Sue Happy Lawyers

[Alpha Sig Scott]

Since the "Kramer" thread is closed I though this would fit just as well here.

The following are a couple of excerpts from the article. Found here:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=243077&GT1=7703&

Men Seek Apology From Ex-'Seinfeld'

"Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday".

"Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation".

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

Captive!?! They couldnt get up and leave when he started insulting them? Did he have them tied to their seats with a gun to their head?

I'm not making any exscuses for Richards here, but come on. Monetary compensation for being a jerk. An apology is appropriate, but not cash.

[EE-BO]

The real trouble with class action lawsuits is that by their nature they provide an incentive to attorneys to profit at the expense of their clients and the greater good.

When I was in public accounting, I did a lot of work on some of the largest asbestos litigations in the country. Obviously I cannot say too much about that, but what astounded me was how these things are structured.

Back when large numbers of people who were truly and seriously affected by asbestos were still alive, and suffering in terrible ways, the standard out of court settlement was $25,000 for death and $10,000-18,000 for the onset of serious health problems that could be linked to asbestos. The settlement was usually $2,500-5,000 for those who were willing to settle while they showed minor signs.

It seems cruel to say this, but the fact is most people who were badly impacted by asbestos exposure are no longer with us- not just because of the effects of the exposure but because of the amount of time that has passed since the stuff was largely removed from use.

Yet there are still occasional cases that arise which are serious.

The tactic now is to take 4-5 serious cases, add in several hundred or even several thousand cases where people were exposed from one to several times and have NO symptoms, and then try to get a class action settlement for the entire group.

The thought process is that a company is more likely to settle for $10,000 each on 1,000 claims for $10 million rather than risk those 4-5 really serious cases going to court for years and resulting in total rewards for those 4-5 people in the $5 million+ range each.

In the process, the really sick people get very little money- not much more than they did 20 years ago, the people who had minimal exposure and are unlikely to ever become ill get a few grand each, and then the attorneys pocket 30-35% of a multi-million dollar settlement. The appeal to the sick is that they get something now and don't have to sign on for a 10 year legal battle in the hopes of a big payoff. Clearly, attorneys have to talk their really sick clients into settling for next to nothing for these suits to work, and it happens!

Even less scrupulous law firms will sell their client lists across state lines. A big part of my work was to scrutinize client lists on these class action suits and a substantial number of claims were filed in multiple states. The goal is to get double payment on a single claim and the hope is that by giving companies these massive lists they will figure it is cheaper to settle than try to audit the claims and compare them to other firms who have also filed massive lists.

All that said, in this time of globalization and corporate consolidation we are seeing companies that have the kind of power, even greater power in many cases, that the trusts that existed in the US during the Industrial Revolution.

Class action claims are about the only recourse the common man has against these massive companies.

So I would be reluctant to do away with class action lawsuits entirely.

The solution I think is more strict enforcement of ethical standards. I think Earp makes a good point noting that attorney is the most common profession of government legislators.

The government goes after accountants and doctors all the time- just look at Sarbanes-Oxley and Medicare-imposed price controls on medical procedures.

But when was the last time the government took a heavy hand in the conduct of attorneys?...

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Alpha Sig Scott

Since the "Kramer" thread is closed I though this would fit just as well here.

The following are a couple of excerpts from the article. Found here:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=243077&GT1=7703&

Men Seek Apology From Ex-'Seinfeld'

"Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday".

"Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation".

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

Captive!?! They couldnt get up and leave when he started insulting them? Did he have them tied to their seats with a gun to their head?

I'm not making any exscuses for Richards here, but come on. Monetary compensation for being a jerk. An apology is appropriate, but not cash.

Under that logic, most people who sue for sexual harassment aren't entitled to cash either. Not something I agree with.

[EE-BO]

The distinction I would make there however is that in a sexual harassment situation you are dealing with the conduct of your employer- or someone at the site of your employer.

So there is a presumed situation where the recipient of the harassment is pressured to endure it unfairly or risk losing a job or otherwise being handled inequitably in the future at work (promotions, raises etc.)

I am not an attorney- so anyone who is tell me if I am wrong, but I would think the following is true,

1. Your boss/coworker comes up to you and says "nice ass"! You have a lawsuit.

2. A random person on the street walks by and says "nice ass"! You don't have a lawsuit (at least to my knowledge.)

That is how I would support Alpha Sig Scott's contention.

But then again, these guys who attended the concert paid money to attend and would certainly have certain rights on those grounds.

I could see them getting their money back, and maybe incidental expenses if they had hired babysitters for children etc.- but is there any legal precedent under which they could sue for punitive damages?

EDIT- now that I think about it more,

If a person is stopped in a department store for shoplifting without documented probable cause (ie video)- that is one hell of a good lawsuit, even if they did actually steal something, in part because of public humiliation.

I wonder if this case could be built along those lines? Granted, the guys had the option to leave the venue- but by that point the racially motivated "public humiliation" had already happened. So the option to leave is meaningless.

Personally I think to sue would be ridiculous, but it is interesting to ponder how such a case could be made.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Under that logic, most people who sue for sexual harassment aren't entitled to cash either. Not something I agree with.

Amazing isn't it?

There are two sides of any argument of a situation isn't there?

A Plantiff Lawyer or a Defense Lawyer.

Now, I am wondering what your logic is?

Is the plantiff guilty or is the defendant guilty?

Granted I usualy talk about Criminal Law!

Not posted to a non lawyer as I am not either, but G P is supposedly studing The Leagal Proffession.

What is going to be your expertise of Legality?

Sugggest you try Internet or Trade International asspects.

jusrt a thought!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Amazing isn't it?

There are two sides of any argument of a situation isn't there?

A Plantiff Lawyer or a Defense Lawyer.

Now, I am wondering what your logic is?

Is the plantiff guilty or is the defendant guilty?

Granted I usualy talk about Criminal Law!

Not posted to a non lawyer as I am not either, but G P is supposedly studing The Leagal Proffession.

What is going to be your expertise of Legality?

Sugggest you try Internet or Trade International asspects.

jusrt a thought!

I really am not sure what you are getting at here at all, other than wondering what type of lawyer I want to be. It's still public defense, and I still don't see how that's relevant.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I really am not sure what you are getting at here at all, other than wondering what type of lawyer I want to be. It's still public defense, and I still don't see how that's relevant.

COOL.

Guess it says it all?

Now, I am wondering how you picked this out of hatr I was posting in reference to a previous postere'?

I just suggested, try another form of legal jurispruennce!

I know I did not spell it correctly as am gitting tired and going to eat.

So may I say Adious.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

The real trouble with class action lawsuits is that by their nature they provide an incentive to attorneys to profit at the expense of their clients and the greater good.

When I was in public accounting, I did a lot of work on some of the largest asbestos litigations in the country. Obviously I cannot say too much about that, but what astounded me was how these things are structured.

Back when large numbers of people who were truly and seriously affected by asbestos were still alive, and suffering in terrible ways, the standard out of court settlement was $25,000 for death and $10,000-18,000 for the onset of serious health problems that could be linked to asbestos. The settlement was usually $2,500-5,000 for those who were willing to settle while they showed minor signs.

It seems cruel to say this, but the fact is most people who were badly impacted by asbestos exposure are no longer with us- not just because of the effects of the exposure but because of the amount of time that has passed since the stuff was largely removed from use.

Yet there are still occasional cases that arise which are serious.

The tactic now is to take 4-5 serious cases, add in several hundred or even several thousand cases where people were exposed from one to several times and have NO symptoms, and then try to get a class action settlement for the entire group.

The thought process is that a company is more likely to settle for $10,000 each on 1,000 claims for $10 million rather than risk those 4-5 really serious cases going to court for years and resulting in total rewards for those 4-5 people in the $5 million+ range each.

In the process, the really sick people get very little money- not much more than they did 20 years ago, the people who had minimal exposure and are unlikely to ever become ill get a few grand each, and then the attorneys pocket 30-35% of a multi-million dollar settlement. The appeal to the sick is that they get something now and don't have to sign on for a 10 year legal battle in the hopes of a big payoff. Clearly, attorneys have to talk their really sick clients into settling for next to nothing for these suits to work, and it happens!

Even less scrupulous law firms will sell their client lists across state lines. A big part of my work was to scrutinize client lists on these class action suits and a substantial number of claims were filed in multiple states. The goal is to get double payment on a single claim and the hope is that by giving companies these massive lists they will figure it is cheaper to settle than try to audit the claims and compare them to other firms who have also filed massive lists.

All that said, in this time of globalization and corporate consolidation we are seeing companies that have the kind of power, even greater power in many cases, that the trusts that existed in the US during the Industrial Revolution.

Class action claims are about the only recourse the common man has against these massive companies.

So I would be reluctant to do away with class action lawsuits entirely.

The solution I think is more strict enforcement of ethical standards. I think Earp makes a good point noting that attorney is the most common profession of government legislators.

The government goes after accountants and doctors all the time- just look at Sarbanes-Oxley and Medicare-imposed price controls on medical procedures.

But when was the last time the government took a heavy hand in the conduct of attorneys?...

You spent a lot of words to get to really no point whatsoever.

Class actions benefit lawyers? Shocking. Class actions provide an outlet for abuse by those who are marginally within the class definition? Shocking. Individual cases bring larger verdicts than CAs? Shocking.

I fail to see how any of this would be solved by "enforcing ethical standards" - can you help me here?

Also, are you really going to compare Medicare-imposed price controls to attorneys' fees? Really? Seriously? You realize the government only intervened because it was their money on the line? C'mon, guy . . .

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Under that logic, most people who sue for sexual harassment aren't entitled to cash either. Not something I agree with.

A big difference being that the hecklers were harrassing Richards first... whereas, sexual harrassment suits are (theoretically) brought about by totally innocent parties.

Sure Richards was wrong, and owed his audience and apology, but the hecklers owe Richards an apology as well for disrupting his act. How can they sue when they were at fault as well?

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

A big difference being that the hecklers were harrassing Richards first... whereas, sexual harrassment suits are (theoretically) brought about by totally innocent parties.

Sure Richards was wrong, and owed his audience and apology, but the hecklers owe Richards an apology as well for disrupting his act. How can they sue when they were at fault as well?

You can sue for anything. The question is just if you win.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

You can sue for anything. The question is just if you win.

Good point!

[jon1856]

Has anyone taken any notice of just who their mouth peice is?
She is a media star-one has to wonder just who called who.
Was on FOX making her case-I mean their case.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You spent a lot of words to get to really no point whatsoever.

Class actions benefit lawyers? Shocking. Class actions provide an outlet for abuse by those who are marginally within the class definition? Shocking. Individual cases bring larger verdicts than CAs? Shocking.

I fail to see how any of this would be solved by "enforcing ethical standards" - can you help me here?

Also, are you really going to compare Medicare-imposed price controls to attorneys' fees? Really? Seriously? You realize the government only intervened because it was their money on the line? C'mon, guy . . .

How do you figure? I gave, in what I thought was a good summary, a very precise example of where class action suits have been harmful to litigants with a serious need for justice, corporations and the general public- but have greatly profitted unscrupulous attorneys.

I have no trouble with 30-40% contingency fees. In fact, when you consider the sheer number of lawyers out there chasing good cases it is logical from a capitalist viewpoint that this is a fair fee range. Huge sums of money have to be invested up front by the firm with no promise of an award, and often collection is a long wait if there is an award resulting from a trial that then goes through the appeals process.

And with so many firms out there, it is not possible there is some massive collusion or conspiracy to charge high fees. If it were financially reasonable for a contingency fee to be lower- then the degree of competition among law firms would have driven it down long ago.

My point with the asbestos example is that in that particular type of class action where plaintiffs have widely varying degrees of real or potential future injury, there is a great potential for abuse as my example laid out.

Government intervention is not the answer. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was public reaction to a perception that CPAs and corporations were not adequately governing their own behavior. The fact is, Sarbanes has done much good but has also created new ethical problems. As a SOX consultant I have witnessed many instances of CPAs not qualified to do SOX work accepting projects and "creating work" to remain employed. I shot down the local career of one such person last month.

For all the good things Sarbanes has done, it has yielded a whole new cottage industry of "SOX consultants" who have just about as much ethics as some asbestos litigation attorneys.

Granted my mentioning Medicare might have confused since that was not as direct an analogy as the Sarbanes example- but I think it proves the point.

The answer to this issue is for state bars to more closely manage the ethics of attorneys. The illegal activities I have noted above are well known in industries affected by asbestos, and yet these firms are still in business.

We don't need more laws. We need existing self-governance within the profession to be tightened up- as has happened in the accounting profession since Sarbanes.

Class action lawsuits and contingency fees in general are both good things. The world is a better place with both of those concepts firmly in place.

But unless attorneys step up and start policing themselves better, we will one day have the same kind of "knee jerk" reaction that we did with the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Yet it will be worse since government has yet to threaten to do something if attorneys don't get it together on their own. The right role for government is to say "get your house in order, or else".

The way things are going, it is going to take massive public outcry and an even worse economic drain on society before government will have no choice but to crack down- and then you will have price controls and other completely inappropriate measures to appease an angry public.

JMHO.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

My point with the asbestos example is that in that particular type of class action where plaintiffs have widely varying degrees of real or potential future injury, there is a great potential for abuse as my example laid out.

People CHOOSE to be involved in class-actions. I am a member of several potential classes due to my purchase of the incredible exploding Toshiba laptop computer. I can choose to be involved in the class and receive whatever settlement ends up being negotiated OR I can say "You know what? I want to do this on my own!" and hire a lawyer to go after Toshiba on my own. Many of the people in the asbestos lawsuits didn't have the time or inclination to hire somebody to do it on their own, so the class-action suit was better than the NOTHING they would have gotten otherwise. Those clients chose to take the class-action suit. Nobody made them.

There are methods of punishing lawyers who are engaging in unethical behavior, so there is no need for the government oversight of something such as Sarbanes-Oxley. If you think those lawyers weren't acting ethically, report them to the State Bar. They have all sorts of committees set up to regulate malpractice and punishments range from restitution to a client to complete disbarment.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

How do you figure? I gave, in what I thought was a good summary, a very precise example of where class action suits have been harmful to litigants with a serious need for justice, corporations and the general public- but have greatly profitted unscrupulous attorneys.

I have no trouble with 30-40% contingency fees. In fact, when you consider the sheer number of lawyers out there chasing good cases it is logical from a capitalist viewpoint that this is a fair fee range. Huge sums of money have to be invested up front by the firm with no promise of an award, and often collection is a long wait if there is an award resulting from a trial that then goes through the appeals process.

And with so many firms out there, it is not possible there is some massive collusion or conspiracy to charge high fees. If it were financially reasonable for a contingency fee to be lower- then the degree of competition among law firms would have driven it down long ago.

My point with the asbestos example is that in that particular type of class action where plaintiffs have widely varying degrees of real or potential future injury, there is a great potential for abuse as my example laid out.

Government intervention is not the answer. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was public reaction to a perception that CPAs and corporations were not adequately governing their own behavior. The fact is, Sarbanes has done much good but has also created new ethical problems. As a SOX consultant I have witnessed many instances of CPAs not qualified to do SOX work accepting projects and "creating work" to remain employed. I shot down the local career of one such person last month.

For all the good things Sarbanes has done, it has yielded a whole new cottage industry of "SOX consultants" who have just about as much ethics as some asbestos litigation attorneys.

Granted my mentioning Medicare might have confused since that was not as direct an analogy as the Sarbanes example- but I think it proves the point.

The answer to this issue is for state bars to more closely manage the ethics of attorneys. The illegal activities I have noted above are well known in industries affected by asbestos, and yet these firms are still in business.

We don't need more laws. We need existing self-governance within the profession to be tightened up- as has happened in the accounting profession since Sarbanes.

Class action lawsuits and contingency fees in general are both good things. The world is a better place with both of those concepts firmly in place.

But unless attorneys step up and start policing themselves better, we will one day have the same kind of "knee jerk" reaction that we did with the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Yet it will be worse since government has yet to threaten to do something if attorneys don't get it together on their own. The right role for government is to say "get your house in order, or else".

The way things are going, it is going to take massive public outcry and an even worse economic drain on society before government will have no choice but to crack down- and then you will have price controls and other completely inappropriate measures to appease an angry public.

JMHO.

Again, I just don't think you're addressing these issues at all - how exactly would self-regulation work, when generally the Court will determine class eligibility, and class members self-enroll (and are free to take their case as an individual as well)?

Also, you completely misunderstand the basic premise of some of these lawsuits - asbestos cases hinge on exposure, but the actual tort issues are mostly related to one or more of product defect, negligence in removal, or outright lying about the dangers. Exposure does not equal death, or even illness, in every case - for that reason, there may be NO DIFFERENCE in the eyes of the law between someone who is sick and someone who has been exposed with little or no (current) health issues. Basically, your example kind of sucks, too - I just can't really get on board with your point, because it may or may not even apply.

Sure, there's room for abusing class definitions - but the nature of competition means it behooves both sides to be strenuous in testing the definitions and each individual plaintiff. While class reps are used everywhere, the LAST thing you want is to have a set of plaintiffs exposed as frauds in trial. You'll have to trust me on this. Simply put, it's a self-correcting system - and since you're not upset with contingency, fees or the concept of class actions, I think we can see why there isn't the 'public outrage' you're calling for.