You remember all those cases of SUVs rolling over because of faulty Firestone tires? Well, lawyers are settling up one of the inevitable lawsuits. Here are the results:
The world is getting so screwed up that you can’t make this shit up anymore.
I put this thread in Great Debates in case anyone wants to defend the settlement. If not, the moderators may move it to the Pit if they wish.
You might be interested in a thread I started a few months ago: Why Not Limit Attorney Fees . I suggested some possible tort reforms to limit this very thing and got soundly abused by our resident attorneys.
The quick and dirty of it is:
[ul]
[li]Attorneys working on a contingency basis (which is what this case would be) assume all the financial risk to themselves. If they lose their case they are out their investment of time and costs. In a case like this their investment might well be a few million dollars. As a result they are entitled to the big payday. Big risks should net big payoffs.[/li]
[li]Regardless of what the plaintiffs in the case get out of it the attorneys are providing a ‘public service’. It is not at all unheard of for companies to ignore problems because it would cost them more to fix the problem than leave it be and settle the occasional case. This is true even when people are dying and the company might lose a $100,000 here or a $1,000,000 there. If it costs $15 million to redesign and retool a manufacturing line it is cheaper to settle a few dozen cases. By suing the company for Big Bucks on behalf of multiple plaintiffs a company needs to think twice before making this sort of cold economic calculation in the future. The potential of facing a $60 million legal case forces them to be ‘good corporate citizens’ if their conscience won’t do it on its own.[/li][/ul]
In the other thread I argued that I believe there is a downside to society in all this as well but despite my best efforts I don’t think I convinced anyone. If you’re willing to pick up the gauntlet after wading through the linked thread I’m all for it but I think you’ll find it a tougher arguement than you expect.
You can argue all you want, but society is NOT served by enriching lawyers at the public expense. All the lawyers NEVER point out that:
-the cost of use of the courthouse, juries, judges time etc. ARE PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS
-what POSSIBLE benefit is the public receiving by the offer of a free tire rotation?
-once launched, a “class action” lawsuit is totally controlled by the law firm-they are NOT interested in science, truth, or the facts…just the big payoff
Finally, these big awards are paid for in two ways"
-(1) the firm being sued (FIRESTONE) increase prices or cuts quality. In this way, the public pays
-(2) the firm records a loss from operations. This means that the US govet. (the taxpayers) pay extra taxes to make up the lost taxes.
So, you can argue that these actions do some good (forcing stricter QC standards for tires). I just don’t see the social good of making the pricipals of some law firm into millionaires.
For what it’s worth, I’m an attorney and I too am troubled by some class action settlements that seem more directed towards enriching class counsel than benefitting the plaintiffs.
However, this is a separate issue from the typical contingency fee p/i or med-mal case. The trouble with class actions is that once the class is certified, there is an incentive for the defendant to collude with class counsel. The plaintiffs aren’t really in a good position to stand up for their rights.
Logically, there’s no need to address the above problem with a general reform of attorneys fees. And keep in mind that the vast majority of attorneys do not do class action plaintiffs work.
It’s not clear from the article who the clients are, or how many of them are represented. It appears to me that these are not victims of SUV rollovers, but people who bought the 10 million tires that were recalled. If we assume that each client bought 4 tires, that’s 2.5 million clients represented in the class action suit. If the lawyers kept $19 million, that equals $7.60 per client; not exactly a “rip-off”, if none of these clients were involved in accidents, and their only damages were time and trouble to comply with the recall. Plus, for the $7.60 each earned for the lawyers, they got tire rotations and product discounts.
Where is the rip-off? The tire company?
If there are no negative consequences for irresponsible actions, corporations are free to market unsafe products with impunity. Yes, this company will pass the cost of the judgment on to their consumers, but that will put them at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the industry, who do not have to raise prices. Consumers will buy the best value, and the profits of the guilty corporation will decline. This is the well-deserved consequence of endangering the public, and corporations who understand this will comply by marketing safer products. Those that don’t go out of business; good riddance.
The lawyers earned every nickel and performed a public service.
(oh yeah, IANAL).
Well said Attorney Lucewarm. You are a good man.
Now tell us why attorneys can’t compete in the open market and advertise good service and low rates without colluding high rates and then hiding behind a protective trade union - the American Bar Association.
Is it a love of democracy that drives attorneys to donate more money than any other self-interest group to the coffers of the politicians of both political parties?
Are trial fixers and high profile lawyers who charge six hundred dollars an hour selling american justice to the highest bidder at the cost of injustice and the financial ruin of the poor?
Heard any good lawyer jokes lately?
Umm, thanks I guess
**
I’m not aware of any attorney collusion, although I’m sure it must happen - like in any other industry. Certainly if the ABA were to set minimum rates and fees, I would object. However, I’m not aware of any such activity. Would you care to specify any particular anticompetitive activities?
**
Would you care to give a cite for this? Honestly, I’m skeptical.
**
It’s ironic that you should complain about this, because many of the proposed solutions to the mythical frivolous lawsuit problem would exacerbate the problem you describe here. For example, ‘loser pays’ would give the folks who can afford $500/hr lawyers a crushing advantage in litigation.
Lawyers don’t collude to fix prices. Do you have a citation, or are you a liar?
[qoute]Are trial fixers and high profile lawyers who charge six hundred dollars an hour selling american justice to the highest bidder at the cost of injustice and the financial ruin of the poor?
[/quote]
No.
Next question?
Oh, and I have a question for you: are GD participants who post inaccurate information as fact, and questions which assume facts not in evidence, inherently dishonest or merely hopelessly inept at debate?
Wow! Calm down,** Bricker**, did I somehow touch a sore spot? What sensitive button did I push that brought you to such a namecalling state. Do you realize that you gave me the option of “citing” or else you would declare me a “liar”? (Smile.)
And futhermore your rapid fire questioning and “Next Question” delivery left me almost too imtimidated to respond. Almost.
So now I will laboriously search the net to locate the “cites” that saves you real think and report back. Poor Bricker, what will you do then? Call the cites “liars”?
______________________________ 
Would you care to give a cite for this? Honestly, I’m skeptical.
See cite #1 below…(Notice #1 ranking)
Depends on where the cites are from. www.letskillallthelawyers.com is not likely to impress me.
Hey! That’s not a real webpage. And I was so hoping…
Still waiting for Milum’s cite on collusion/price fixing. I guess the work must have been REALLY laborious.
I’m still digging ** Bricker**, if I could charge $7,891.42 per hour like some lawyers I’d dig a lot slower.
Gee whiz, these shysters sure know how to hide their dirt. Well anyway, back to the ditch.
While I’m digging amuse yourself with the below…
**BILLIONS FOR LAWYERS!**
A small group of people is about to be paid over two billion dollars.
"What great deed could warrant such a payment? Did they invent a new product? Save a continent? Find a solution to world hunger?...
Nope. While the average American toils away for $12.50 an hour, five law firms in Texas are about to be paid over $2,300,000,000 for their role in forcing tobacco companies to pay the state of Texas $15,300,000,000.
**Who approved this settlement? Why, another lawyer of course. U.S. District Court judge David Folsom called the payment "a reasonable fee" in his ruling on the tobacco settlement. Showing himself to be a true autocrat, ******Judge Folsom barred challenges to the settlement from proceeding in any court other than his.********
Who was in charge of the deal which allows over two billion dollars of state funds to be used to pay attorneys? Surprise -- another attorney. Texas Attorney General Dan Morales called the settlement "a proud and historic moment for Texas." Proud indeed for a few of his fellow attorneys, who can now buy themselves big chunks of the Lone Star state. Historic, also: never has so much been paid to so few for so little work.
**Texas Governor George W. Bush called the attorneys' fees "clearly excessive and outrageous."**
If you ever doubted who controls America, think about this. Laws are made by legislators, many or most of whom are attorneys. At the federal level, laws are enforced by the President, who happens to be an attorney. (As is his wife, as well as the Vice-President.) Judges interpret the laws, and of course all judges are lawyers. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is one of the biggest donors to political campaigns in America. As lawyers win ever-bigger billion dollar fees, they may no longer bother to control America; they'll just buy the country outright.
In the past honest work was rewarded in America. But now the big money is really not in making products or providing services. Honest labor is now just for chumps. If you're smart, you'll get on the parasite train -- just find somebody to sue. Long hours, innovation, sweat equity, pride of product -- this is all just the stuff of fools. Join the modern royalty of success -- Easy Street is just one big judgment away.
America is a paradise of lawyers.
________________________~ Justice David J. Brewer
Very nice quote, clearly not remotely biased.
In a free-market system, people charge what the market will bear. Madonna earned millions upon millions over the years for arguably nothing more than a pointy bra and a passable singing voice. Michael Jordan earns millions upon millions not for “…invent [ing] a new product, sav[ing] a continent, or find[ing] a solution to world hunger…” but for putting an orange ball through a hoop with a fair degree of success.
There are many benefits to society in permitting, for example, product liability lawsuits. They are not the work of parasites. If you’re one of those starry-eyed dreamers that believe sports stars should earn the same wage as high-school teachers, locked in by law, then I can understand your discomfort with this situation. But don’t characterize this as anything more than a futile wish that your talent - whatever it might be - is as handsomely rewarded by the marketplace as Madonna’s, Jordan’s… or the lawyers you despise from afar.
Damnit Bricker will you please stop interupting and let me get on with my research. I don’t despise lawyers and judges, I play tennis with several of them three days a week. Some of them have high morals, even my good friend ,_____, who went to jail for a couple of years.
As for Michael Jordan and pointy-tit Madonna, who cares how much scratch they do or don’t earn. They sell shoes and records to earn their keep.
Meanwhile too many greedy lawyers sell everyman’s right to fair and blind justice to the highest bidder.
Now leave me alone and let me work.
Does anyone know how many class-action lawsuits there are? And what the increase is? lucwarm???
I don’t recall reading much about them before the mid-eighties - but perhaps that only means they weren’t a news topic.
Personally, over the last 12 months I’ve been informed of three class actions suits in which I’m of the class. In one case, I could collect as much as $124 dollars! Doing the math for my award, the number of other big winners, and the typical percentages for lawyers… well, that adds up to one huge payoff for the law firm and less than $200 for anyone compensated for whatever harm there was done. What are the odds of one person being included in three class actions suits in such a short time?
Interesting, I’ll give it some thought.
Anyway, I think it would help the discussion if you would break down your points, one by one. (I gather you’re giving up on the argument that the ABA promotes anticompetive behaviour?)
I have no clue. I do support the concept of a class-action lawsuit. But it seems that we need closer scrutiny of class action settlements.
lucwarm I’m not sure how one would count. I guess if one went through Lexis for every dang court, and piled up bunch o’ numbers and proceeded to fiddle you might get something like a trend graph. And you’d have to look at filings, and then breakdown the outcome of all the suits filed, and sort out when they mix and mingle and merge. I don’t have that kind of time. It seems likely that there is a good study somewhere, but I ain’t able to find it that critter.
On almost every political issue, my response is “of course it should be legal, but I wish people had the good taste to stop doing it.” Not exactly a pragmatic line of thought…