If you are plaintiff attorney, I am sorry but most people in your profession are sorry. Some are good but most I have met are really truly sorry human beings. How does the joke go “it is the 90% of plaintiff attorneys that make the good 10% look bad.” I mean why is there so many jokes and bad feeling towards lawyers if there wasn’t a general dislike for the way your proffession(if a plaintiff attorney) is going.
I didn’t say I dislike all lawyers now did I? Business, criminal, tax and real estate lawyers are a worthwhile entity but not plaintiff ones for the most part.
Jodi,
BTW I have friends that are lawyers don’t take what I say so personally unless it applies to you and the way you run your firm.
Gee, it’s a good thing I’m not, huh? Way to make unwarranted assumptions simply because I recognize a need for skilled practitioners of the law to represent people in our courts.
You ever hear the saying, “Don’t assume, because it makes an ass out of u and me?” This, here, is a prime example. I’m not an attorney of any kind.
You didn’t answer me concerning why you went into business. It couldn’t be . . . to make money??
Hey Bill,
You have my sympathies, but I must ask if you followed the the current “politically correct” method of discharge. Did you have documentation that you spoke with the individual, that they were given a verbal and a written warning, or given a few days off without pay before you lowered the boom? In todays litigous environment there are many pitfalls that await the unwary. Most large corporations (that many of the laws were written against) have large staffs that go to the seminars and conventions, etc. to keep abreast of the current guidelines. Most of the small business owners have neither the time or in many cases the finances to afford that luxury(?). Yes there are scum-sucking attorneys who play on the ignorance of the general public just as there are scum-sucking individuals in most every profession.
My recommendation would be to keep on retainer an attorney who you trust (is this an impossibility? )and could call upon for occasional advice. Trust me, it would be the best INVESTMENT you could make if you decide to remain in business.
Sorry I did not mean to “assume” you were a lawyer. Second of course I went in to business to make money. But I don’t cheat, lie and other vial that I have seen plaintiff attorneys do to win no matter what the cost.
Tracer,
I don’t know what to say on that one. What do you think of them? Do you think they sleep good at night?
I hate to say this, but Wildest Bill’s assessment of jury quality is pretty much dead-on.
If your case is heard in front of a judge, with no jury, you’re dealing with a guy who’s probably “heard 'em all” and knows how to dig down beneath a sob-story to get at what really happened. If your case is heard by a jury, on the other hand, you can usually get 'em to cough up huge awards for the plaintiff by whining “poor little me” and “look at what an innocent victim I am” loudly enough, even if there’s little or no real legal basis for your claim. For example, you can successfully sue an employer for exposing you to teensy tinsy amounts of asbestos, well below the upper limits set by OSHA, if you argue your case in front of a jury – but you’ll be hard-pressed to win if you just use a judge and no jury.
Sure, we’ve all heard of seemingly outrageous awards, but “usually?” Where are you getting this information? Are you an attorney or judge handling a lot of these cases, do you have some statistics? Or are you just going on a general feeling you get from news reports?
Thanks. I do have a couple of attorney I deal with on a regular basis that are pretty good people. One charges a little too much but the other one is just a jewel of a guy if this is not an oximoron “this guy is honest lawyer”
Also, phil I have learned a ton about the legal process. I usually tell my lawyers what to file or what to do. Because I have been through the ringer so many times I think I am smarter than a lot of them. I even thought about going to law school but I just couldn’t sleep at night if I became one.
Pldennison,
One more thing I use to have faith in the jury system. But I do not think it is working like it was designed to. Smart people(I am sorry but this is true) usually do not sit on juries. And alot of the time the people that sit on juries are not smart enough to digest complicated information in civil suits. I really thing they should give an intelligence test for prospective jury members before they can be allowed to serve on a jury in complex civil suits.
Hardly. I think you need to check out this thread for an adequate explanation.
Unitarian Universalist. It’s all about affirming the inherent dignity of every human being, but there are days, like when reading this thread, where I have problems doing so. I consider it a challenge, though.
I think the reason juries are so stupid is because the jury selection process is screwed up. Lawyers don’t want intelligent, well-informed people on their jury. They want people that they can mold.
If someone brings a lawsuit arguing that there is an engineering defect in something, then if a juror appears who is an actual engineer he’s guaranteed to be dismissed. Likewise scientists, analysts, or anyone else who might be capable of understanding the issue without having to have it filtered through the biases of the attorneys and their expert witnesses.
The biggest problem with the Tort system is that many of the issues have become far too technical, and the justice system hasn’t kept up. If you are an engineer who is charged with negligence because you didn’t factor a load properly, your ‘peers’ should be other engineers who can understand your situation and that of your customer, not Aunt Edna who didn’t quite understand Algebra and left school in grade 11. Yet the jury selection process practically guarantees that the jury will be made up of nothing but Aunt Edna and people like her.
Um, in the “loser pays” scenario, the lady in the McDonal’s coffee suit, had McD’s corporate attorneys managed to out lawyer her lawyer, not only would not have had her medical bills covered (and skin grafts ain’t cheap), but she would have had to pay McD’s lawyers to defend them against liability for serving a liquid at the approximate temperature of molten lava as a beverage.
I’m not kidding. If someone is injured so severely that they require hospitalization and skin grafts because they spilled a beverage on themselves, they definetly shouldn’t have to pay attorney fees to the asshole who turned up the heat on the coffee urn.
We’re not skin that was a little pink and sore. We’re talking second and third degree burns. I think it’s reasonable to expect that if a person spills coffee on themselves, they won’t have their genitals melted, as happened to this lady.
BTW, since I heard about this suit, when I get coffee at a fast food place, I ask them to put ice in the cup.
I wouldn’t if I were you. Just be an clumsy like that lady was spill it on your lap find a plaintiff attorney to take the case and then sue like hell. She got a million or so for that one. You can be millionaire just for being clumsy. What a country.
Yes yes and yes. And your point? But worth over a million no way.(unless the verdict was not for that much and if so I am sure I will get told that.
Lets look at this scenerio.
I rode a YZ80 when I was young and I fell down with the bike on top of me. The pipe was burning my leg. I have a scar to this day from the third degree burn I got. Did I sue Yamaha because they should have “warned” me that hot pipe that would burn flesh. Come on accidents happen. Mcdonalds should have just paid her medical at the most and that’s it. That is the problem with society everybody wants something for accidents in just living instead being fair.
)and could call upon for occasional advice. Trust me, it would be the best INVESTMENT you could make if you decide to remain in business.
