Immigration for the Elite

[Guest083011]

And for reference, in my letter, I used the term "civil discourse" not "civility." No need to get one's undies in a bunch.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You can attempt to control the civility on the board. But look in a mirror and tell me it's possible to control stupidity and lame thinking.

Charles, your point was moronic and indicated that you have no understanding of the economics of insurance whatsoever. I am hardly bothered by your "well your Mom is ugly" response.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh, yeah!

I forgot about that one. Something like the "English Rule" would be a positive step.

Of course, the American Association for Justice (a misnomer if there ever was one) might have a little bit of a problem with these ideas.

I'll take looser pays in a heartbeat if it works both ways. Unfortunately, the proposals that are out there now, if the Plaintiff wins, he still pays his own attorneys fees. But if the Defendant wins, the Plaintiff pays his attorney's fees.

I've tried over 150 cases in my legal career and I've lost 5. (And by win, I mean beat the last offer, not just got some verdict.) If looser pays had been the law, I would have settled a lot more of those. cases.

And you are probably wrong about AAJ taking looser pays. If it's a fair, straight-up, either side gets their full attorney's fees, AAJ might well take it.

Frankly, there are many fewer frivolous lawsuits than most people think. If I bring a bad law suit, no one is going to pay me for it. I've got to put $15k - $250k in expenses into it. And I only get paid if I win. Plus, I get offered probably five lawsuits for every one I have time to take. Why would I take a bad one?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Nobody here is picking on Stella. What we are complaining about is a legal system that produces "lottery winners". The "Stella Awards" are pretty good examples of such. maybe TTH will fish up some "facts" that appear to make these decisions reasonable too -- but I'm highly skeptical.

I gave you a link that showed that they were made up out of whole cloth and not true. I can't do much more than that.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by woodyboyd

The other thing that might help is if we actually started seeing lawyers be sued for legal malpractice, the pain and suffering that they cause, and being nailed for unethical conduct. Right now, there is this attitude that all's fair in love, war, and lawsuits. As along as you win, it is all good.

I am in a case right now where a medical expert witness supposedly wrote two opinions, one in 2008 and 2010. The expert was then deposed and stated he only wrote one opinion in 2008. The plaintiff's attorney calls a recess and despite the deposition having only gone for twenty minutes, the expert and the attorney took a 45 minute break.

It is obvious to everyone involved that the lawyer wrote a medical opinion and signed the doctor's name to it. During the recess, one attorney looks at the two opinions and sees that the signature is exactly the same. The lawyers then talk among themselves and one says, "Yeah, lawyer so and so lectured at a medical malpractice conference and he said that you don't need to get a doctor for a medical opinion. You can just write your own and pay some doctor to sign off on it."

One lawyer senses how pissed off I am and warns me not to do anything. She says, "Woody, this medical expert is an idiot. We want him to be the plaintiff's expert."

The plaintiff's attorney and medical expert finally return. Instead of saying he wrote only one medical opinion, the medical expert says he doesn't remember signing the second one. He then refuses to answer any other questions about the second opinion under the advice of the plaintiff's attorney.

So for all these lawyers saying that if not for them the little guy would get abused, I call bullshit. Every lawyer involved should have stood up and turned this plaintiff's attorney into the bar right then and there for putting forward a completely fraudulent medical opinion. By not doing so, they are basically approving of completely unethical behavior.

Can you imagine the precedent this sets? If some corporation is contaminating your drinking water with lead, a corporate attorney can just write an opinion, say there is no lead in the water, and sign an expert's name to it without fear of reprisal. And you know what their defense would be? These lawyers would state that they were just acting in the best interests of their client.

Falsifying the opinion of experts is now business as usual in our legal system.

Why didn't you turn him in?

http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template....ontentID=12582

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I don't.

It has strayed far afield from the OP, but I don't care.

this would be an interesting topic for a qualitative research on why topics stray into different directions and how it got triggered. I like the straying. Its creative.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Its a shame he didn't warn about stupidity and lame thinking.

they never do. stupidity and lame thinking is not considered uncivil isn`t it? Just if you give an uncivil response to said attributes you get warned , right

[Guest083011]

I might be going out on a limb here, but I have this feeling Charles and PJ will not be having lunch together in the foreseeable future. That being the case, the horse is dead. No need to hit it anymore.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by SR Only

I might be going out on a limb here, but I have this feeling Charles and PJ will not be having lunch together in the foreseeable future. That being the case, the horse is dead. No need to hit it anymore.

Well, although our disagreements are stark, there are some small issues on which we agree. Damn! Nobody's perfect. Not having lunch is more of a logistics issue, PJ being in FL and all. Of course, agree on a place might be difficult. I'll pick cuisine, if PJ picks the place. He's probably much more knowledgeable about specific eateries than I am anyway.

[Guest083011]

OMG those two are going to LFK!!!! ewwww ack cough

[Guest083011]

Quite a mental image, eh folks?

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by SR Only

I might be going out on a limb here, but I have this feeling Charles and PJ will not be having lunch together in the foreseeable future. That being the case, the horse is dead. No need to hit it anymore.

sure they do, but only if i cook :-)

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

sure they do, but only if i cook :-)

MFM...on the bucket list...but way down the list. But, I'm willing to give it a shot if the opportunity arises.

[pjorourke]

MFM wouldn't be my first choice either, but Chuck and I would just have to take one for the team.

[NinaBrooke]

Thanks guys , that`s so sweet and considerate of you two. Helping a lady in need :-)
Oh and i`d invite both of you for dinner, since when i cook it comes close to food poisoning ;-)