in these cases. Here's another hard statistic you left out: defendand doctors win about 2/3 of the cases that do make it to trial. For every one of those "massive judgments" you talk about, there are several hundred people who had legitimate claims, but the doctors (or drivers) who hurt them managed to dodge accountability.
Fourth, you mistakenly lump together damages meant to compensate people for their costs and inujuries incurred, and damages meant to punish. "Punitive damages" are exceedingly rare and hard to prove. The plaintiff has to prove (usually to a higher standard of proof) that the defendant's behavior was grossly outrageous. In the present day, they are usually only seen in deliberate harm cases or cases in which a drunk driver seriously hurts someone.
You said, "As far as harm from medical mistakes goes, do we want to punish the guilty, or fix the problem?" Requiring the party who caused injuries to pay for those injuries is not punishment, it's accountability and responsibility. And while a present damage judgment does not undo a past problem, it offers a clear incentive for doctors to be careful in the future. Why do you think that doctors and hospitals have such aggresive peer review and quality assurance programs?
Maybe we should just shut the court system down altogether. Then insurance companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would cut premiums, and doctors would start generously volunteering to pay the patients they hurt for the harm they cause. Yeah right. You've tossed around a lot of ugly, angry generalities, with no specifics at all to back them up. So let's please hear your better plan for holding careless doctors and drivers responsible for the harm they cause. Let's please hear your better plan for ensuring that those who do get hurt are properly taken of.
This recent email from my daughter only confirms what I already knew about the misuse of our court system. OK, my son in law likely was following too closely, was distracted and did rear end the car in front of him. Supposedly the 2500 pound Beretta pushed the other car into the one in front of it and then it into the next in front. The only injuries to anybody was the car he actually hit. Their air bag went off causing some minor burns. The people in the 3 cars whose air bag didn't explode suffered nary a scratch, bruise, or burn. The insurance paid off all the claims at the time. Now suddenly, 2 years later, they are suing for $300,000. Please give me a rational explanation of why this young couple deserves to be destroyed for a minute of carelessness?
It is a well proven fact that drastic punishments of an arbitrarily chosen few provide very poor deterrence. My son in law was cited and the insurance company did pay off the claims. So why the law suit?
>
> ___, I talked with Mom and Dad on Saturday and told them that we are being
> sued for a car accident that Jeffery was in two years ago.
>
> We spoke with American Family yesterday. ______ put us in touch with an
> adjustor. I faxed them a copy of all the documents we were sent. They
> are looking into it and told us they would be in contact with us within
> a week.
>
> This morning, ____ was called by a lawyer from American Family.
> He wants ______to complete the "questionnaire" that was part of the
> documents. He plans to try to remove me from the suit because it was not
> negligent for me to entrust the car to ____. He also stated that our
> coverage is 100,000 for bodily injury. The suit is for $150,000 unless
> we've read it wrong and we're each being sued for 150,000 for a total of
> 300,000.
It is a well proven fact that drastic punishments of an arbitrarily chosen few provide very poor deterrence. My son in law was cited and the insurance company did pay off the claims. So why the law suit?
>
> ___, I talked with Mom and Dad on Saturday and told them that we are being
> sued for a car accident that Jeffery was in two years ago.
>
> We spoke with American Family yesterday. ______ put us in touch with an
> adjustor. I faxed them a copy of all the documents we were sent. They
> are looking into it and told us they would be in contact with us within
> a week.
>
> This morning, ____ was called by a lawyer from American Family.
> He wants ______to complete the "questionnaire" that was part of the
> documents. He plans to try to remove me from the suit because it was not
> negligent for me to entrust the car to ____. He also stated that our
> coverage is 100,000 for bodily injury. The suit is for $150,000 unless
> we've read it wrong and we're each being sued for 150,000 for a total of
> 300,000.
I see 2 choices to remedy negligence and compensate the injured party:
1. Existing "trial lawyer" system
2. More government action: Tougher laws with corresponding enforcement (done in other parts of the world), but limited cash payout.
1 tends to put the power in the laymans' hands, but some rewards seem like an emotional rather than rational response. Statistics prove otherwise? The seemingly unbridled avarice of the legal teams is definately off-putting, but perhaps a necessary evil to get good representation and discriminate out the frivolous. Many economists say the Gordon Gekkos of the world make for efficient pricing of assets in the capitalist system.
2 makes risk assessment more a numbers game for say, big corps (adjust price based on statistical probability of payouts) than it already is. For the small company or individual it might be more fair. Tough laws: eg no driving for 5 years for accident X + high fine, etc., or medical license suspended for 10 yrs for negligence X + high fine, etc.
I like 2, but I also understand somewhat cynically that accountability for actions is not what people want in black and white. So we are left with 1, where if we catch you, you'll pay, and the legal system will legislate on a case by case basis.
1. Existing "trial lawyer" system
2. More government action: Tougher laws with corresponding enforcement (done in other parts of the world), but limited cash payout.
1 tends to put the power in the laymans' hands, but some rewards seem like an emotional rather than rational response. Statistics prove otherwise? The seemingly unbridled avarice of the legal teams is definately off-putting, but perhaps a necessary evil to get good representation and discriminate out the frivolous. Many economists say the Gordon Gekkos of the world make for efficient pricing of assets in the capitalist system.
2 makes risk assessment more a numbers game for say, big corps (adjust price based on statistical probability of payouts) than it already is. For the small company or individual it might be more fair. Tough laws: eg no driving for 5 years for accident X + high fine, etc., or medical license suspended for 10 yrs for negligence X + high fine, etc.
I like 2, but I also understand somewhat cynically that accountability for actions is not what people want in black and white. So we are left with 1, where if we catch you, you'll pay, and the legal system will legislate on a case by case basis.
Yea and you and the insurance have to defend the lawsuit. Too bad that the looser isn't responsible for court costs.
Anyway I am not a lawyer but...Only accounts in the individual name of the policy owner theoretically can be attacked. So joint ownership is imune (generally-but who knows).
I would think only the person named on the policy but perhaps that's how they get around it..sue the driver and then the owner of the car is responsible to. Still I can't understand why two lawsuits.
One to consider is giving any money laying around to a trusted person. So both of them can give 20K (might be more now) to any single person. So they could give 40K to you and your wife. This is of course tax free and unreportable to the IRS.
Obviously its lawyer time for them.
This is one of the reasons I want to quit driving. *(*&&^$%^& leagal system in this country (Due to DemocRats-Sucks
Hopefully there is a lawyer on this board that can heop. And if he is a Democrat-I'll apologize in advance.
Unfortunately though, the bottom feeding lawyers will still need to get their pound of flesh-so they will abuse the changes system even harder. And unfortunately as more lawyers are coming into existance and the politicians (mainly Democrats) like lawyers- I see that our social system could collapse..ie Lawyers will have everything and there will be little for much else. Sounds doomsday, but as lawyers get richer-more will go to politicians and it will be a bigger and bigger cycle.
And unfortunately Lawyers speak their golden tones out of their sewer mouths. They are always fond of saying that only 10% of cases result in awards..but they fail to say that each case must be defended. I believe the average cost of each malpractice case to defend is $60K . So..hmmmm..doesn't that raise costs
Labman:
First and foremost, I'm sincerely glad that your loved ones are OK after this accident.
I am a Florida lawyer (at least I was until the Marine Corps snatched me back...), and don't know where your daughter is experiencing this. With that in mind, I see a couple problems here. First, at least where I practice, you don't sue for a particular amount, rather, you pick your court (county or circuit in FL) based upon your best estimate of what damages are expected to be.
Second, let's assume that the amount the allegedly hurt guy is seeking right now is 300k. If so, you're right to be concerned. In my experience, cases that are "worth" 300k typically involve injuries that are going to be pretty obvious at the outset. An exception that does happen with some regularity would be ruptured spinal discs that may not be apparent at first, but later require awful surgery.
But back to the 300k part. Honestly, this is a part of my business that I really don't like, and I think the blame is shared equally between lawyers and insurance companies. Initial amounts are initially put out there by the injured person's lawyer, and the amount is virtually always inflated. This is NOT done because the lawyer is greedy and expects to get paid the initial amount. Rather, it's done because we all know that whatever number first appears, the insurance company will typically respond with an offer (if they don't initailly intend to force a trial) that's on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of the first amount. So if damages really total 50k, and you ask for 50k, the ins co will offer you 15k to settle, and then expect to negotiate inward from there. And the client just got screwed. So yes, initial "demands" are typically inflated. Personally, I find this to be unseemly, but a necessary evil in dealing with insurance companies.
By the law in most states, your daughter/son-in-law's insurer has an obligation to do all it can to settle claims against them within policy limits, thereby protecting them from a judgment exceeding their policy limits. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but this might be a good time to invest a couple hundred dollars to retain an independent attorney to keep AF's lawyer honest. Sometimes they try to save their company some $ at the insured's expense. Not a good (or legal) thing.
In my previous post, I drew the distinction between punitive (punishment) damages and compensatory damages. I also understand very well that your daughter and son-in-law are going through a frightening experience which probably feels punishing to them. Assuming that the insurance company lawyer handles the situation properly, there's about a 98% chance that the case will settle well within its policy limits, well before a trial is ever set to happen (at least it would in Florida, and many other state's systems are quite similar).
The tension in this thread really begs the big question: if not our present system, how do we deal with accident-related medical and other expenses? We could foist them on health insurers, but then health plans will get even more expensive and hard-to-get. Indigent medical bills just get eaten by hospitals or the taxpayers directly. No, our system is nowhere near perfect, but having worked in it for ten years, I don't think it's anywhere near as broken as you think it is. We lawyers have some truly arrogant a$$es amongst us, but most of us are hard-working citizens trying to do the right thing, just like you. Personally, I can deal with the name calling, but slashing broadly at neat sounding strawman targets like "trial lawyers" does little good, except perhaps to make you feel good. In addition to your criticism, I would truly like to hear your suggestions about how to make our system better.
First and foremost, I'm sincerely glad that your loved ones are OK after this accident.
I am a Florida lawyer (at least I was until the Marine Corps snatched me back...), and don't know where your daughter is experiencing this. With that in mind, I see a couple problems here. First, at least where I practice, you don't sue for a particular amount, rather, you pick your court (county or circuit in FL) based upon your best estimate of what damages are expected to be.
Second, let's assume that the amount the allegedly hurt guy is seeking right now is 300k. If so, you're right to be concerned. In my experience, cases that are "worth" 300k typically involve injuries that are going to be pretty obvious at the outset. An exception that does happen with some regularity would be ruptured spinal discs that may not be apparent at first, but later require awful surgery.
But back to the 300k part. Honestly, this is a part of my business that I really don't like, and I think the blame is shared equally between lawyers and insurance companies. Initial amounts are initially put out there by the injured person's lawyer, and the amount is virtually always inflated. This is NOT done because the lawyer is greedy and expects to get paid the initial amount. Rather, it's done because we all know that whatever number first appears, the insurance company will typically respond with an offer (if they don't initailly intend to force a trial) that's on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of the first amount. So if damages really total 50k, and you ask for 50k, the ins co will offer you 15k to settle, and then expect to negotiate inward from there. And the client just got screwed. So yes, initial "demands" are typically inflated. Personally, I find this to be unseemly, but a necessary evil in dealing with insurance companies.
By the law in most states, your daughter/son-in-law's insurer has an obligation to do all it can to settle claims against them within policy limits, thereby protecting them from a judgment exceeding their policy limits. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but this might be a good time to invest a couple hundred dollars to retain an independent attorney to keep AF's lawyer honest. Sometimes they try to save their company some $ at the insured's expense. Not a good (or legal) thing.
In my previous post, I drew the distinction between punitive (punishment) damages and compensatory damages. I also understand very well that your daughter and son-in-law are going through a frightening experience which probably feels punishing to them. Assuming that the insurance company lawyer handles the situation properly, there's about a 98% chance that the case will settle well within its policy limits, well before a trial is ever set to happen (at least it would in Florida, and many other state's systems are quite similar).
The tension in this thread really begs the big question: if not our present system, how do we deal with accident-related medical and other expenses? We could foist them on health insurers, but then health plans will get even more expensive and hard-to-get. Indigent medical bills just get eaten by hospitals or the taxpayers directly. No, our system is nowhere near perfect, but having worked in it for ten years, I don't think it's anywhere near as broken as you think it is. We lawyers have some truly arrogant a$$es amongst us, but most of us are hard-working citizens trying to do the right thing, just like you. Personally, I can deal with the name calling, but slashing broadly at neat sounding strawman targets like "trial lawyers" does little good, except perhaps to make you feel good. In addition to your criticism, I would truly like to hear your suggestions about how to make our system better.
Keith's hidden agenda.
Al: Frankly, it's amazing that you slash away at lawyers for what you perceive to be their inequitable actions, but then you turn around post a bunch of half-truths. Costs of defense are pretty well matched with the costs of prosecuting a case. So a case that costs 60k to defend will cost about that much to put on (totally apart, btw, from attorney's fees, these are the costs of flying in witnesses, putting them up, making charts and powerpoints, etc.; yes, costs are staggering). And of course, since the lawyer's firm puts this money out with no way to get it back unless they win, the cases get screened pretty carefully, contrary to the popular insurance company myths about "frivolous lawsuits." Would you gamble 60k of your money on trying to convince six jurors that a truly "frivolous" case really had merit??? Not many of us do.quote:
Originally posted by Al:
And unfortunately Lawyers speak their golden tones out of their sewer mouths. They are always fond of saying that only 10% of cases result in awards..but they fail to say that each case must be defended. I believe the average cost of each malpractice case to defend is $60K . So..hmmmm..doesn't that raise costs
You also said, "Too bad that the looser isn't responsible for court costs." Guess what, in many U.S. jurisdictions, that already happens in many cases. We don't have the english automatic pay rule, but many states use a mechanism that we in Florida call a "Proposal for Settlement." Let's say a defendant serves a PFS for 10k. The plaintiff has 30 days to take it or leave it. If the plf then goes to trial and fails to get a final judgment that's within 25% of that amount (here at least $7.5k), then the plf has to pay the defendant's atty fees and costs.
The PFS has pretty effectively killed the practice of recklessly "rolling the dice" with the jury. A defendant or insurance company can pretty much stop a case any time they want by making a PFS for an amount that's somewhere in the vicinity of the case's fair value. Greedy or foolish plaintiffs who refuse a reasonable PFS will likely end up eating those defense costs. Of course, the propagandists don't want us to know that such devices already exist.
If you can accept that people ARE inevitably going to get hurt in car wrecks, medical mistakes, etc., then my question for you is the same one I asked of Labman: who should pay the costs resulting from these injuries, and how? Insurance companies with no threat of being held accountable? Unlikely. The good old we-can-save-everyone government? Great, social medicine. Our health insurance carriers? If your fantasy is to be rid of lawyers, fine, but guess what, people are going to keep getting hurt and someone will still have to pay the bill.
As I've said before, if insurance companies did the job they're paid to do, fairly and honestly, there would be no market for plaintiff's lawyers. When I was in private practice, the folks who came to me didn't do so with the idea of making big bucks, they did so when they realized they were out of pocket $x, and the insurance company offered them one-half x to settle, take it or leave it.
EKPolk your posts are great. Nice to read well thought out responses. I think Kerry and Edwards are great people trying to do what they think is right and make America a better place. I also think that Bush and Chaney feel the same way. All of them are Patriots. I've taken tests that showed based on my values that I would be considered a Libertarian. I alway in the past voted for the person not the party. This year being located in Missouri (a swing state) and based on the fact that I am not a Republican or a Democrat and that in the last election I voted for Bush, I would say my Vote will have more impact on who ends up President then it ever has in my life. I try and listen and read as much as I can so I make an informed decision when I vote. At this point in the race I am leaning strongly towards voting for Kerry/Edwards, or should I say agains't Bush/Chaney. Since I am a midwesterner that has a Libertarin value set and I feel this way at this point in the race, I would say Bush/Chaney have a problem, since I doubt I am the only swing voter that might feel like I do.
ekpolk,
Frivolous lawsuits are brought every day. In many cases settlements are made out of the desire to avoid any of the mess. Furthermore, as we move along the threshold for what is and what is not frivolous has become lower and lower. To take the stance that these cases are either not filed or are thrown out almost immediately is unrealistic. There is a serious issue with our tort system. And, I do believe in England's automatic pay system.
Frivolous lawsuits are brought every day. In many cases settlements are made out of the desire to avoid any of the mess. Furthermore, as we move along the threshold for what is and what is not frivolous has become lower and lower. To take the stance that these cases are either not filed or are thrown out almost immediately is unrealistic. There is a serious issue with our tort system. And, I do believe in England's automatic pay system.
What's the basis for your assertion? Because some handout that your auto insurance company includes in your premium bill says so? Do you have some concrete evidence of this? Yes, occasionally, a lawyer files something foolish. The vast majority of the time, however, no. If I, as a lawyer, know that a case will cost 10k-50k to prosecute, and it's "frivolous" so that my chances of winning it with a jury are very low, I simply will not take the case. I've explained this to potential clients and told them that if they really, really want to have their day in court, where they are almost certainly going to lose big time, they can personally make an up-front deposit to cover these costs. That's a pretty effective deterrent to the client. As to lawyers, generally, we're in business just like you. Signing on to projects (cases) that are likely losers isn't a very good way to make a profit in business.
Do you, as a mortgage broker, regularly sink a bunch of your money up-front (and time) into deals you know have a 99% chance of failing? I doubt it.
People that think the way you do also seem to think that juries are made up of wild-eyed Santas who just give money away for no reason. If actually knowing the truth means anything to you, run a google on "jury verdict reporters" and go have a look at what real juries are doing out there in the real world, versus the insurance company propagandist's world.
If in fact, "frivolous" lawsuits are filed every day, it should be pretty easy for you to find a bunch of examples. Again, what evidence do you have that this is happening (other than your insurance company telling you it is)???
I would further add that I'm not just "taking a stance" that what I'm saying here is correct. Having worked in and around the legal system for over ten years, I've seen how it goes with my own two eyes. I'm just amazed at how all these folks who have either very limited experience or no experience at all with the legal system know all about how it is with such certainty. Has it occurred to anyone that the folks who are putting out all this "information" about "frivolous" lawsuits and "abuse" of the courts have something of an interest in the outcome???
You don't believe that there's some bias at work here? OK, why isn't anyone crying about insurance company delay and unfair settlement practices, or even their frivolous defenses. Carrera, I've handled dozens of simple two-car, broad daylight, no mystery auto cases that turned into court cases when the insurance co offered 1/2 of my client's losses to settle. In their answer to the complaint (the doc that starts the suit), they raise as a defense that the accident was caused by an unknown third party not named as a defendant. So A runs a redlight, smashes into B, and suddenly it's the fault of a mysterious C that no one saw, no one's ever heard of until the insurance co tries to get creative about avoiding responsibility. You want FRIVOLOUS? There's a concrete example for you.
Edit for typo.
You don't believe that there's some bias at work here? OK, why isn't anyone crying about insurance company delay and unfair settlement practices, or even their frivolous defenses. Carrera, I've handled dozens of simple two-car, broad daylight, no mystery auto cases that turned into court cases when the insurance co offered 1/2 of my client's losses to settle. In their answer to the complaint (the doc that starts the suit), they raise as a defense that the accident was caused by an unknown third party not named as a defendant. So A runs a redlight, smashes into B, and suddenly it's the fault of a mysterious C that no one saw, no one's ever heard of until the insurance co tries to get creative about avoiding responsibility. You want FRIVOLOUS? There's a concrete example for you.
Edit for typo.
ekpolk,
I'm not asserting that the majority of cases are unecessary or outragous. I will find some concrete evidence to support my position.
I'm not asserting that the majority of cases are unecessary or outragous. I will find some concrete evidence to support my position.
And I'm not saying that there aren't any questionable or even meritless cases either. They're just not as common or clear-cut as you'd think they are.
Here's another scenario that often results in making the lawyers look bad (I've had it happen to me twice that I can think of). A client comes in who's so skilled at lying about his or her situation that even the experienced lawyer gets fooled, starts a case, and ultimately files suit. My most memorable one involved a client we around the office called "Fat Albert" (he was a no kidding human version of the character). He had all the normal indications of a truly serious back injury, and even moved like he had one. Imagine my surprise when the defense lawyer sent me a VCR tape with 2hrs of Fat Albert morphed into Michael Jordan. Hookshots, rebounds, three-pointers, etc, but no sign of a back problem.
Frivolous case? Perhaps. Intentionally filed as such -- no way. Yes, we promptly filed a voluntary dismissal, with my apology to the opposing counsel and defendant, and shut the case down.
Here's another scenario that often results in making the lawyers look bad (I've had it happen to me twice that I can think of). A client comes in who's so skilled at lying about his or her situation that even the experienced lawyer gets fooled, starts a case, and ultimately files suit. My most memorable one involved a client we around the office called "Fat Albert" (he was a no kidding human version of the character). He had all the normal indications of a truly serious back injury, and even moved like he had one. Imagine my surprise when the defense lawyer sent me a VCR tape with 2hrs of Fat Albert morphed into Michael Jordan. Hookshots, rebounds, three-pointers, etc, but no sign of a back problem.
Frivolous case? Perhaps. Intentionally filed as such -- no way. Yes, we promptly filed a voluntary dismissal, with my apology to the opposing counsel and defendant, and shut the case down.
There is no doubt about part of the problem being clients willing to lie. On the Other hand, the denial that there is a problem urgently needing a fix amazes me. Maybe we need to look at the English automatic pay system.
- Status