Which, of course, came after your deliberately provocative post #37, and various other attacks on lawyers by the OP.
My question came because of all the reasons given to take a case, I didn’t see “morality” mentioned. Detail was given as to viability, whether it made sense monetarily to go forward, whether you had a reasonable chance to win, but not much about whether it is right to go forward. If you have a pretty good idea that you can win because the available facts are in your favor, but you suspect(due to previous history or other reasons) that all isn’t what it seems to be on the surface, do you go forward, or do you step aside?
You can decide to respond in kind, or you can decide to take the high ground and ask for an apology, but you can’t do both.
“Morality” doesn’t have anything to do with anything here. In your posts you jumped to the conclusion that the woman was committing fraud but you don’t know any of the facts. You didn’t know what she asked the insurance company for or why it was declined. None of us know all the facts (except Tracijo67, and she had the class and grace to admit she flew off the handle a little bit, but she was in the middle of it all and that was understandable). But you don’t even know if the woman had a lawyer. You don’t need a lawyer to file a lawsuit. You just assumed she did and that lawyer = money-grubbing, unethical slimeball. How would you respond if someone questioned your professional ethics? It was uncalled for and you need to step down.
I work in security, so don’t talk to me about how lawyers are misrepresented. I didn’t call anybody in this thread any names-I just asked if the viability and/or the profitability of a case are the only factors in deciding whether or not to take it.
I think you might want to use different terms. If the case is viable, it’s not frivolous.
That’s why I left “frivolous” out of the scenario.
A good friend of mine is a lawyer. He has represented me a couple times, and his performance was impressive (we won!). I make “lawyer jokes” to his face and he tops mine with ones he has heard.
His ethics are beyond reproach, but discussing the ethics of a situation is interesting. Is it possible to view “snark” as maybe just the questioner’s lack of understanding where you are coming from and explaining instead of being offended?
Coming late to the party, and things seem to be calming down, but there are a few comments I’d like to make.
Upthread, Oakminster said:
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Because if you don’t have insurance, it’s probably not worth it for me to pursue a claim from a business point of view, unless you have significant unencumbered non-exempt assets.
…
In my jurisdiction, settlement value is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-5 times medical bills, plus lost wages. That’s not unreasonable, when you figure in the cost of recovery. Say she had $1000 in medical bills. Case settles for $3000. Attorney gets a third, another third goes to pay the meds, she puts $1000 in her pocket. Maybe less, if the lawyer has expenses like filing fees, service of process fees, depositions, etc.
[/QUOTE]
To which the OP responded:
Three thoughts occurred to me:
First, a gross profit of $1,000 for Oakminster is not much of a “payout jackpot”. When you take into account his office overhead, that’s a pretty modest amount, not a jackpot.
Second, why is “the pursuit of the almighty dollar” a bad thing? The legal system in the United States is organized primarily around private lawyers in private practice acting for individuals. Like any other private business, they have to make a profit or else they go out of business. If they go out of business, they can’t represent individuals. Why is it a bad thing that lawyers, like other private businesses, are careful only to undertake jobs that are likely to lead to a profit, rather than a loss? As an aside to the OP: do you work for free? If not, aren’t you too in pursuit of the almighty dollar?
Third, a question for the OP: have you considered that what Oakminster is saying is that the legal market is set up to weed out frivolous lawsuits? If he doesn’t think that there is a reasonable chance of making a profit on the case, he won’t take it. The availability of insurance is part of that analysis, but Oakie has also indicated that the facts of the case are significant in his assessment whether to take it: did the proposed defendant admit to a traffic violation? does the proposed plaintiff have some medical claim? if not, he won’t take the case, because he’s not likely to recover. So right at the beginning, the economic factors are weeding out cases that don’t have much chance of success - in other words, the frivolous suits. What’s wrong with that? We want the market to help people make rational choices in other areas; that’s exactly what is happening here.
I read Czarcasm’s post 37 as assuming that he knew the answer; that a lawyer would assist in committing fraud. Given his assumptions, I see no point in responding to him.
You assume wrong.
One last point. From my experience, there are always at least two sides to every story, and often three: the plaintiff’s story, and the defendant’s story, and a third story, which is often somewhere in between.
Usually, the plaintiff’s story and the defendant’s story are very far apart; if you listen to only one party recount the event, you think it’s obvious that party should win. But if you listen to both stories, and then start to dig into the evidence that each advances, you start thinking that each story may have some weaknesses; that it’s not black and white, but somewhere in-between.
That’s why it’s not advisable to say that a case is frivolous if you’ve only heard from one of the two parties; you have to hear both stories, and the evidence that they both advance. Once you’ve done that, you may well conclude that one party is clearly correct; but on different facts, you might conclude that it’s something in-between.
And this is not meant in any way as a criticism of the OP’s recounting of the events. It’s just that she only has one side of the story, her own. She initially didn’t have any information on the other party’s story. I just don’t think it’s possible to make an assessment whether the case is frivolous by listening to only one party.
I really can’t talk about the pedestrian incident, at least not right now.
I alluded to another incident in which I was sued (if that is the right terminology) for losing grip on my carry-on bag in an airport. In that case, I watched it bump down the escalator and smack into a woman’s hand, and I could tell in that awful, frozen moment that I had injured her. It was not a serious injury, and turns out her finger was not even broken, but when I think back to the expression on her face before she started to berate me, I still get a little choked up. My personal liability insurance covered me, and I know that she claimed lost wages in addition to her medical expenses and pain and suffering. She ultimately ended up getting nothing but her medical bill paid. There were no conversations about settling. My agent (different company) was in fact pretty upfront that he didn’t believe her claim and would not settle it. I actually wanted to, not because I thought she deserved the $20,000 (!!) she initially asked for, but because I really had hurt her and I was afraid of a trial. My agent said I didn’t get to make that call. And reassured me it wouldn’t go to trial. He was right.
Flash forward nearly 20 years later. What really bothered me about this claim was that I never felt I hurt her, was skeptical if I even hit her, and felt thwt she shouldn’t have been walking in the street. My agent was EQUALLY skeptical, but said that he would probably throw a few thousand dollars at her to “make it go away.” That isn’t what ended up happening, but the fact that he was so cavalier about it, without at that time even having reviewed her medical records, really set me off.
So it isn’t so much the getting a day in court, and how the legal system handles cases of this nature. It was what comes before that is even on the table. The process of negotiating a claim in absence of that day in court, and the implications of “throwing a few thousand dollars” at someone to “make it go away.”
That said, I am generally a fairly pleasant and reasonable person, or so I’d like to believe. Oakminster and other lawyers who expressed their opinions did not deserve my misplaced anger and disgust.
If it’s cheaper to give her 2,000 instead of spending 2,000 to defend the claim, which they may or may not win, what is the insurance company going to do? Pay her.
I get that. I was thinking of the many thousands of cases that are settled in this same manner.
There’s always someone looking for what appears to be an easy dollar. ABC Insurance could fight every single claim in court (which would be ludicrous) and they still would have thousands of claims coming down the pike.
Sure, but again, the insurance companies are a business. Their goal is to maximise profits for their shareholders. If they fight every case, their costs go up, your premiums go up, and profits go down.
She may have wet her pants because she forgot to buy her boyfriend tickets to the tractor-pull. Duddint matter. It’s still the driver’s fault, right? Did you happen to go to the same law school as U. C. Ambulance-Chaser, Esq. ???
Unfrozen Caveman Ambulance Chaser:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m just a caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your “scientists”. Your world frightens and confuses me. Why, when I took a private jet to Hawaii last year to watch the eclipse I thought: ‘OH NO! Is the moon eating the sun??? I don’t KNOW!’ …Because I’m a just a caveman. That’s the way I think!
But one thing I do know… my client didn’t have to be struck by, or even touched by the defendant’s “automobile” for her to suffer grave injury. In fact, my client needn’t have even been in the same county as the defendant in order for her life to have been grievously and irrevocably harmed. Grievously. And irrevocably!
**Judge: **
Mr. Ambulance…
Unfrozen Caveman Ambulance Chaser:
Actually, it’s Mr. Ambulance-Chaser, your honor. Mom wanted to keep her name… dad wanted her to take his… so they settled out of court.
**Judge: **
Excuse me. Mr. Ambulance-Chaser. Do you honestly expect this jury to find the defendant guilty of attempted vehicular manslaughter when, on the day of the alleged incident, she wasn’t within 100 miles of your client?
Unfrozen Caveman Ambulance Chaser:
*(Disingenuous laugh) * Hahahaha… your honor, back in my time we couldn’t afford to argue about whether a sabre-toothed tiger was many miles away or right on top of us. We just knew that a threat, is a threat… whether it actually harms you or not. Maybe we were just cavemen… but with us, people came first.
(Thunderous applause from the jury box)
Jury Foreman:
Your honor we find the defendant guilty of attempted vehicular manslaughter! We also find her guilty of aggravated assault, harassment, forgery, arson, racketeering, and five other charges to be named later!
*(Judge loudly bangs his gavel as he smiles ear-to-ear) *
Judge:
Well, I guess that about wraps it up! Thank you jurors for your time. And thank you, Unfrozen Caveman Ambulance Chaser… looks like you win again!
**NOTE: **Yes, yes. I know. In real life, at a criminal trial it would be a prosecuting attorney, not the victim’s personal lawyer/ambulance chaser, who would be prosecuting the case. However, surprisingly, the above account is not actually from real-life.
Mr. A: Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?
Ms. B: Sure!
Mr. A: OK. How about for $1?
Ms. B: Heavens! What sort of person do you think I am?
Mr. A: We’ve already established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.
But I think that’s kind of the point. The OP seems to be complaining about the overall legal milieu in the USA as far as lawsuits are concerned. IOW, is it conceivable that a lawyer could be acting perfectly ethically while representing a client whose case would be laughed out of court (or laughed out of a settlement bargaining session) in other legal systems / other places /other times?
I remember living in Europe. I bought a step-ladder for my apartment and was amazed to see that it had no warning labels on it. No “WARNING: injury could occur if ladder used improperly” labels. Nothing like:“DO NOT PLACE LADDER AGAINST ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES! ELECTROCUTION COULD RESULT!”
As an American, I had become so accustomed to seeing the vast array of warning stickers and placards everywhere that it jolted my attention when suddenly I was in an environment where there were almost none.
Another “for example”: The large gap between the train platforms and the small steps attached to the trains where I lived in Europe. If you didn’t pay attention, you could stick your leg right down into the gap and probably get a compound fracture. No warning signs (not even “Mind the Gap”. This wasn’t the UK). Where were all the victims of such a risky endeavor? All laid up in the hospital? Actually no! After asking around I finally figured out how people avoided serious injury while boarding a train. It seems they paid attention while boarding. I fit right in. I was already doing the same thing!
Which legal system is “better”? Which is more just? I wouldn’t assume to know, but I know which one makes more sense to me personally (but IANAL).
Yeah, I’m meandering around in my discussion. Sorry. I hope you see my point. The problem isn’t really with unethical lawyers, the problem is a system where frivolous lawsuits (subjectively speaking) are sometimes filed by lawyers who are acting totally ethically by our (USA) current standards.
The lawyers aren’t to blame. They are merely advocating for clients who have complaints that are considered legitimate in our current system. Might we not be better off if we changed our perspective of the appropriateness of some lawsuits? Maybe yes, maybe no. But I think the question is valid.
Another question is: at what point do legal ethics depart from current laws? A hypothetical: let’s say you are an attorney practicing in a U.S. state. You have all of the knowledge, customs, and personal beliefs that you currently possess, But in this hypothetical situation it is illegal in the USA for any black person to touch any white person.
Are you within legal ethical bounds if you take the case of a white man suing for damages in civil court because he was touched by a black man (emotional distress, etc.)? Never mind that your personal repulsion to such a situation might keep you from taking on such a case… is it ethical (only considering legal ethics)?
ETA: of course in Europe they have HUGE warning labels on cigarettes and warning labels on some groceries that we’d never have here. Hmmm.