Law Suits and Popular Ignorance

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

For those of you who think there is a lot of lawsuit abuse out there, the following excerpt from a law review article in the St. Mary's Law Journal appeared:

Here you go again, Charles. Quoting judges who just so happen to be attorneys. Do you think that it is a problem that the only people standing up for our legal system are lawyers? OUR legal system is a misnomer. It is YOUR legal system.

You were right about the law, "Communications in the due course of a judicial proceeding will not serve as the basis of a civil action for libel or slander, regardless of the negligence or malice with which they are made."

As far as I can tell though, this law is not based on anything the legislature passed, but it is based on judicial precedent.

And that in a nutshell is what is totally fucked up with the law. What may be even worse is that the public is not educated on this law. If they were, half of you all would be out of business. At least the public here in Texas has figured it out with regards to malpractice.

The public has seen what you lawyers call "the cost of doing business" is. With defensive medicine, the cost is $45 billion a year. The "cost of doing business" sounds like a phrase the mafia came up with. Utilities, labor those are costs of doing business. Being shaken down by lawyers who hire experts that lie through their teeth shouldn't be.

Only a society being run by lawyers would come up with the stupid notion that the public has a right to sue but not the right of getting health care.

I think the other thing that is so bothersome with all you lawyers is that you are such defenders of the status quo. In the past with insurers, if a doctor said "IMO this patient needed X." The patient got X. Now you have to come up with evidence. Evidence based medicine is happening everywhere... except the courtroom. Clearly, modernization of the court room is in order.

[Texas Contrarian]

ABC News video on fraudulent slip-and-fall scams:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNe...scams-12979123

The narrator points out that this sort of thing drives up costs for all of us, and that crime rings have formed to target certain businesses and chains. She also notes that the problem may be worse than the raw numbers might indicate, since some businesses negotiate settlements and pay off claims to make them quietly go away.

In any event, all the notoriety associated with this sort of thing certainly must serve in many instances to reduce the credibility of those with legitimate claims and the honest attorneys who serve them.

[Randy4Candy]

Wonder how hard it would be to get the Koch brothers on a scam cam?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

TTH:

Can you please explain this "judgement proof" thing?

Under the current system, as a defense attorney, if you take on a "judgement proof" client, the client is paying you at going rates, then presumably the client has resources. If you are taking the case on contigency, and you lose then you are out your time.

In a loser pays system, the client and attorney (law firm) would be financially responsible for the legal fees of the prevailing party.

Generally speaking, anyone with a judgment can execute against the judgment debtor's non-exempt assets. In most cases, exempt assets are set out by statute or constitutional provision. [In Bankruptcy, states have the choice of picking the state's exempt assets or the federal scheme.] In any event, a judgment proof debtor is a debtor that has NO non-exempt assets. For instance a few are:

Texas Property Exemptions from Execution


Texas exemptions are very broad, as many Texas collection attorneys will tell you. As of 2011, Texas property in the following categories is exempt from execution, whether for a family or for a single adult:

1. The homestead (Texas Constitution);

2. Personal property up to the aggregate fair market value of $60,000.00 for a family or $30,000.00 for a single adult who is not a member of a family. The personal property must fit into categories as described in the statute (Tex. Prop. Code §42.001);

3. Current wages for personal service (except for payment of child support) and unpaid commissions for personal services not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the $30/$60,000 aggregate limitations (Tex. Prop. Code §42.001);

4. Prescribed health aids (Tex. Prop. Code §42.001);

5. Worker's compensation payments (Tex. Labor Code §408.201);

6. Cemetery lots held (Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 41.002);

7. Art held on consignment;

8. Assets in the hands of the trustee of a spendthrift trust for the benefit of the judgment debtor;

9. Certain types of insurance benefits;

10. Certain savings plans, including retirement benefits and health savings plans; and

11. College Savings Plans (Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 42.0022).

There are others, but this is a basic list that should be reviewed before seeking to collect on any debt. Texas is obviously debtor friendly in its broad exemptions, so if you are an out of state collector, it would be important to discuss strategy before hiring local counsel for domestication of foreign judgments in Texas.

The working poor would tend to not have assets in excess of these, and would therefore be considered "judgment proof." Even if a debtor had assets in excess of these, the creditor has to determine whether or not there are sufficient assets to justify the costs of the execution procedure. For instance, will the creditor get more than the cost of levying and executing against the debtor's property?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Quoting judges who just so happen to be attorneys. Do you think that it is a problem that the only people standing up for our legal system are lawyers? OUR legal system is a misnomer. It is YOUR legal system.

OK, if you want judges who aren't lawyers, there are only two levels that I know about: the United States Supreme Court, and Justice of the Peace Court.

But I'm sure you would object to any non-lawyer who wanted to sit on either of those two benches.

Of course, I'm sure you'd object to non-doctors running the doctors' profession (you already have), but won't afford the legal system the same courtesy as to let the professionals run the system.

I'm going to nickname you "Janus."

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Wonder how hard it would be to get the Koch brothers on a scam cam?

Just watch the news about Wisconsin.

Looks like Messieurs Koch and Koch may have been responsible for kicking that whole thing off. There's a lot of banter in the evil liberal media linking the Wisconsin Governor's plan to privatize the state's power plants to the Koch's conveniently located coal delivery business. The Koch's were the Gov's second biggest campaign donor and also dropped a cool million+ into attack ads for him. Now they stand to gain huge from the budget bill that's kicked up all the fuss in Madison.

So who needs a scam cam? Give them long enough and they'll catch themselves in the net.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

OK, I know I'm about to whack the hornet's nest with this one, but why not let the jury decide if lawyer's fees should be awarded?

I know what Tush is gonna say about this. I'm more interested to hear how the rest of the class responds. It's that side of the argument that usually produces the most fun!

Cheers,
Mazo.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

OK, I know I'm about to whack the hornet's nest with this one, but why not let the jury decide if lawyer's fees should be awarded?

I know what Tush is gonna say about this. I'm more interested to hear how the rest of the class responds. It's that side of the argument that usually produces the most fun!

Cheers,
Mazo.

If it were up to the jury (notice the subjunctive tense), neither side would be awarded fees. No one thinks that highly of lawyers.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Just watch the news about Wisconsin.

Looks like Messieurs Koch and Koch may have been responsible for kicking that whole thing off. There's a lot of banter in the evil liberal media linking the Wisconsin Governor's plan to privatize the state's power plants to the Koch's conveniently located coal delivery business. The Koch's were the Gov's second biggest campaign donor and also dropped a cool million+ into attack ads for him. Now they stand to gain huge from the budget bill that's kicked up all the fuss in Madison.

So who needs a scam cam? Give them long enough and they'll catch themselves in the net.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Heh, Heh, Heh.....

When I posted this this morning I had no idea about the "prank" phone call made to Gov. Dipstick, that he actually took it thinking it was one of his "close friends" and megabuck contributor, a Koch brother and that the audio was posted on You Tube.

Guess that's why they're called Koch-Suckers..... (yes, yes, I know, it's really pronounced "coke" - know thine enemies, etc. etc.)

AND ALSO.....

Even though it's in Ecuador, Chevron just got it hung in their ass for $9.5B in an environmental class action led by some 61-y/o indigenous granny with no legal training that doesn't even speak Spanish. F*cking shyster bitch!!! LOL

Cap'n, when you come in on break from in front of Liberty Income Tax, why don't you respond.

[xane]

haha crazy. but they are out there. and there are lawyers who smoke crack and judges who want to fuck little boys in their ass.

but dress them all up in their sunday clothes and its hard to determine who is who until they speak. then it usually takes about 5 minutes to determine who is lying.

it would be great to see about 1/2 of the world's population just vanish. the really dumb half.

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

OK, if you want judges who aren't lawyers, there are only two levels that I know about.

When did I say I wanted that?

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

But I'm sure you would object to any non-lawyer who wanted to sit on either of those two benches.

I would?

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Of course, I'm sure you'd object to non-doctors running the doctors' profession (you already have)

You think doctors are running the medical profession? LOL. The Chairman of the Texas Medical Board was a fucking lawyer!!

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

but won't afford the legal system the same courtesy as to let the professionals run the system.

How about you afford doctors the same courtesy and allow a doctor to head up the bar?

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm going to nickname you "Janus."

I think the reasons logic classes are taught pre-law school is so you lawyers learn what not to do. A straw man, false analogy, topped off with an ad hominem. Way to go, Charles. You must be a helluva lawyer.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Heh, Heh, Heh.....

When I posted this this morning I had no idea about the "prank" phone call made to Gov. Dipstick, that he actually took it thinking it was one of his "close friends" and megabuck contributor, a Koch brother and that the audio was posted on You Tube.

Guess that's why they're called Koch-Suckers..... (yes, yes, I know, it's really pronounced "coke" - know thine enemies, etc. etc.)

AND ALSO.....

Even though it's in Ecuador, Chevron just got it hung in their ass for $9.5B in an environmental class action led by some 61-y/o indigenous granny with no legal training that doesn't even speak Spanish. F*cking shyster bitch!!! LOL

Cap'n, when you come in on break from in front of Liberty Income Tax, why don't you respond.

As you wish...

But I'm not sure there's anything you said that's particularly worth commenting on, other than that you apparently think it's perfectly OK to just go ahead and let the public employee unions have everything they want in the way of free health care, lavish defined-benefit pension plans, etc. Wisconsin is almost busted. A lot of other states are busted. How do you think they're going to come up with the money to pay for all that? What taxes do you suggest that they raise, and just what do you think big tax increases are going to do to the state's competitiveness?

Massive entitlement expansions, both at federal and state levels, are the main reason we're on course to suffer a fiscal bust if no one engineers a course correction. Such a crisis would make inequality much worse, affecting the middle class and poor much more than those of us in the Diamonds and Tuxedos section. That's the way it always is.

As for the Chevron suit, it's completely meaningless; purely symbolic. The company is under no obligation to pay the fine and has virtually no attachable assets in Ecuador.

Some of you folks may get all giddy over the thought that Chevron might get it "hung in their ass" for $9.5 billion, but remember that a very, very tiny percentage of CVX is in insider hands. The bulk of shares are owned by people of modest means, largely through 401k and other vehicles.

Looks to me like some people ought to be careful what they wish for.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How do you think they're going to come up with the money to pay for all that? What taxes do you suggest that they raise, and just what do you think big tax increases are going to do to the state's competitiveness?

The first thing Walker did in office was cut taxes on businesses. IIRC he axed more in business taxes for this year than he expects to recover from the union deal.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Cheers,

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

TTH:

Can you please explain this "judgement proof" thing?

Under the current system, as a defense attorney, if you take on a "judgement proof" client, the client is paying you at going rates, then presumably the client has resources. If you are taking the case on contigency, and you lose then you are out your time.

In a loser pays system, the client and attorney (law firm) would be financially responsible for the legal fees of the prevailing party.

None of the looser pays statutes I know of, for example those in the UK, make the attorney liable for the attorneys' fees. Most of my clients, by the time they get to me, are broke. They have had a death of the primary bread winner in the family, or a severe injury to that person. Let's say that the average of defense costs in my cases (attorneys' fees only) is $100,000. If I loose and the Defendant gets a $100k judgment against my client, so what? They can't pay that, and probably couldn't even before they got hurt.

And as for as a contingency case, if I loose, I am already out my time under current law. That's why I am careful not to take cases I can't win, to the extent that you can foresee that sort of thing. I'm out my time, anywhere from $25k to $250k in expenses, and I could have taken another case that I could have won.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If it were up to the jury (notice the subjunctive tense), neither side would be awarded fees. No one thinks that highly of lawyers.

I'll take that bet. My juries will give my injured clients their fees. You make the argument that they're not fully compensated unless the Defendant also pays for the attorney's fees.

They might not do it in small fender bender cases, but in a major case -- pipe line explosion with gross negligence, father burned to the point he lost a limb, etc.; truck wreck that broke someone's neck and caused them brain damage because truck driver was speeding (just to mention two cases in my office right now) -- I'll get them 95 out of 100 times.