LMFAO, Evan. You're the one who brought up Rule 11. You're a hood with a few rivets missing.
Plaintiffs' attorneys always refer to "big business" and "insurance companies" and never assplain that the vast majority of businesses who are most hurt by draconian lawsuits are small to medium sized businesses who can't even afford insurance premiums. The big guys have in-house counsel or can afford specialized and expensive firms to represent them...it's the small and medium sized businesses that are the backbone of our economy that can't. Check the rolls of your local chambers of commerce...that's the REAL picture of what constitutes a business in this country.
Evan says if you "want" a system which grants attorneys' fees to the winner, "write your congressman"
as if we already don't have such a system. He fails to mention that most laws affecting businesses already have that built in, and that plaintiffs (and their attorneys of course) are awarded attorneys fees when they win, but defendants never collect attorneys fees when they win. Anything brought under Title VII (discrimination and harassment) or the FLSA (wage and hour) have attorneys fees awarded for palintiffs built in when such cases are brought by private plaintiffs attorneys rather than government attorneys. These two federal laws are the basis of the vast majority of class action lawsuits brought against businesses. Most states have similar laws...in California we have the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the wage and hour provisions of the Labor Code...again with built in attorneys fees awards for plaintiffs, not defendants.
Evan never seems to want to explain the truth...why be bothered.
A few years ago, the Trevor Law Group filed hundreds of lawsuits against small to medium sized businesses alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging such things as mirrors not being low enough in restrooms for folks in wheelchairs (sometimes by less than a few inches). They would sue under class action status on behalf of all handicapped folks whether they were employees or customers of the businesses...or they would simply send threatening letters to the businesses...asking for several thousand dollars to end the suit or to not have it filed. Businesses paid because they couldn't afford to fight, and if they were found to be technically wrong by a few inches, they'd automatically have to pay the full attorneys' fees of the Trevor Firm. The plaintiff in each of these cases was a single handicapped person who would go into the business and use their bathroom...wouldn't even buy anything. He was paid by the firm.
Finally, the California Attorney General went after the firm, sued it and the lawyers were disbarred, but only after the firm made millions.
I handle class actions every single day (unlike Evan)...five in federal court as we speak, including one by Obama's firm in Chicago. All wage and hour cases where folks might expect a few hundred bucks each because the company had less than perfect payroll records to prove, for example, meals were taken (even though they were...but bad record keeping constitutes a separate violation regardless), while Obama's firm's attorneys seek to collect their fees at over $600 per hour. Big corporate busineeses? Nope, small family owned farms. We even have the firms that sued the tobacco companuies filing these suits now because they are such easy money,
and they have nothing to lose. Many of the companies they sue shut down due to the awards, and the farmworkers lose their jobs...now they can't afford to buy lunch.
Tons of examples of this. Normally, the plaintiffs attorneys "join" the suit brought by government attorneys and do little work except attend the depositions taken by the government attorneys and the court proceeding...they sit back and collect their fees while the government attorneys do all the work.
Think you're immune? If you have a business, I'll bet you the same bet I do at seminars we conduct for free through trade organizations around the state...$100 says I can find violations of state and federal law in your payroll records...one single violation is sufficient for them to collect attorneys fees. I won't lose the bet...federal and state laws are in conflict, so if you comply with one, you'll violate the other. And the plaintiffs' attorneys know it, which is why they bring these suits by the hundreds every year.
Evan refers to mixed results as if it might forestall the award of attorneys' fees...complete and utter bullsh!t. In cases involving the award of attorneys fees, the judge is required to determine who "prevailed"...it is a matter of law, and the baby may not be cut in half. Can't believe he tried to BS that one.
Contingency fees do not require an award of fees...the attorney "owns" up to 40% of the plaintiff's case. Ethical? Have to wonder whether the plaintiff might have taken an offer to settle at a reasonable amount had the attorney not decided to roll the dice for the big payoff and end up losing. Sure, folks hear or read about the big damage awards, but the bold truth is that over 80% of the contingency fee cases taken to trial are successfully defensed...the plaintiff takes nothing, and the defendant cannot be awarded the fees it spent to defend the case. The plaintiffs' attorney simply goes on to the next case and either gets an insurance company to pay what is essentially black mail or they win the 1 out of 10 that provide them with 40% of the winnings.
America is the only industrialized nation on earth without a loser-pays system. All of Europe, the entire British Commonwealth, Japan, Russia, etc. have it.
Evan, as usual, you try to BS your way around the obvious point...it's the fact that someone could find an attorney to sue McDonalds for serving coffee hot. Or sue a school district for terminating a bus driver found to be legally blind. Or a thousand other assinine examples. It's not wrong at all to help the folks that need to have their rights protected...many government attorneys do it for their regular salary. But when you own part of the suit (via a contingency fee agreement) instead of being paid a reasonable rate for your service, whose interests are you protecting...your 40% must weigh heavily. and you never lose your bet when you bust 21.
Tort reform is opposed by only one group...plaintiffs' attorneys, one of the biggest contributors to the Democrats. And one wonders how John Edwards pays for those haircuts.
Obviously, just my opinion. The gods must be crazy.
Linear Mode
