Article

2006-08-03 Home Front Economy

The Trial Lawyers 'Justice' Myth - John Stossel

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-03 12:05|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well written and spot on. The true cost of the litigious atmosphere that exists not to pursue justice (as the lawyers would have us believe) but to guarantee income security for attorneys is huge to society at large.

The party which promotes more government and more regulation (hence more laws) is the natural choice for trial lawyers (with notable exceptions) because more laws mean more work and more income security. Hence the support of these folks for the Dems.

Posted by no mo uro 2006-08-03 15:01|| 2006-08-03 15:01|| Front Page Top

#2 Agreed.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-03 15:03|| 2006-08-03 15:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Lawyers kill jobs.
Lawyers steal food and decent housing from people.
Lawyers punish the innocent.

Lawyers, rope, trees. Some assembly required.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-03 16:24|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-08-03 16:24|| Front Page Top

#4 So what do you do if some doctor, say, removes the wrong organ or otherwise messes you up ?

In your perfect lawyer-free world that is.

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-08-03 16:28|| 2006-08-03 16:28|| Front Page Top

#5 So, the Trial Lawyers of America is now the Justice League, am I right?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-08-03 16:30|| 2006-08-03 16:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of lawyers but what other avenue is open to victims of malpractice ?

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-08-03 16:35|| 2006-08-03 16:35|| Front Page Top

#7 J D Lux, the concept that you can solve a Doctor's mistake with money is a relatively new one. It wasn't money that the Doctor took out, it was the wrong organ, for example. If malpractice is proven in such a case, the big question is "how do you make it right?" Apart from sanctioning or fining the Doctor, or perhaps pulling his Medical License, the answer in many cases is, you can't. So the multi-million dollar cash awards come out, not to help the victim necessarily, but to 'express our sorrow and empathy'. Tort reform and malpractice damage limitations are a good start.

Another thing not usually discussed is that medicine is not an exact science. Sometimes, bad things just happen. The human body is unpredictable. I'd venture that the vast majority of malpractice judgments, if the truth were known, were not malpractice at all, but just another illustration that we are not God, and we can't always fix it. In our 'It's somebody else's fault' society, people just don't want to hear that.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-03 17:06|| 2006-08-03 17:06|| Front Page Top

#8 On the other hand in cases where it was clearly the Doctor's fault (he didn't wash properly or was in a hurry for a golf game and got sloppy) the person may sometimes be stuck with medical expenses for the rest of his/her life - or need to hire an aid to empty his bag, wipe his ass, and feed him. Or they may need a transplant.

I think in those case the Dr. should be held responsible for at least some of the cost.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-08-03 17:17|| 2006-08-03 17:17|| Front Page Top

#9 While ity is true that there is oftden no actiual fix for medical mistakes, doctors as business men and service providers have to be responsible and subject to the same penalties for poor performance as car mechanics or sellers of defective items. Society has decided that the penalties are assesed thru monetary damages.
It is not hard to turn Stossel's argument over and say that makking a limit that is well within the means and insurance policies of most practioners could be seen as a reversal of the restrictions he describes as stifling and turn it into a real cavalier attitude which I think they actually have already.
The laws we have now are sensible. It is I think a side effect of the newness of this concept that maybe broings out the worst in people and probably requires a societal mind-state change.

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-08-03 17:41|| 2006-08-03 17:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Who told you when you were born that you were going to be indemnified from the occurances of life? I have had major medical procedures done. Before each and every one the Doctor defined in realistic terms the risks. How after doing so can I expect that a decision I made should penalise the Doctor?

The who idea of being Indemnified is one foisted off on us by Lawyer.

Sorry I would rather have a living wage job than see Lawyers get the lions share of these settlements.

Piss up a rope if you think a lawyers are a good thing. I would rather have my full liberty and a living wage job than one lawyer in the same country I live in.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-03 18:57|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-08-03 18:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Maybe so. Don't get me wrong...as I said, if a Doctor screws up, he or she should be held accountable, and heavily, considering we put our lives in their hands. To whom much is given, much shall be required. But limiting the MONETARY damages would be an important first step. Better screening, training and certification of Doctors, and policing from an outside peer agency would also help. When we throw millions at malpractice victims, we need to remind ourselves that the money comes from somewhere. Ultimately, that somewhere is US.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-03 18:58|| 2006-08-03 18:58|| Front Page Top

#12 "The laws we have now are sensible."

The laws we have now are anything but sensible.

The current situation is set up to GUARANTEE massive income to the legal profession by perpetuating an environment where it is easy to sue. The more lititgious the society, the greater the profits for attorneys. It's simply too easy to sue and get OBSCENE settlements from carefully stacked juries that cannot by any reasonable historical yardstick be considered proportional. Furthermore, the amount the attorney gets is often half of the judgement, without regard to any prevailing rate of pay.

What is needed is to limit the amount that an attorney can earn from any one case. This is not an unfair restriction of trade, because attorneys working within the court system are actually quasi-government employees. They are not true private sector agents, in the strictest sense of the term.

Set the limit an attorney can earn at $50,000 plus costs per case - a reasonable amount by any moral or decent measure - and you'll see the number of law suits drop dramatically, and a lot of society's problems be worked out privately by individuals.

Right now the law profession siphons off billions annually which could be used for research, infrastructure growth and improvement, and job creation. Attorneys don't deserve that much wealth and it is better spent by the private sector, in terms of overall benefit to society.

"It is I think a side effect of the newness of this concept that maybe brings out the worst in people and probably requires a societal mind-state change."

A side effect?

You're an attorney or law student, or married to one, aren't you?

Please give us a cogent, concise, logical, and workable mechanism which can quickly effect this "mind change" (I'm guessing that you can't, because you just threw that bit out, lawyer-fashion, to cover your butt without actually believing it's true or that it's something that can or should be done).

If you can't then your statement is a load of crap.

The Brits (I believe) have a system whereby the plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendant if the plaintiff loses. This should also be incorporated into our system. Let's free up some of the money that ends up in trial lawyer's (and the Democratic Party's) pockets and set it free to benefit society in the market at large.

Posted by no mo uro 2006-08-03 19:00|| 2006-08-03 19:00|| Front Page Top

#13 The problem is too many attorneys. 1,000,000 lawyers producing lawsuits to fill their time at a median salary of $90,000/year (2002, average higher). That's more lawyers than police or doctors. Compare attorney impact on your life vs those professions. Compare the contribution of 1,000,000 lawyers vs 1,500,000 engineers (all specialties).
Engineering Employment

Posted by ed 2006-08-03 19:22|| 2006-08-03 19:22|| Front Page Top

#14 "While ity is true that there is oftden no actiual fix for medical mistakes, doctors as business men and service providers have to be responsible and subject to the same penalties for poor performance as car mechanics or sellers of defective items."

Let's hold lawyers to those same penalties for poor performance, too.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-08-03 19:26|| 2006-08-03 19:26|| Front Page Top

#15 I personally think that the problem lies with the whole concept of "punitive" damages. I think that most people are OK with the idea that if a doctor or mechanic negligently screws up, you have the right to recover your past, present and future expenses associated with the screw up. What is driving costs up is the ever increasing punitive damages. Tort law was not designed to punish people. That is the role of criminal and administrative law. Tort law should only settle differences and compensate loss due to negligence.

Here's my solution. Eliminate punitive damages and instead of a percentage of the schwag, limit lawyers fees to a negotiated hourly rate. The demand for lawsuits will drop, opportunists will move out of the field (perhaps to something more socially useful like spam), and justice will still be served.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-08-03 20:13|| 2006-08-03 20:13|| Front Page Top

#16 steenking engineers! Prima donnas! Think they're so cool with their pocket protectors and calculators!

that's why I'm incognito in my jeans, hawaiian shirts (that piss 6 off so much) and boots :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-03 20:15|| 2006-08-03 20:15|| Front Page Top

#17 Admit it, Frank -- you once brandished a foot-long slide rule in a leather scabbard.

Posted by Darrell 2006-08-03 20:18|| 2006-08-03 20:18|| Front Page Top

#18 heh heh - I still have it...with notches

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-03 20:19|| 2006-08-03 20:19|| Front Page Top

#19 Scabbard slide rule. How quaint and old fashioned. Switch slide rules RULE!!!

Posted by ed 2006-08-03 22:15|| 2006-08-03 22:15|| Front Page Top

#20 it's actually a butterfly model. Self-defense math rules!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-03 22:25|| 2006-08-03 22:25|| Front Page Top

#21 I still have my belt-mounted slide rule from high school. The Moon Program was done with slide-rules. I suggest any prospective engineer learn how to use the 'ole slipstick.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2006-08-03 22:28|| 2006-08-03 22:28|| Front Page Top

#22 errr.. they have a place...in a museum. I wouldn't accept their level of accuracy in engineering work today

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-03 22:33|| 2006-08-03 22:33|| Front Page Top

#23 Slide rules? SLIDE RULES?

You pussies!

Abacus or nonthing!

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-08-03 23:04|| 2006-08-03 23:04|| Front Page Top

00:00 ed
23:58 ed
23:56 bombay
23:56 Captain America
23:45 11A5S
23:43 bombay
23:36 ed
23:36 RD
23:36 trailing wife
23:34 RD
23:31 ed
23:30 Captain America
23:30 11A5S
23:30 ed
23:18 bombay
23:17 ed
23:17 bombay
23:16 Clerert Uneamp2772
23:15 bombay
23:15 Clerert Uneamp2772
23:14 twobyfour
23:12 ed
23:11 bombay
23:09 bombay