(OT) Lawyers -- Why Do People Hate Them?
Lowell
John Gaquin
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Just curious
Because they usually wind up telling you what you don't want to hear, and
they're usually right.
Dan J.S.
> Just curious
>
One reason. Lawsuits have made health care costs sky rocket. Lawyers will go
out and look for people that want to sue hospitals/doctors.
Rob
>Just curious
Maybe because they created a legal system that only they can navigate.
Then they help create many outrageous laws to force you through this
system which usually comes at a very hefty price. Their lawsuits cost
everyone. There is not one person in this country who is not paying
for someone else's lawsuit in one way or another. Many Lawyers are
greedy opportunists who prey on other peoples pain and suffering often
taking nearly half of the settlement as their cut. They even stoop as
low as to invent pain and suffering when necessary. Most Pain and
Suffering claims are total BS in case anyone doesn't know. The list
goes on. Not all are bad but their are enough bad ones to make people
like me attack them like this. Also, since I don't see many so called
good lawyers trying to reform their industry, I have my doubts on how
good they really are.
First thing I would want them to change. They should pay the costs if
their lawsuit loses and I mean make the losing lawyer pay and not just
his client. If they want to win the Lawsuit lottery at other peoples
expense, then they need to pay the price if they lose. Maybe they
would think twice about filing frivolous suits if this was the rule.
There is nothing worse than a system where even though you may win
defending yourself, you still lose when it comes to paying your legal
defense fees. This losing even if you win system has to stop.
Larry Bud
Well said.
My Dad, who is still practicing law at 76, is one of the few honest
lawyers out there. Not according to me, but according to people he
deals with. While he doesn't deal in pain/suffering suits, or criminal
or divorce law, he usually deals with unscrupulous builders and
contractors (it's kept him in business for 25 years in private
practice, that's for sure!).
Even HE complains about the sleezy lawyers. You know it's bad when
they start feeding on their own!
John S.
Lowell wrote:
> Just curious
Turning your question on it's head, do people hate lawyers?
Daniel J. Stern
> Just curious
+--------------------------------------+
\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
\ \ 1 9 /
\ 0 \ 10 /
\ \ TROLL-O-METER /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\___\______________________/
\ /
\....................../
+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..
Jim Yanik
news:1136400927.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Just curious
>
>
Because it seems a lot of them file frivolous lawsuits.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:3h8or19i8lpcjohk9...@4ax.com:
> On 4 Jan 2006 10:55:27 -0800, "Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious
>
> Maybe because they created a legal system that only they can navigate.
Yes,laws should be written for the ordinary person to understand,not to
need a lawyer to interpret.
> Then they help create many outrageous laws to force you through this
> system which usually comes at a very hefty price. Their lawsuits cost
> everyone. There is not one person in this country who is not paying
> for someone else's lawsuit in one way or another. Many Lawyers are
> greedy opportunists who prey on other peoples pain and suffering often
> taking nearly half of the settlement as their cut. They even stoop as
> low as to invent pain and suffering when necessary. Most Pain and
> Suffering claims are total BS in case anyone doesn't know. The list
> goes on. Not all are bad but their are enough bad ones to make people
> like me attack them like this. Also, since I don't see many so called
> good lawyers trying to reform their industry, I have my doubts on how
> good they really are.
>
> First thing I would want them to change. They should pay the costs if
> their lawsuit loses and I mean make the losing lawyer pay and not just
> his client. If they want to win the Lawsuit lottery at other peoples
> expense, then they need to pay the price if they lose. Maybe they
> would think twice about filing frivolous suits if this was the rule.
> There is nothing worse than a system where even though you may win
> defending yourself, you still lose when it comes to paying your legal
> defense fees. This losing even if you win system has to stop.
I agree.
That is the goal of anti-gun groups;to bankrupt gun makers,distributors and
dealers through costly suits that they know are not valid,gambling on dumb
juries and biased judges.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Do you have a shred of evidence to support that preposterous
statement??? I didn't think so. Health care costs are skyrocketing
because doctors are the biggest bandits in the country. They just keep
raising and raising their rates and blaming it on lawsuits and idiots
like you go along with that crap. The medical industry is one giant
conspiracy against the public.
DTJ
Sorry but your statement is incorrect. You neglected to mention every
other product we spend money on being affected by the poor excuses for
humans we call lawyers.
Please note, I recognize that there are actually some decent ones,
unfortunately the 80/20 rule DOES NOT apply here.
edi...@netpath.net
except in unpleasant circumstances. Average American only deals
personally with lawyer when he's in a wreck, doctor messed up his
treatment, he's getting divorced, he got a speeding ticket, or his kid
got busted for pot. Lawyer adds to expense of what's an unpleasant
problem to begin with.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
DanaPointe
People hate them until they need them. Similar to the ACLU; NeoCons
constantly rail against them, but when *their* rights are violated,
like blowhard Limpbaugh (intentional misspell), they're more than happy
to accept their assistance.
DTJ
>Most Pain and
>Suffering claims are total BS in case anyone doesn't know. The list
Sorry but that is not true. There are lots of examples where it is
true. One such is cases where manufacturers decide to sell products
known to be dangerous, and they choose to not make them safe because
it is cheaper to defend the lawsuit than make it correctly. The ford
pinto is one such decision, ford CHOSE to kill people rather than make
a safer product, and documents showed that they CHOSE this based on
the cost of fixing it versus lawsuits.
>Also, since I don't see many so called
>good lawyers trying to reform their industry, I have my doubts on how
>good they really are.
You misspelled "any" by adding the letter M by accident.
>First thing I would want them to change. They should pay the costs if
>their lawsuit loses and I mean make the losing lawyer pay and not just
>his client.
I disagree, the lawyer should pay all the costs if the case is ruled
to be frivolous. That protects them if they had a decent case, but
the jury just disagreed. For example, you sue because a neighbor's
dog barked at you, the idiot lawyer pays a fine of $100,000. You sue
because the neighbor's dog attacked your child, yet did not injure
them, only chased them, and you asked for the dog to be destroyed, the
neighbor to not be allowed to own another dog, and for $10,000 in
damages, yet the jury decided the owner didn't realize the dog was
dangerous, you simply lose and the lawyer doesn't collect a cent. You
sue because the dog bit your child and you incurred $20,000 in medical
bills, so you ask for the same as the second example but with $100,000
in damages. The lawyer should be paid from the defendant, not you.
>If they want to win the Lawsuit lottery at other peoples
>expense, then they need to pay the price if they lose. Maybe they
>would think twice about filing frivolous suits if this was the rule.
There you go again assigning intelligence to them.
>There is nothing worse than a system where even though you may win
>defending yourself, you still lose when it comes to paying your legal
>defense fees. This losing even if you win system has to stop.
Yep. That is our government.
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Dan J.S. wrote:
> > "Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1136400927.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > Just curious
> > >
> >
> > One reason. Lawsuits have made health care costs sky rocket. Lawyers will go
> > out and look for people that want to sue hospitals/doctors.
>
> Do you have a shred of evidence to support that preposterous
ROTFLMAO. So when have you needed evidence to support your delusions,
moron?
> statement??? I didn't think so. Health care costs are skyrocketing
> because doctors are the biggest bandits in the country. They just keep
> raising and raising their rates and blaming it on lawsuits and idiots
> like you go along with that crap. The medical industry is one giant
> conspiracy against the public.
Do you have a shread of evidence to support that preposterous
statement? I didn't think so.
fripp...@hotmail.com
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news_index/malpractice.html
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/507271/
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0310-10.htm
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/malpractice_pubcit.html
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1799
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-22.htm
http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/031019lawsuits.htm
fripp...@hotmail.com
them when there's a problem, as someone suggested, but the same could
be said for doctors, and I don't think as many people hate doctors as
hate lawyers.
IMO the reason so many people hate lawyers is there are a lot of
sleazebags in law. I recently had the "pleasure" of needing to fight a
legal battle. Most of the dozens of lawyers I interviewed could only
offer sympathy..."you have a great case and would almost certainly win,
but you'll never collect anything, so it's not of interest to me... bye
bye."
Quite a few were clueless about BASIC legal knowledge, like whether or
not legal fees are a recoverable damage in our state. Many of them got
it wrong. As for not collecting, only one knew HOW to collect a
judgment. BTW...I got a settlement, paid in full, for more than the
lawyers thought possible, BY MYSELF, once I finally realized the REAL
reason they wouldn't help me was it was simply not enough money for
THEM.
It's total BS that we need tort reform to protect those "poor innocent"
corporations that seem to get sued a lot. But lawyers are leaving a lot
to be desired.
Larry
fripp...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hmmm...why do people hate lawyers? Probably partly because we only see
> them when there's a problem, as someone suggested, but the same could
> be said for doctors, and I don't think as many people hate doctors as
> hate lawyers.
>
> IMO the reason so many people hate lawyers is there are a lot of
> sleazebags in law. I recently had the "pleasure" of needing to fight a
> legal battle. Most of the dozens of lawyers I interviewed could only
> offer sympathy..."you have a great case and would almost certainly win,
> but you'll never collect anything, so it's not of interest to me... bye
> bye."
>
> Quite a few were clueless about BASIC legal knowledge, like whether or
> not legal fees are a recoverable damage in our state. Many of them got
> it wrong. As for not collecting, only one knew HOW to collect a
> judgment. BTW...I got a settlement, paid in full, for more than the
> lawyers thought possible, BY MYSELF, once I finally realized the REAL
> reason they wouldn't help me was it was simply not enough money for
> THEM.
Like any other business venture, it needs to be worth the lawyer's time
to take a case. If you wanted to pay a lawyer hourly, I'm sure they'd
have taken the case. But if they were going to take it on contingency -
meaning you owe nothing out of pocket, and don't pay anything if you
lose the case - you're getting a huge benefit, and the lawyer is taking
an enormous risk. He/she has a family to feed too, and has to size up
the opportunity before deciding whether or not to take a case.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
fripp...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It's total BS that we need tort reform to protect those "poor innocent"
> corporations that seem to get sued a lot.
Setttlements are almost always very small. People read about how a
jury awarded some guy $5 million bucks cause his toaster burned his
fingernail but that's never the end of the story. The company has a
right to appeal and they threaten to and drag the process out for
another 5 years and the plaintiff ends up settling for maybe 10 grand.
Chas
> IMO the reason so many people hate lawyers is there are a lot of
> sleazebags in law.
Every case gives a lawyer an opportunity for corruption, and too many of
them succumb to that temptation.
For them, Justice is a job, and your problem is an opportunity for them to
make their best deal in their own interests.
Of course there are exceptions to the generality- everybody knows a 'good
cop' or an 'honest car salesman' or a politician with integrity-
they're just the exception rather than the rule.
Chas
edi...@netpath.net
But the number of those small settlements is HUGE - all the
fenderbender settlements insurance companies are stuck with. And the
lawyer costs - compared to that part of the settlement the winner
actually gets after lawyer fees, expert-witness fees, court costs,
deduction of state-mandated direct payments by lawyer of doctor bills -
are highest in those "small" settlements, another reason why everyone
feel ripped off by lawyers.
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>Because they usually wind up telling you what you don't want to hear, and
>they're usually right.
That's not why people dislike them.
------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
What about the hospitals and doctors that really screw up and deserve to
be punished? Should lawyers ignore them?
-------------
Alex
Mike T.
>>One reason. Lawsuits have made health care costs sky rocket. Lawyers will
>>go
>>out and look for people that want to sue hospitals/doctors.
>
> What about the hospitals and doctors that really screw up and deserve to
> be punished? Should lawyers ignore them?
> -------------
> Alex
>
No, but you know that our legal system is WAY out of control when you see
frequent televisions commercials that state, in exactly these terms:
"If you have suffered a DEATH because of this medication, call the law
office of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. We will get you what is rightfully
yours."
At least every other day I see a tv ad like that. If you're dead, call us!
:) -Dave
Dan J.S.
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136433396....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance... who
do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
Mike T.
> My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance... who
> do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
Exactly. Many doctors are leaving the medical profession as they can no
longer afford the malpractice insurance. Oh, and lawyers have absolutely
NOTHING to do with that, obviously. -Dave
Floyd L. Davidson
And you think doctors had nothing to do with it??? Or are you
saying they are switching professions because they found out
they could not get filthy rich as the expected?
How about lawyers that work for health care organizations?
Virtually every hospital, for example, is run by an organization
that has 1) a legal staff of lawyers, headed by 2) a General
Counsel, who reports to 3) a corporate Vice President that is
an attorney.
For one thing, if doctors were more interested in *health care*,
and less in disease and injury *treatment*, the costs would come
down. But preventive maintenance, not being an emergency, does
not pay as well as treatment...
I believe this is a *much* more complex subject than just
blaming lawyers.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Jon Beaver
I guess your point is that the answer is obvious: The insurance
companies.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
wrote:
Doctor's malpractice injures patient. Patient asks for compensation.
Doctors refuses. Patients gets a lawyer. Doctor's insurance company
gets a lawyer. Doctor loses. Doctor's insurance company raises all
doctor's premiums to cover their loss. Conclusion: The patient and
his lawyer are to blame. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
We don't need "tort reform." We need to government support for our
doctors so insurance companies don't prey on the. Our tort system is
based on blame. Forget the blame. If society wants doctors AND wants
injured patients compensated, we are just going to have to get the
insurance companies out of business and subsidize both patient and
doctor from public funds. Got votes?
- Jon Beaver
Dave
"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
news:946rr1hnsic4u2ga7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:52:06 -0500, "Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance...
>>> who
>>> do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
>>
>>Exactly. Many doctors are leaving the medical profession as they can no
>>longer afford the malpractice insurance. Oh, and lawyers have absolutely
>>NOTHING to do with that, obviously. -Dave
>
> Doctor's malpractice injures patient. Patient asks for compensation.
> Doctors refuses. Patients gets a lawyer. Doctor's insurance company
> gets a lawyer. Doctor loses. Doctor's insurance company raises all
> doctor's premiums to cover their loss. Conclusion: The patient and
> his lawyer are to blame.
You mean you somehow MISSED all those ambulance-chaser ads on television?
If you've been hurt in an accident or suffer (miscellaneous disease) or have
suffered a DEATH recently, call us . . . we'll make you rich!!! And if we
don't make you rich, you don't owe us anything. -Dave
Dave
>
> I guess your point is that the answer is obvious: The insurance
> companies.
>
> - Jon Beaver
>
Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers trying
to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame? Interesting. -Dave
Kris Baker
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:hihvf.3520$Hl6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Who's awarding the money?
Don't blame the attorney for having a good argument.
Blame the judge, jury, or the doctor's attorney for
telling him to settle.
You have NO idea of what's truly going on. You just
started thinking about this when the NeoCons started
using "trial lawyer" as an invective. I hope you need
a trial lawyer some day.....
Kris
Daniel J. Stern
> Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers trying
> to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame?
Who do you think runs the insurance companies, genius?
Dan J.S.
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:Ayhvf.2085$801...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:hihvf.3520$Hl6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>
>>> I guess your point is that the answer is obvious: The insurance
>>> companies.
>>>
>>> - Jon Beaver
>>>
>>
>> Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers
>> trying to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame?
>
> Who's awarding the money?
>
> Don't blame the attorney for having a good argument.
> Blame the judge, jury, or the doctor's attorney for
> telling him to settle.
>
> You have NO idea of what's truly going on. You just
> started thinking about this when the NeoCons started
neocons? - there goes your credibility... dumbass
everyone pays.. everyone..
Dan J.S.
Dan J.S.
"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136400927.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious
>
Liberals love lawyers.
1. Liberals are too dumb to understand the law.
2. lawyers = liberal's meal ticket.
Larry
"Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote:
I suppose you think the answer is "lawyers." But it's not.
A lawyer can't sue someone unless they have a client to represent. And
a lawyer cannot ethically take a case unless he/she believes it has
merit.
Larry
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
those cases.
RHR
>And
>a lawyer cannot ethically take a case unless he/she believes it has
>merit.
I think here, merit means that, considering who the other side is and
who will decide, there is a reasonable chance of winning. Nothing to
do with the objective truth of the claims.
RHR
Rob
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Dan J.S. wrote:
>> "Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1136400927.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Just curious
>> >
>>
>> One reason. Lawsuits have made health care costs sky rocket. Lawyers will go
>> out and look for people that want to sue hospitals/doctors.
>
>Do you have a shred of evidence to support that preposterous
>statement??? I didn't think so. Health care costs are skyrocketing
>because doctors are the biggest bandits in the country. They just keep
>raising and raising their rates and blaming it on lawsuits and idiots
>like you go along with that crap. The medical industry is one giant
>conspiracy against the public.
I have a friend that works in a doctors office and she once told me
some of the doctors pay around $15,000 a year in malpractice
insurance. When insurance is that high, that means there are high
payouts which mean pricey lawsuits. The other big thing is all the
free healthcare hospitals give out to people are unable to pay and
have no assets. I'm sure there is also an element a greed mixed up in
the mess also but there is truth to the lawsuit aspect of it. Lawsuits
cost all of us and like I said in another post, there is not one
person here who is not paying for someone elses lawsuit in one form or
another.
Rob
wrote:
They should be punished but unfortunately they never pay the tab. We,
the patients, pay it on our next doctor visit when they raise their
rates to pay the higher insurance rates. This is true for virtually
all lawsuits with monetary damages. Punish them! That is fine! Just
don't let the punishment end on up on us when we had nothing to do
with it.
DTJ
>> Quite a few were clueless about BASIC legal knowledge, like whether or
>> not legal fees are a recoverable damage in our state. Many of them got
>> it wrong. As for not collecting, only one knew HOW to collect a
>> judgment. BTW...I got a settlement, paid in full, for more than the
>> lawyers thought possible, BY MYSELF, once I finally realized the REAL
>> reason they wouldn't help me was it was simply not enough money for
>> THEM.
>
>Like any other business venture, it needs to be worth the lawyer's time
>to take a case. If you wanted to pay a lawyer hourly, I'm sure they'd
>have taken the case. But if they were going to take it on contingency -
>meaning you owe nothing out of pocket, and don't pay anything if you
>lose the case - you're getting a huge benefit, and the lawyer is taking
>an enormous risk. He/she has a family to feed too, and has to size up
>the opportunity before deciding whether or not to take a case.
That argument is bullshit when the poster was able to collect on his
own.
DTJ
>My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance... who
>do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
His peers.
One study found that in NY 80% of the cost was attributed to like 5%
of the doctors. Simple answer, get rid of the bad doctors. However
the AMA fights that, because they are not interested in what is best
for us. If a doctor in NY is found to be incompetent and leaves, he
can go to any other state and NOBODY will know he is a hack, and he
will be hired instantly.
Larry
DTJ <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Well, if the poster could collect on his own, then lawyers don't
contribute to the problem!
Sandi
The poster was able to collect on his own, but doesn't say how much he was
able to collect. When looking at a contingency case, an attorney has to
determine how much time he is likely to have to invest in the case, and how
much the contingent fee is likely to be. It's simple math; he can't take a
case for minimum wage.
Sandi
The Real Bev
> Every lawyer I ever met was stupid and compensating for
> it. I walk in a lawyers office, and across the desk sits Jaba
> The Hut. Fat. Ugly. Hostile. And the male lawyers are
> nothing less than Homo-vampires .. a perfect mate for
> medical doctors. And their wives .. eeeyyeeeeek! .. all they
> do is stay in those big houses. You will never see one in a
> grocery store, or even downstairs. They must spend their
> entire lives talking on the phone.
Hmmm. Did you find this out by peeking into windows?
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.
Matthew Russotto
At a guess? Probably the guy in the background here:
http://us.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0118971/1-2.jpg
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
>I have a friend that works in a doctors office and she once told me
>some of the doctors pay around $15,000 a year in malpractice
>insurance.
Some doctors pay around 10 times that.
Floyd L. Davidson
You think it isn't the insurance companies that are filing
those frivolous law suits?
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>> You have NO idea of what's truly going on. You just
>> started thinking about this when the NeoCons started
>
>neocons? - there goes your credibility... dumbass
Bingo, *he* nailed it!
>everyone pays.. everyone..
Floyd L. Davidson
> "Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote:
>> My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance... who
>> do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
>
>I suppose you think the answer is "lawyers." But it's not.
>
>A lawyer can't sue someone unless they have a client to represent. And
>a lawyer cannot ethically take a case unless he/she believes it has
>merit.
Worse yet, that lawyer has to *prove* it has merit to a judge and
a jury.
*us*
>... frivolous law suits ...
That's a myth. The insurance racket is the problem.
Mike T.
> If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
> case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
> only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
> merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
> those cases.
You're asking me? Good example: Every time a drug is pulled from the
market due to safety concerns, it is only a matter of time before hundreds
or thousands of lawsuits are filed. This does nobody any good. The drug
manufacturer has ALREADY taken the correct course of action. A problem was
discovered, the drug was pulled. Should be the end of the story. But
several billion dollars in settlements later, we end up with a lot of rich
lawyers, a lot of "victims" who received enough money for a free dinner (if
they're really lucky) and prescription drug prices just went up again for
the few people left in the U.S. who HAVE medical insurance. (those without
it can't afford to buy prescription medication anyway, but those with
insurance see their deductibles rise yearly) -Dave
Mike T.
> You think it isn't the insurance companies that are filing
> those frivolous law suits?
>
So you're saying the insurance company hires lawyer to file frivolous
lawsuit, and after the case is settled for millions, the lawyer is millions
richer, and the insurance company is millions poorer, and THAT WAS THE PLAN
ALL ALONG?????????????
Interesting. Please explain. -Dave
Floyd L. Davidson
*You* are saying all of that. *I* certainly did not.
>Interesting. Please explain. -Dave
Lawyers for insurance companies do *not* take those cases on a
contingency basis, and make exactly the same amount of money
whether they prevail in court or not. The *only* people who
gain are the insurance companies.
Lawyers who take injury cases on contingency are *very* careful
about selecting non-frivolous cases, simply because they might
well invest tens of thousands of dollars (or 100's of thousands
too, in big case) in costs and time before seeing even one dime
returned. If they take even a small percentage of frivolous
cases, they go bankrupt in a very short time.
Jon Beaver
That would be a very elegant response if it had any basis in logic.
There are only two kinds of lawsuits: (1) the successful and therefore
NOT frivolous and (2) the unsuccessful and therefore not harmful.
Which one are you complaining about?
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
You prefer no one pays .. no one? That is the alternative, you know.
- Jon Beaver
Floyd L. Davidson
>>
>> If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
>> case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
>> only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
>> merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
>> those cases.
>
>You're asking me? Good example: Every time a drug is pulled from the
>market due to safety concerns, it is only a matter of time before hundreds
>or thousands of lawsuits are filed. This does nobody any good.
Companies who ignore safety regulations and laws should be able
to make a bundle doing that, and not have to settle with the
people they injure? Why do you think we have those laws? We've
seen exactly what happens, and that is why we do have laws to
prevent drug companies from gaining when they cutcorners and
ignore laws.
>The drug
>manufacturer has ALREADY taken the correct course of action. A problem was
>discovered, the drug was pulled. Should be the end of the story. But
Sadly, it cannot be the end of the story. You are simply
choosing to ignore the damage done and the people who suffered
the consequences.
>several billion dollars in settlements later, we end up with a lot of rich
>lawyers, a lot of "victims" who received enough money for a free dinner (if
Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>they're really lucky) and prescription drug prices just went up again for
>the few people left in the U.S. who HAVE medical insurance. (those without
>it can't afford to buy prescription medication anyway, but those with
>insurance see their deductibles rise yearly)
And there you actually *have* hit on something significant,
though it certainly is not the fault of lawyers (at least the
non-Republican ones) that we don't have a better system of
health care in America.
Jon Beaver
Davidson) wrote:
>"Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote:
>>"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>>> You have NO idea of what's truly going on. You just
>>> started thinking about this when the NeoCons started
>>
>>neocons? - there goes your credibility... dumbass
>
>Bingo, *he* nailed it!
No, no. What we are talking about is the "tort reform" rhetoric put
out by the right-wing politicians. You don't have to call them
"neo-cons" if you don't really want to. They are only "neo" in the
sense that they finally got into power. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with our legal system except that it requires equal application
of the law to everyone. That means that occasionally David slays
Goliath. That works against an economy based on concentrations of
capital wealth.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that nobody files a lawsuit against a
drug company because they withdrew it from the market "due to safety
concerns." A lawsuit can only be based on what the company did wrong
before they withdrew it. In fact, the fact that they withdrew it is
irrelevant and inadmissible in that lawsuit.
Another flaw is that you facts are wrong. But that's another
discussion.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
>
>
>"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
>news:946rr1hnsic4u2ga7...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:52:06 -0500, "Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance...
>>>> who
>>>> do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
>>>
>>>Exactly. Many doctors are leaving the medical profession as they can no
>>>longer afford the malpractice insurance. Oh, and lawyers have absolutely
>>>NOTHING to do with that, obviously. -Dave
>>
>> Doctor's malpractice injures patient. Patient asks for compensation.
>> Doctors refuses. Patients gets a lawyer. Doctor's insurance company
>> gets a lawyer. Doctor loses. Doctor's insurance company raises all
>> doctor's premiums to cover their loss. Conclusion: The patient and
>> his lawyer are to blame.
>
>You mean you somehow MISSED all those ambulance-chaser ads on television?
>If you've been hurt in an accident or suffer (miscellaneous disease) or have
>suffered a DEATH recently, call us . . . we'll make you rich!!! And if we
>don't make you rich, you don't owe us anything. -Dave
Of course these ads don't say anything about making anyone "rich."
But stripping that away, can you articulate exactly what your
objection is to these lawyers? I expect any reasonable response to
refrain from the use of words like "frivolous" without defining them.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
Davidson) wrote:
>Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> "Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote:
>>> My best friend is a doctor and he pays $100,000 a year in insurance... who
>>> do you think drove up that cost, dumbass?
>>
>>I suppose you think the answer is "lawyers." But it's not.
>>
>>A lawyer can't sue someone unless they have a client to represent. And
>>a lawyer cannot ethically take a case unless he/she believes it has
>>merit.
>
>Worse yet, that lawyer has to *prove* it has merit to a judge and
>a jury.
And worse yet, that lawyer has to collect that judgment from a solvent
defendant.
- Jon Beaver
Dan J.S.
"Jon Beaver" <jbe...@NO.com> wrote in message
You took this out of context. Everyone pays the price for frivolous
lawsuits...
Kris Baker
"Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11rtojs...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
> You took this out of context. Everyone pays the price for frivolous
> lawsuits...
OK. Name some famous "frivolous" lawsuits.
Floyd L. Davidson
There is at least one other kind though. Many "successful"
lawsuits end in a settlement simply because that is less
expensive than mounting a successful defense. The
successful/unsuccessful outcome is not indicative of whether it
is frivolous or not.
However, such settlements are not large and have proportionately
a small effect compared with the non-frivolous suits that are
won at trial or settled for substantial amounts in excess of the
legal costs of a defense.
Floyd L. Davidson
The conservative philosophy is always that the other guy should pay,
but not me.
What bothers me is that so many suckers believe that *they* are the
ones who won't pay... but they always do in the end anyway.
DTJ
>
>>
>> I guess your point is that the answer is obvious: The insurance
>> companies.
>
>Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers trying
>to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame? Interesting. -Dave
The answer is that, as always, there is some culpability for all.
There are patients who sue for no reason, there are doctors who should
not practice, and most lawyers are scum.
DTJ
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>You have NO idea of what's truly going on. You just
>started thinking about this when the NeoCons started
Your idiocy is quite refreshing...plonk
DTJ
>>>One reason. Lawsuits have made health care costs sky rocket. Lawyers will
>>>go
>>>out and look for people that want to sue hospitals/doctors.
>>
>> Sorry but your statement is incorrect. You neglected to mention every
>> other product we spend money on being affected by the poor excuses for
>> humans we call lawyers.
>>
>> Please note, I recognize that there are actually some decent ones,
>> unfortunately the 80/20 rule DOES NOT apply here.
>
>i said ONE reason.
I guess my humor failed. You said lawsuits have made health care
costs skyrocket, I said this was incorrect because you failed to
mention every other product. See how funny that was?
DTJ
>
>"Lowell" <lawd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1136400927.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Just curious
>>
>
>Liberals love lawyers.
>
>1. Liberals are too dumb to understand the law.
>2. lawyers = liberal's meal ticket.
Correction:
1. Some liberals are too dumb to understand the law.
There are a LOT of very fine liberals here who have very intelligent
opinions, and are willing to discuss and debate issues without
resorting to name calling. I don't always succeed, but I try to not
include them in the group of stupid liberals. For example, I believe
Nate is pretty liberal, and I would strongly argue with anyone who
says he is dumb. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but it
isn't because of his intelligence.
Jon Beaver
Don't use the term "frivolous lawsuit" unless you are prepared to
define it. We have effective mechanisms for weeding out of cases that
have no triable issues of fact or are unmeritorious as a matter of
law. All others depend on a fact finding process. What "everyone is
paying for" is the cost of resolving disputes in a complex society --
something we all benefit from. We can try to reallocate those costs
based on the outcome, but I know of know way to do it based on some
sort of a priori "frivolity." I suggest that "tort reform" based on
some notion that someone can tell in advance what cases are
meritorious is just partisan politics, not law. It's nothing more
than deciding in advance who should win rather than who is right. I'm
not saying this is inherently wrong, especially to protect a valuable
industry or profession, but let's call a spade a spade.
- Jon Beaver
Matthew Russotto
Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
>dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
>gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
Matthew Russotto
Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
>The flaw in your argument is that nobody files a lawsuit against a
>drug company because they withdrew it from the market "due to safety
>concerns."
Tell it to Merck.
Larry
"Mike T." <he...@howyadoin.now> wrote:
> >
> > If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
> > case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
> > only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
> > merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
> > those cases.
>
> You're asking me? Good example: Every time a drug is pulled from the
> market due to safety concerns, it is only a matter of time before hundreds
> or thousands of lawsuits are filed. This does nobody any good. The drug
> manufacturer has ALREADY taken the correct course of action.
Its the correct course of action for the future, sure. But what about
the people who took the product between the time the company knew or
should have known and the time they pulled the product and announced the
recall? The only remedy to those people is often to sue.
> A problem was
> discovered, the drug was pulled. Should be the end of the story.
It is for all situations afterwards. I can't sue someone for a faulty
drug that I didn't take because they pulled it. But I can sue them for
a faulty drug that I took before they pulled it, if they delayed in
making that decision.
> But
> several billion dollars in settlements later, we end up with a lot of rich
> lawyers, a lot of "victims" who received enough money for a free dinner (if
> they're really lucky) and prescription drug prices just went up again for
> the few people left in the U.S. who HAVE medical insurance. (those without
> it can't afford to buy prescription medication anyway, but those with
> insurance see their deductibles rise yearly) -Dave
Why did you put "victim" in quotes? They must be victims, if the drugs
they took harmed them so much the company recalled them!
Larry
"Dan J.S." <m...@hyperx.com> wrote:
If it's so obviously, glaringly frivolous, any half-competent defense
lawyer would be able to get it dismissed with a minimal amount of time
and effort. If he can quickly get it dismissed, and doesn't settle
with the plaintiff, then there's very little cost involved, which does
NOT result in higher insurance premiums.
Larry
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article <878xttf...@apaflo.com>,
> Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
> >dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
> >gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>
> Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
> cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
They get "nearly" nothing for doing absolutely nothing. Not finding a
lawyer. Not retaining a lawyer. It's practically something for free,
as little as it is.
OTOH, anyone who wants can drop out of the class, forego the settlement,
find their own lawyer, re-do all the steps that the class lawyers did,
give and take depositions, undertake discovery, and settle on their own,
or try the case and risk getting nothing, is free to do so. There are
very few cases where people cannot opt-out of a class action.
Larry
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article <3hitr1t1btanu3d1j...@4ax.com>,
> Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
>
> >The flaw in your argument is that nobody files a lawsuit against a
> >drug company because they withdrew it from the market "due to safety
> >concerns."
>
> Tell it to Merck.
The lawsuits weren't filed because Merck withdrew the drugs. It's
because they didn't do it soon enough.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <878xttf...@apaflo.com>,
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
>>dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
>>gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>
>Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
>cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
How many lawyers *ever* manage to file a class action suit, win
it, and make significant money on the deal?
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <FLOdneaXY8O...@speakeasy.net>,
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <878xttf...@apaflo.com>,
>> Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
>> >dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
>> >gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>>
>> Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
>> cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
>
>They get "nearly" nothing for doing absolutely nothing. Not finding a
>lawyer. Not retaining a lawyer. It's practically something for free,
>as little as it is.
Well, that's not really true either. None of those things is what
gets *anyone* money. And if they were injured, they are *not* getting
something for free. Very few of them get enough to make up for the
injury, particularly in a class action suit.
>OTOH, anyone who wants can drop out of the class, forego the settlement,
>find their own lawyer, re-do all the steps that the class lawyers did,
>give and take depositions, undertake discovery, and settle on their own,
>or try the case and risk getting nothing, is free to do so. There are
>very few cases where people cannot opt-out of a class action.
All very true.
Floyd L. Davidson
Ah, well, errrr... not really. The suits are filed because they
*damaged* somebody (by not pulling it soon enough, granted). But
unless they actually hurt people, doing the wrong thing won't cost
them a dime.
Floyd L. Davidson
>> lawsuits...
>
>If it's so obviously, glaringly frivolous, any half-competent defense
>lawyer would be able to get it dismissed with a minimal amount of time
>and effort. If he can quickly get it dismissed, and doesn't settle
>with the plaintiff, then there's very little cost involved, which does
>NOT result in higher insurance premiums.
If it actually were frivolous, the judge will throw it out *and*
sanction the lawyer that file it.
DTJ
>A lawyer can't sue someone unless they have a client to represent. And
>a lawyer cannot ethically take a case unless he/she believes it has
>merit.
Now that is funny. A lawyer with ethics. Where do you get this shit.
What the heck, so will I.
Dave
DTJ
>> Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers trying
>> to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame? Interesting. -Dave
>
>If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
>case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
>only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
>merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
>those cases.
Come on. A hospital recently settled a case for $2 million because a
bitch complained that her delivery was not pain free. Most cases
never make it to court, because companies settle to get rid of them,
and lawyers know this.
DTJ
wrote:
>much the contingent fee is likely to be. It's simple math; he can't take a
>case for minimum wage.
No, that would be a hardship for him.
DTJ
Davidson) wrote:
>The liberal philosophy is always that the other guy should pay,
>but not me.
I corrected your misspelling of the word liberal.
DTJ
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <878xttf...@apaflo.com>,
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
>>dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
>>gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>
>Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
>cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
No, no, that NEVER happens in real life, lawyers are only looking out
for us. They really are good people. BARF
Larry
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >In article <FLOdneaXY8O...@speakeasy.net>,
> > russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <878xttf...@apaflo.com>,
> >> Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
> >> >dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
> >> >gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
> >>
> >> Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
> >> cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
> >
> >They get "nearly" nothing for doing absolutely nothing. Not finding a
> >lawyer. Not retaining a lawyer. It's practically something for free,
> >as little as it is.
>
> Well, that's not really true either. None of those things is what
> gets *anyone* money. And if they were injured, they are *not* getting
> something for free. Very few of them get enough to make up for the
> injury, particularly in a class action suit.
True, they sustained an injury. I meant they do nothing with regards to
the effort needed to put into the lawsuit itself, as opposed to someone
who on their own finds and retains an attorney, and has the attorney
handle their case.
And its worth noting that the named class members, who did take the
necessary first steps and related legwork, usually collect more than the
other class members.
Larry
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >In article <JPidnevEctX...@speakeasy.net>,
> > russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3hitr1t1btanu3d1j...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The flaw in your argument is that nobody files a lawsuit against a
> >> >drug company because they withdrew it from the market "due to safety
> >> >concerns."
> >>
> >> Tell it to Merck.
> >
> >The lawsuits weren't filed because Merck withdrew the drugs. It's
> >because they didn't do it soon enough.
>
> Ah, well, errrr... not really. The suits are filed because they
> *damaged* somebody (by not pulling it soon enough, granted). But
> unless they actually hurt people, doing the wrong thing won't cost
> them a dime.
True - by saying they didn't withdraw the drugs fast enough, I implied
they left them on the market while they were causing injuries to people.
Larry
DTJ <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I, and almost every lawyer I know. For starters.
Larry
DTJ <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Cite, please? And even if true, think about it for a minute.
If the hospital could have won the case and saved the $2 million,
wouldn't they have done that? And if it was as clearly frivolous as you
imply it was, would it cost $2 million to have it dismissed?
It sounds like your gripe is with the defending attorneys for not
defending the case hard enough, not with the plaintiff's lawyers for
suing. Even the opposing counsel realized their claim had some merit,
or they wouldn't have settled.
The Real Bev
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Your imagination runs overtime sonny. That is only true in your
>>>dreams. If the victim only gets a free dinner, the lawyer only
>>>gets coffee and toast. Typical percentages top out at 40%...
>>
>>Unless it's a class action, in which case the lawyers get a bundle of
>>cash and the victims get nearly nothing.
>
> How many lawyers *ever* manage to file a class action suit, win
> it, and make significant money on the deal?
Read Grisham's The King of Torts. It's probably fiction...
--
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------------------
"The primary purpose of any government entity
is to employ the unemployable."
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:00:09 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>but not me.
>
>I corrected your misspelling of the word liberal.
>
>What the heck, so will I.
>Dave
You spelling is as bad as your logic.
Floyd L. Davidson
Not all lawyers are Republicans. Some of them do have ethics...
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:06:14 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>> Millions of frivolous lawsuits filed each year by ambulance chasers trying
>>> to get rich and the INSURANCE COMPANIES are to blame? Interesting. -Dave
>>
>>If its a frivolous lawsuit, why would the "ambulance chasers" take the
>>case? Like you said in your last post, they operate on contingency and
>>only get paid if they win money for their client. Frivolous case = no
>>merit = no settlement or verdict = waste of time. So they won't take
>>those cases.
>
>Come on. A hospital recently settled a case for $2 million because a
>bitch complained that her delivery was not pain free. Most cases
Dogs don't complain or sue, either one, therefore you are
clearly either mistaken or lying. My bet is it's a lie.
>never make it to court, because companies settle to get rid of them,
>and lawyers know this.
Nobody settles for $2 million dollars unless they *know* they
are at fault and haven't got a chance in court.
I get the idea from reading your posts that you don't
understand much of this at all...
Floyd L. Davidson
I can't say that every lawyer I ever met was a good guy, but I'm
trying to figure out if you've ever spent *any* time talking to
even one lawyer.
Dave
>>You mean you somehow MISSED all those ambulance-chaser ads on television?
>>If you've been hurt in an accident or suffer (miscellaneous disease) or
>>have
>>suffered a DEATH recently, call us . . . we'll make you rich!!! And if we
>>don't make you rich, you don't owe us anything. -Dave
>
> Of course these ads don't say anything about making anyone "rich."
> But stripping that away, can you articulate exactly what your
> objection is to these lawyers? I expect any reasonable response to
> refrain from the use of words like "frivolous" without defining them.
>
> - Jon Beaver
Of course they don't say they will make someone rich, but they strongly
INFER it with language like "we'll get you what is rightfully yours, and
THAT'S THAT!". I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to DEFEND these
scumballs. There is only one reason to run TV ads like that . . .
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you really need a lawyer because you have suffered a loss which should
entitle you to monetary compensation, you don't need a television ad to TELL
YOU SO. So the only possible motive to run the ad is financial. As in, we
need more "victims" to increase the settlement amount.
Victim$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ please call
u$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!! -Dave
Larry
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >>You mean you somehow MISSED all those ambulance-chaser ads on television?
> >>If you've been hurt in an accident or suffer (miscellaneous disease) or
> >>have
> >>suffered a DEATH recently, call us . . . we'll make you rich!!! And if we
> >>don't make you rich, you don't owe us anything. -Dave
> >
> > Of course these ads don't say anything about making anyone "rich."
> > But stripping that away, can you articulate exactly what your
> > objection is to these lawyers? I expect any reasonable response to
> > refrain from the use of words like "frivolous" without defining them.
> >
> > - Jon Beaver
>
>
> Of course they don't say they will make someone rich, but they strongly
> INFER it with language like "we'll get you what is rightfully yours, and
> THAT'S THAT!". I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to DEFEND these
> scumballs. There is only one reason to run TV ads like that . . .
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Oh, man, they're going to use the legal process to get someone what's
rightfully theirs!! How awful!
>
> If you really need a lawyer because you have suffered a loss which should
> entitle you to monetary compensation, you don't need a television ad to TELL
> YOU SO. So the only possible motive to run the ad is financial. As in, we
> need more "victims" to increase the settlement amount.
> Victim$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ please call
> u$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!! -Dave
No, the purpose of the ads is because the law firm wants you to call
THEM, not another firm. Not to call them for no reason. If you don't
need a new car, you're not going to buy a car. But if you need a car,
how are you going to decide what dealership to do business with?
Advertising may play a role in your decision, no?
Dave
>
> No, the purpose of the ads is because the law firm wants you to call
> THEM, not another firm. Not to call them for no reason. If you don't
> need a new car, you're not going to buy a car. But if you need a car,
> how are you going to decide what dealership to do business with?
> Advertising may play a role in your decision, no?
>
Well that totally depends on your intelligence level. I personally view
advertising like this . . . if you have to tell me what I need or want, then
there must be a good reason why I wasn't previously aware that I needed it
or wanted it. I actually did need a lawyer for a civil suit once. Nobody
had to tell me that I needed a lawyer. I actually found my lawyer through
word of mouth. I never saw any TV ads for his law firm. If I had, I
probably would have been inclined to hire someone else.
So for me, advertising would play a role in my decision. Not the role the
lawyers who advertise HOPE it would play, but it would play a role.
:) -Dave
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>Of course they don't say they will make someone rich, but they strongly
>INFER it with language like "we'll get you what is rightfully yours, and
>THAT'S THAT!". I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to DEFEND these
>scumballs. There is only one reason to run TV ads like that . . .
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So TV ads are evil, because the purpose is to earn money???
That makes grocery stores evil too. Not to mention just about
every other business in most towns...
>If you really need a lawyer because you have suffered a loss which should
>entitle you to monetary compensation, you don't need a television ad to TELL
>YOU SO. So the only possible motive to run the ad is financial. As in, we
>need more "victims" to increase the settlement amount.
>Victim$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ please call
>u$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!! -Dave
Your logic is lacking. Not to mention your facts.
People might well need a television ad to get the message
across, and certainly a legal office needs name recognition to
be the one selected to do the foot work. The fact that tv ads
are motivated by financial gain is not significant; in fact I
highly expect that *you* do many things (and avoid many others)
for purely financial reasons.
If that makes lawyers into "scumballs", it has the same effect
with you too. I would argue that your decision to work for a
living is *not* what makes you a scumball though...